Brian,

Your last 3 paragraphs are right on, but I would have substituted "liberals" for "conservatives" in the 3rd last paragraph. The republican majority will be nothing like the bogeyman that liberals make out conservatives to be. And I agree with you that conservatives, as liberals portray them, would not be able put together a governing coalition. But those conservatives are not the defining force in this administration.

Why is the NYTimes magazine "shocked" to find out that 'conservative' Pete Domenici can support more funding for mental health care? Whydoes Ann Coulter keep hitting that raw nerve when she gives examples of liberals who "hate" conservatives? Could it be that Ann Coulter is Nothing like what liberals believe conservatives should be?

There is a Boston Globe column (sorry I don't have the link) by a univ prof, self described man of the left, who analyzes why the left is having so much trouble on the Iraq war. Either they are antiwar for its own sake (moral high ground) and then cannot admit the benefits of the war in Afghanistan, or they are moving off the intellectual reservation and actually supporting military action. When the left cannot no longer has the moral high ground and still rejects realpolitik, there is nothing there. The left won't be recognizable in a few years either.

I go back to Bush's nomination speech where he said that his adversaries had never faced anyone like him. I think that is true, and many liberals are just pining for the good old days when conservatives would shoot themselves in the foot, or just be people that could be easily despised, like a Jesse Helms.

Maybe liberals are just fighting the battles of the last election cycle.

Monoghan, let's get this down to specifics, shall we? You're suggesting that there may be a "new conservatism" as well as a "new progressivism," and you seem to be saying that the current Republican Party under Bush's leadership embodies it. Am I following you correctly on that, or have I misunderstood?

Further, you seem to be saying that this "new conservatism" is capable of providing the kind of leadership we need in the Crisis, and that it is only the left's fixed vision of the "old conservatism" that could not. Again, I seek verification. But let's proceed on the assumption that I've correctly understood you. On that basis, I have a few questions.

Can and will this new conservatism move us away from our dependence on fossil fuels towards a future in which our energy efficiency is at least quadrupled, and steadily improving, and in which all of our energy comes from renewable, nonpolluting sources?

Can and will this new conservatism move us towards a different sort of international order, to replace the current one in which multinational corporations call all the shots? Will it seek effective international policies to protect workers and the environment around the world, and stop the degradation of living standards and the increasing polarization of wealth and power?

Can and will this new conservatism pursue a truly effective international peacekeeping order, to prevent disaster occurring in a nuclear-armed world?

These are the issues of the Fourth Turning of this saeculum. These are what the dominant political party, regardless of its name and regardless of what it calls its philosophy, must attempt.

Are you saying that Bush has these kinds of efforts in the works? If so, I would be quite interested in seeing the evidence that leads you to this conclusion. Certainly it is not evident to those of us who aren't in the inner circle.

I've said before that if the Republicans do win and the world does not end in the next two years, the Republicans will be entrenched for the duration of the crisis, because they will be seen as the governing party.

That cliff is still there, Monoghan. Driving this direction, if we don't go over that cliff in the next two years (which we probably will), it means only that it was a bit further off than we thought.

I see an interesting phenomenon on these boards. Conservatives seem to have trouble thinking of the political dialogue in its new, emerging form. They have a concept of what "the left" means that is quite antiquated, and see the entire process as a tussle between that concept of the left and their own views. The idea that there are any other contenders for allegiance seems never to occur to them.

But in a Crisis, that is exactly what happens. The old civic order -- which includes the old civic dialogue and its categories -- is replaced. That being so, there is no way that either side of the old dialogue can possibly dominate.

If the Republicans do manage to dominate the Crisis, they will do so by becoming unrecognizable as the Republicans of today.[/quote]

and what is this cliff of which you're bot h speaking? are we all headed for the proverbial abyss, or can we actually find our way out of it? things are looking awfully grim at present, but i guess i'd like to have some evidence of something to hope for.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

As always, you have to go to the foreign press to get the news about your own country. Here is a distubing article which records the testimony of witnesses to the Flt. 93 crash in Pennsylvania

Jeepers, General P., does every single plane crash have to have a conspiracy behind it? Where does it stop? First it was that 1996 flight over Long Island, the Egypt Air Crash, Flight 93, and the one over Rockaway last November. Sometimes a plane crash is just a plane crash. TG

Brian,

Specifics. Para. 1 & 2, your assumptions are right.

Fossil fuels. I'm a supply/demand guy on this. Can anything other than nuclear really replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future? I assume that nukes are not acceptable to you. I do think that this administration will change the sources of our fossil fuels, away from the Muslim world to Central asia and Russia. And that does not make the WOT a war about oil. Actually, you probably want a good oil embargo so that the price of oil gets high enough to trigger the switch to any of these competing fuels that are out there. I don't object to a higher price to encouraging efficiency, but I don't think that a government tax to do so makes sense. Implicit in your question is an assumption that fossil fuels are really bad, and I think that we've discussed Kyoto elsewhere. Will this administration do anything about China and the Third World inefficiently using fossil fuels? I don't know, but I do know that Greenpeace will catch hell for depriving third worlders of the benefits of electricity. (See, eg. the Africans allowed to starve because they are not allowed to eat American genetically modified food.)

Multinationals. I am in favor of a law that would require imported goods to be manufactured according to the same health/safety and environmental codes that an American supplier would face. I have seen too many jobs go away and I think that WE are more responsible in handling chemicals now than anybody else. But the NIMBY syndrome of the green movement chases everything away. Will this administration do anything about this issue? The free traders are riding high in each party but would you have expected any Republican to impose the steel tariffs as Bush did? Not something that would be a recognizable trait of a "Republican" administration. I think that this administration will view American interests and will act in those interests. They may come out at the same place as you want but for different reasons.

Aside. Multinationals need not be demonized. They are just the folks who control capital, such as pension funds and are chasing the best return. Put the carrot in the right direction and voila!

Another aside. The major multinational issue is China. Do you shop at Walmart or Target? Are you willing to cut off trade with China? Are you willing to cut off access to a variety of low cost goods to poorer people? Gosh, sometimes I don't know how they can even afford to transport the stuff over here much less make it for those prices? From my perspective, China now has the biggest narcotic in the world (foreign trade) flowing through its veins and if they did ever move on Taiwan (or threaten us), we could cut them off and see what happens to them internally. I think that this administration would do that but the Arkansas clan(Walmart and the Clintons) would not.

International peacekeeping. Why, US, of course. You would rather trust Kofi Annan and the League of Nations? The UN does need to be remade as an organization dedicated to democracy and human rights. Libya as chair of the human rights committee? One nation, one vote? Not all nations are created equally.

As to the nonrecognizable Republicans. Who would have thought that Bush would make the overture to Putin? And he's a Christian, too? Who would have thought that Rudy Guliani would clean up NYC? I was there in early Sept and it looks like Toronto.

so how's that for specifics.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Brian,

Your last 3 paragraphs are right on, but I would have substituted "liberals" for "conservatives" in the 3rd last paragraph. The republican majority will be nothing like the bogeyman that liberals make out conservatives to be. And I agree with you that conservatives, as liberals portray them, would not be able put together a governing coalition. But those conservatives are not the defining force in this administration.

Exactly, which is why the Republicans will not preside over the Regeneracy. The Bush administration is endeavoring to shed what they consider to be the cultural "taint." That would leave them as a purely corporatist force, neutral on all things cultural. But it is the corporatism specifically which is under attack and which will be defeated at Regeneracy. The Republicans can change their spots all they want, but so long as they remain corporatist, it is to no avail.

I go back to Bush's nomination speech where he said that his adversaries had never faced anyone like him.

Hehe. Exactly. The puppet makes clear in his speech written by somebody else and verbally bastardized by himself that, although their have been men on strings in the White House before (and many of them), there has never before been quite a total puppet and out-and-out front man as himself.

Brian,

Let's define "nonpolluting, renewable" sources of energy.

Wind....the cuisinarts of the air? Noisy ugly things?

Solar...on a life cycle cost basis, the costs of making the panels, back to the mining, outweigh the energy savings. How many square miles of desert are you willing to cover with the panels?

Nukes...??Need I discuss?.

Hydro....but the rivers must run free, right? Chops up the fish pretty good, too.

Cold fusion...go for it and when the price is right, it will happen.


You may have a well thought out position, but the Green movement has been unable to be in favor of any form of energy because various subfactions exist just to oppose each form that works. Isn't it true that enviros are against every form of energy production except those not in actual production?

Stonewall,

How can you call Bush a puppet when we had Reagan? Please tell me that you are not recycling anti-Reagan arguments against Bush.

Remember the 'gravitas' argument? What was that speech at the UN, but a showing of "gravitas'?

As for the shedding of the cultural taint, wait til the republicans get the Senate and watch how quickly those 20% judicial vacancies get filled. They won't be fire eaters, but they will certainly tilt toward the conservative view of issues.

Why is your fire on this issue always directed at Bush? Your demonization of Bush implies that anybody but Bush would be preferable, but you've never made that case. Don't the Democrats have their favorite corporate charities? Why isn't the same criticism leveled at the Democrats and/or Clintonistas?

Monoghan:

Para. 1 & 2, your assumptions are right.

OK. Thanks.

Fossil fuels. I'm a supply/demand guy on this. Can anything other than nuclear really replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future?

In other words, the answer to my question is "no." You, as a conservative, do not see the need for progressive action on this question, and therefore support conservative non-action.

I may deal with your specific arguments later. For now, suffice it to say that Mr. Bush is not likely to take the sort of action that I believe is necessary and proper.

Multinationals. I am in favor of a law that would require imported goods to be manufactured according to the same health/safety and environmental codes that an American supplier would face. . . . Will this administration do anything about this issue? The free traders are riding high in each party but would you have expected any Republican to impose the steel tariffs as Bush did?

Sure, provided the steel industry paid enough for the action in campaign contraibutions, and provided other interests weren't sufficiently gouged by it to tip the scales the other way. The "free traders" aren't really riding high in either party. Corporate bottom lines are, which sometimes favors a free trade approach and sometimes protection of this and other forms.

I am very much in favor of a law just as you described. I am, however, highly skeptical that the Bush administration agrees with either of us.

The major multinational issue is China. Do you shop at Walmart or Target?

No. Haven't made a point of this, but I don't.

Are you willing to cut off trade with China? Are you willing to cut off access to a variety of low cost goods to poorer people?

As a last resort, yes. But since that's the economic equivalent of launching an air strike, it should be held in reserve, not jumped on first step out the gate.

The problem here is that we haven't even tried to negotiate with China for better labor and environmental protections. Our corporations who invest there take advantage of the conditions present, and don't want them improved.

Gosh, sometimes I don't know how they can even afford to transport the stuff over here much less make it for those prices?

Oh, that's easy enough. You start with a government that imposed tight economic controls when it was Communist, switch its economic philosophy to capitalism but retain the power and nondemocratic nature of the state, and turn that mechanism of power to keeping the workers as far down as possible, and labor costs drop to nearly nil.

"Communist" China today is a capitalist country that outdoes the worst abuses of the industrial revolution. This is one of history's grimly amusing ironies.

International peacekeeping. Why, US, of course.

Can't be done. There's too much global opposition to American hegemony, and too much opportunity for corruption. Agreed about the need to reform the U.N., but Bush seems more inclined to disregard it.

Monoghan:

You may have a well thought out position, but the Green movement has been unable to be in favor of any form of energy because various subfactions exist just to oppose each form that works.

See, that's the consequence of the media being controlled by big corporations. The news gets slanted to favor a business conservative philosophy.

My position is no different in essence from the one advocated by all serious environmentalists, and it consists of the following.

1. Improve energy efficiency. The best way to cut energy-related pollution is to cut energy waste so that less needs to be produced. Right now, our energy efficiency is averaging around 10%, which means that we produce 10 units of power for every unit translated into actual value. The other nine-tenths benefit nobody, except for the energy companies, who make money on them even though nobody uses them.

We could double that efficiency very easily, quadruple it with some serious effort, and increase it to 80% efficiency with really hard work.

2. Shift the present government subsidies so that they favor efficiency and green energy rather than fossil fuels. Part of the reason why fossil fuels have a market advantage is that they receive a $20 billion annual federal subsidy.

3. Use a mix of power sources appropriate to the place and circumstance.

One of my favorite ideas is to use animal wastes and sewage to generate methane. Methane can be burned directly for heat (it's equivalent to natural gas), and can also be a source for hydrogen, which can be used in fuel cells to power cars. It is very clean except for greenhouse gases, and from this source would only replace the greenhouse gases removed from the air in producing the food that originally generated the waste.

But the biggest thing we need to do is #1, above. The amount of waste in our economy is unconscionable -- but profitable for those who produce the goods.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Stonewall,

How can you call Bush a puppet when we had Reagan?

Because Reagan was not a puppet. He had always had a natural interest in government and the affairs of state and a coherent philosophy of governance, much as all of us here do and unlike Junior does.

Please tell me that you are not recycling anti-Reagan arguments against Bush.

No, I am just that right age of Xer that I am as staunch a Reagan man as they come. But you see, I am a capitalist, not a corporatist. That's what all that very serious bitterness was about between the Goldwater wing and Rockefeller wing over all those decades. It was Goldwater-Reagan capitalists versus Rockefeller-Bush corporatists. It was freedom versus order; bottom-up liberty versus top-down control. How quickly we forget. I find corporatism, as well as all other top-down control schemes and protection rackets, morally reprehensible. It is the exclusive purview of the basest, most vile cretins among us; the lowest rung of the human ladder. And I will have no part of it.

There is a very simple rule applicable as we approach the Regeneracy. The more capitalists sell out and support these corporatists for fear of giving the socialist left the upper hand, the more capitalism and economic liberty we will lose after Regeneracy. This is like a rubber band being stretched. The longer capitalists enable these corporatists to stay in power, the further that rubber band is stretched, and ultimately the further we slingshot in the socialist direction once the tension is released when the corporatists fall from power. On the other hand, the sooner the corporatists fall from power, the more capitalism and economic liberty we can salvage in the ascendant Left's agenda. I am working to salvage as much capitalism and economic liberty as possible by working toward the earliest possible fall of these corporatists such that the inevitable socialist reaction is not nearly as radical as it would otherwise be.

As for the shedding of the cultural taint, wait til the republicans get the Senate and watch how quickly those 20% judicial vacancies get filled.

What? With the likes of Alberto Gonzales, a jurist who, rather than resign his position in disgust, has no pangs of conscience whatsoever about writing any brief arguing for the further consolidation of unconstitutional power in the executive branch while further enshrouding the actions of the executive branch in secrecy, thereby eliminating all pretense of accountability? And this is what we should have on the Supreme Court bench? Isn't this what we opposed in the Democrats all these years? It is certainly what I opposed.

NO THANKS. This Bush administration is a clear and present danger to the lives and liberties of the American people like no other administration in recent memory, Republican or Democrat. This is the lowest rung of the human ladder, even lower than Clinton and his boys who made no bones about what they stood for. And I shall do everything in my power to remove these cretins come 2004. I owe it to my ancestors who sacrificed so much for me, and I owe it to my posterity who shall be born and of a right shall remain free, so help me God.

They won't be fire eaters, but they will certainly tilt toward the conservative view of issues.

What difference does this make if they do not oppose corporatist rule? Dismantle the unconstitutional bureacracy! DEVOLVE POWER! This is the reason I supported Republicans and opposed Democrats all these years! If Republicans will not DEVOLVE POWER, then there is no reason for me to support them over the Democrats! In fact, there is greater reason to support the Democrats because, in the all-important propaganda war, the Democrats are up front and honest about their designs on power. The Republicans continue to LIE by claiming to desire a return to a small, constitutional government of limited powers, respectful of the rights and liberties of the people! The enemy you see is far less dangerous than the enemy that you do not see. As Cicero put it:


"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims; and wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."

Why is your fire on this issue always directed at Bush?

See Cicero quote above.

Your demonization of Bush implies that anybody but Bush would be preferable,

Yes. See Cicero quote above.

but you've never made that case.

I was not aware that I had to make a case. For what purpose?

Don't the Democrats have their favorite corporate charities?

Yes, but the Democrat, wedded to big government and power, "carries his banners openly." See Cicero quote above.

Why isn't the same criticism leveled at the Democrats and/or Clintonistas?

Because they "carr[y] [their] banners openly." See Cicero quote above.

Umm . . . well, if Stonewall won't indict the Democrats, I'll pile on 'em.

These days, they are just as much on the take, and just as much advocates for corporate privilege, as the Republicans. And I would reverse Stonewall's criticism. The GOP carries its banners openly; they have always called themselves conservative and always been the party of big business, back to their very founding.

The Democrats are supposed to be the liberal party, the party of progress, the party of the people. They still, sometimes, pretend to be.

But they're not. Not these days.

They're better on social issues (from my perspective) than the GOP, which is enough to get my vote most of the time. (Not this year in California's gubernatorial, though. With a choice between Davis and Simon, time to vote Green.)

But ultimately those issues aren't the important ones. If we don't free our government from corporate dominance, we face catastrophe. And the Democrats, as presently the party is constituted, can't be trusted to do that job.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Umm . . . well, if Stonewall won't indict the Democrats, I'll pile on 'em.

These days, they are just as much on the take, and just as much advocates for corporate privilege, as the Republicans. And I would reverse Stonewall's criticism. The GOP carries its banners openly; they have always called themselves conservative and always been the party of big business, back to their very founding.

Oh, I agree. But the point is that the Democrats are never mistaken by anybody as advocating, supporting, or representing a return to small, constutiional government of limited powers. What you see is what you get. Not so with the Republicans.

And we are seeing our different perspectives here. Yes, it is true that the Republican Party has always been the party of big business, but the bulk of its supporters have not seen it that way, nor are they pesonally concerned first and foremost with big business. It is a small minority faction (corporatists) which controls the party and we see now that this has always been true. It was not at all evident to most rank-and-file Republicans through this saeculum. The Republican establishment's smoke and mirrors have been magnificently effective.

Stonewall, I guess we have two separate issues here, and you are conflating them. One is the question of limited government and the other is the question of corporate dominance.

They're related only to the extent that corporate interests don't want small, limited government, but corporations aren't the only interests of that opinion. Government is useful for a lot of purposes. Helping the rich get richer is only one of them.

The funny thing is, although the Democrats haven't been identified as a small government party since the 1930s, before that they were, and the Republicans never were. So how did they manage to convince people who wanted limited government that the party was on their side?

Anyway -- by the measure of corporatism rather than small vs. large government, the GOP has never seemed, to us outside the party, to be anything else than a party of big business. So for them to be that now, doesn't seem to me like betrayal, whereas with the Dems it does.

Stonewall,

Thanks for laying out your problems with Bush. Its tough to be a libertarian.

For several elections, we have voted for one guy and he has, in many ways, turned out to govern like the guy he defeated. Bush41 was what mike Dukakis said he'd be. And I think that Bush 43 is a lot like Gore (but who knows if there was any real Al gore). I think this comes from the constant pressure in the campaign to reach to the middle, and that continues through to the White House.

As to traitors in our midst, I'll point the finger at the Clinton gang. If Bill and Hillary do not have huge Swiss accounts funded by the Chinese army and the Arabs, then there is no coherent reason for what they've done. Christopher Hitchens accused Clinton of attempting to turn this country into a banana republic. Who runs a banana republic except for personal gain (not corporate gain).

If we go through a real 4T and have a real economic crisis, we'll get a real limitation on the government as it functions now, as resources will be siphoned off to deal with the new issues facing the government. Major parts will be starved of funding. It is an ill wind that blows no good.

Jesse:

You can't starve a government which possesses a central bank. Where direct taxation is not feasible, a lowering of interest rates (ratcheting up the influx of 'credit' money into circulation) or otherwise debasing the currency will always provide the gov't with a source of additional funds. The primary recipient of inflated money gains his value on the backs of the final recipients, as, by the time it gets to them, the nominal cost of living has gone up to at least counteract it.
In fact, you've got to wonder how much of its income the federal government derives from just such means. Considering the fact that the natural order of economics overall is a gradual decline in prices (as productivity and efficiency improve), yet currently a couple percent yearly inflation is considered normal, well... let's just say it's pretty clear Argentina's not alone.

After these big events, there come the rush of conspiracy theories. Some of the theories may be right, but not all of them, because one theory contradicts the others.

An example is the huge number of conflicting theories over who REALLY killed JFK.

More recently, 9/11 is said to by some to have actually been planned by Iraq*, and by others to have actually been planned by China. Others point the finger at Israel, etc.

Interestingly, a lot of verifiable stories are coming to light that Arab-American schoolchildren living in New Jersey were aware of the 9/11 attack plans before 9/11. Is this true? We must be very careful.

Thus, we must look with a careful, critical eye at these theories. We are definitely getting into the rampant conspiracy theory stage now.

Now, as for the Air Force shooting down Flight 93, let's be clear: the crime would not have been actually shooting the plane down. For the Air Force to shoot the plane down would be defensible and, in fact, commendable.

The conspiracy would be lying about it afterwards (for the presumed purpose of allowing a rousing legend to live.)

If they are lying, I won't defend the lies. There would be little purpose in lying, anyway. The shoot-down theory is not totally inconsistent with the legend: the passengers could have fought the terrorists before the plane was shot.

But we must look carefully, remembering that typically more than half of the conspiracy theories that arise at this stage are completely false.

Are there factual inconsistencies in the eyewitness claims? Questions like this are important.

=============
*The theory that Iraq was involved in in the OKC bombing has recently been revived by some, with eye witnesses AT THE TIME claiming they saw McVeigh in the company of Iraqis, etc.

Sanford, thanks for injecting some sanity into this whole conspiracy theory business. I haven't forgotten about 'black helicopters' (almost all helicopters appear to be black from ground level when they are flying high enough, say, over 2000 ft. above ground level), or about poisonous 'chemtrails' left by 'unmarked' jet aircraft (seems to me that when a jet is flying at around 30,000 ft. or more, and at around 600 mph., it is going to leave a contrail, and there is no way any markings on the plane are going to be visible to the naked eye from ground level, or for human reflexes to follow said aircraft with binoculars precisely enough to allow markings, or a lack thereof, to be made out), both of which were supposed to be government plots against the people. To which I say .

Originally Posted by monoghan

For several elections, we have voted for one guy and he has, in many ways, turned out to govern like the guy he defeated. Bush41 was what mike Dukakis said he'd be. And I think that Bush 43 is a lot like Gore (but who knows if there was any real Al gore). I think this comes from the constant pressure in the campaign to reach to the middle, and that continues through to the White House.

"Reaching to the middle" went out in the '70s. The whole succession from Bush Sr. through Clinton to Bush Jr. has been one of mollifying the middle while doing the business of the interests who "own" the presidency.

As to traitors in our midst, I'll point the finger at the Clinton gang. If Bill and Hillary do not have huge Swiss accounts funded by the Chinese army and the Arabs, then there is no coherent reason for what they've done.

Do you doubt that the the Bushes have "huge Swiss accounts funded by the Chinese army and the Arabs," and infinitely larger ones at that? Bush Sr. was the man personally responsible for opening up China to US investment (by nipping at Nixon's heels like a yapping poodle) and today even his brother Prescott heads the China-US Chamber of Commerce. An American really cannot do business in China without going through the Bushes such that it might as well be a Bush family racket. Naturally, the Arab money speaks for itself. Clinton makes a convenient fall guy but the real problem originates with Bush Sr. (and carries through his son).

Christopher Hitchens accused Clinton of attempting to turn this country into a banana republic. Who runs a banana republic except for personal gain (not corporate gain).

Exactly, but Clinton was merely a continuation from Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. is yet another continuation of the same.

If we go through a real 4T and have a real economic crisis, we'll get a real limitation on the government as it functions now, as resources will be siphoned off to deal with the new issues facing the government. Major parts will be starved of funding. It is an ill wind that blows no good.

I agree, and I cannot see how that economic crisis can be very far off, given the state of the global economy.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Considering the fact that the natural order of economics overall is a gradual decline in prices

This is a good example of where people insert belief systems in place of reality. Here is a plot of British prices from 1164 to 1925.

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...e/LT-Price.gif

Note the big rises before 1650. This was before central banks, before paper money, when silver (and gold) was money. I see no long-term downwards trend.

You get the idea of long-term price declines as "normal" from the theories of classical economists, who were dealing with the price situation of the 19th century (which was pretty flat overall, but consisted of inflationary spikes associated with wars followed by long periods of gradual deflation that were closely tied to government credit cycles.

They were unaware of the behavior of prices at the early times shown in the graph. (These data weren't assembled until the mid 20th century). So while they made many important observations, they didn't have the whole picture. This is where libertarians get into trouble with their ideas. They are based on theories that are a lot less universal than libertarians think.

Mike,

I can't help but notice the utter lack of units on your graph's y-axis. Are you comparing apples to oranges? Do you even know for sure what it is you are comparing?

Consider: A decent set of clothes and sandals in Roman times cost about 1 oz of gold. A suit and shoes today (roughly the same function -- much higher quality) costs about the price of an ounce of gold. 'Price' has remained stable, but the quality has gone way up. It's still not a terribly good comparison, but I've yet to see any data which contradicts myearlier statement.

Here is a recipe for how the Bush administration can continue to milk this to keep the media and people distracted from the economy and the administration's own scandals:


www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods12.html

(For educ. and discussion)



The Conqueror?s Shifting Ground

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.


Following Iraq?s decision to allow an unconditional return of United Nations weapons inspectors to that country, a rational person might have acknowledged that such a humiliating capitulation represented at least the slightest indication of progress toward satisfying U.S. demands. The White House, however, immediately dismissed the offer, declaring: "This is not a matter of inspections." Not one inch was conceded ? not that this was a welcome step forward, not that it could be the beginning of a peaceful resolution to the crisis, nothing.

For reasons that Jude Wanniski and other observers have pointed out, alleged "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?s possession or that country?s defiance of the United Nations cannot possibly be the real reasons for the Bush administration?s belligerence toward Iraq, which is why it is so amusing to read a neoconservative punditry so at pains to defend these arguments. (Is any invasion of Israel planned for having defied the United Nations for 35 years over its occupations of the West Bank and Gaza?)

It is obvious enough that nothing the Iraqi government could have said would have satisfied the White House. Thus I have conjured up the following scenario:

Wire service, September 21, 2002:

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein today put on the table a still bolder proposal: he will allow weapons inspectors from any country anywhere in the world full access to any site in Iraq they wish to investigate, and at Iraqi expense will be permitted to comb every inch of Iraqi soil for evidence of illicit weapon construction.

"The White House, however, is dismissing the offer as yet another example of Iraqi stonewalling. ?This isn?t about permitting inspection of every inch of Iraqi soil on demand,? a White House spokesman said. ?This is about forcing Saddam Hussein to be forthcoming about his weapons programs and to come clean before the international community.?"

Wire service, September 26, 2002:

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein put an additional offer on the table today: he will, again at Iraqi expense, authorize the deployment of a series of surveillance satellites to be used by the United States and any country that is interested, to keep constant watch over any Iraqi installation the international community indicates. Surveillance aircraft will also be permitted free access to the skies of Iraq, so that the development of any potentially illicit weapons may be monitored and prevented.

"?This isn?t about forcing Saddam Hussein to be forthcoming about his weapons programs,? said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. ?It is about transforming an irresponsible and despotic regime into one that will obey the will of the international community and the mandate of the United Nations.?"

Wire service, October 7, 2002:

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, faced with overwhelming American intransigence, is now offering to establish a coalition government consisting of himself and officials from neutral countries designated by the United Nations. Diplomatic historians and political scientists around the world were unanimous in declaring such a move by Hussein to be absolutely without precedent in the history of international affairs.

"The White House, however, remained unimpressed. ?This isn?t about transforming Saddam?s regime into one that will obey the United Nations,? a White House source said. ?It?s about ensuring that Iraq will be absolutely unable to threaten its neighbors or even the United States with weapons of mass destruction.?"

Wire service, October 14, 2002:

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made today what he says is his final offer. For the next three months, he says, every Iraqi citizen will lie prostrate on the ground and will remain motionless, with the exception of three meal allowances, which will be administered by UN personnel at Iraqi expense. Otherwise the entire Iraqi population will remain absolutely still for a full three months while UN officials take any action they consider reasonable or necessary to ensure that Iraq is not a danger to her neighbors.

"When asked for his opinion of this most recent Iraqi proposal, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters that the President was skeptical. ?Saddam must be forthcoming and cooperative, and his persistent stonewalling and defiance are only trying the patience of the international community,? Fleischer said. ?The President has made his position very clear. The peace of the world, from New Zealand to Canada, is menaced as long as Saddam is alive.?"

Wire service, October 15, 2002:

"In a surprise move today, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein stepped up his diplomatic offensive, and said he would in fact commit suicide on live television if that was what it would take to forestall an invasion of his country. Physicians approved by the United Nations would perform all the necessary tests to verify his identity before bringing about his death by lethal injection.

"Asked for comment today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied that he was growing tired of Saddam?s lack of cooperation and reminded Americans that ?this has never been about just one man.?"

September 18, 2002

It would be funny if it weren't so darn serious.

I know that there is polling data that allegedly shows that the American public supports some kind of military action against Saddam. But I also hear many, many people calling in to radio talk shows (not Limbaugh's, obviously) who are definitely NOT in favor of going to war. Several of these callers were active or retired members of the military.

My own household is deeply split. My Boomer husband, who once worked on Jerry Brown's presidential campaign, wants us to go in there and kick the s*** out of Saddam. My cynical Silent mother thinks Bush is wagging the dog in order to take attention away from the economy.

I understand where a lot of the pro-war sentiment is coming from, but my gut is also telling me that this is wrong; I simply don't trust this administration to be straight with us about their intentions. It's a constantly moving target.

Is this a generational thing? Are Boomers more in favor of going after Saddam than other generations?

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

It would be funny if it weren't so darn serious.

My own household is deeply split. My Boomer husband, who once worked on Jerry Brown's presidential campaign, wants us to go in there and kick the s*** out of Saddam.

Does Jerry favor this "war"? I have not caught him lately.

I have no idea what Jerry's been saying. I was just trying to make the ironic point that my husband, the former peacenik, is now a hawk.