The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
>

I have (purposely) not followed the link.

But a thought:

- doesn't it worry you, that, when you see the URL, it is a grammatical
mistake? I worry about 'political' commentators who use adjectives
when they mean to use adverbs (as in 'really' not 'real').

I say this because of the likes of Adolf Hitler and Huey Long, who were
famous for 'plain speaking' and 'talking to the ordinary man'. Both
of which used that (condescending) use of 'plain language' to spread
the worst filth and lies.

Either I am to assume that 1). the website owner is stupid or 2) (more
likely) the website owner is someone who has a hidden agenda to
manipulate the reader, by acting like he talks 'like they do'. A trick
used by confidence men the world over, starting with car dealers and
working on up. (see David Cialdini's excellent book 'Influence').

Contrast that to FDR or JFK or Churchill or Martin Luther King, (or
indeed Ronald Reagan), who spoke and wrote in excellent, clear English
(although JFK's 'I am a jelly donut' (ich bein ein Berliner') still
causes amusement amongst German-speakers ;-).

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>>
>
> I have (purposely) not followed the link.
>
> But a thought:
>
> - doesn't it worry you, that, when you see the URL, it is a grammatical
> mistake? I worry about 'political' commentators who use adjectives
> when they mean to use adverbs (as in 'really' not 'real').

What?

>
> I say this because of the likes of Adolf Hitler and Huey Long, who were
> famous for 'plain speaking' and 'talking to the ordinary man'. Both
> of which used that (condescending) use of 'plain language' to spread
> the worst filth and lies.

What?

>
> Either I am to assume that 1). the website owner is stupid or 2) (more
> likely) the website owner is someone who has a hidden agenda to
> manipulate the reader, by acting like he talks 'like they do'. A trick
> used by confidence men the world over, starting with car dealers and
> working on up. (see David Cialdini's excellent book 'Influence').

What?


>
> Contrast that to FDR or JFK or Churchill or Martin Luther King, (or
> indeed Ronald Reagan), who spoke and wrote in excellent, clear English
> (although JFK's 'I am a jelly donut' (ich bein ein Berliner') still
> causes amusement amongst German-speakers ;-).


What?

Check it out when you are clean.




>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
>

'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).

'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'

;-).

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

darkness39 wrote:
> NoEd wrote:
>
>
> 'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>
> 'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>
> ;-).
>
Don't you mean "really clear"?

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

darkness39 wrote:

> NoEd wrote:
>
>>
>
>
> I have (purposely) not followed the link.
>
> But a thought:
>
> - doesn't it worry you, that, when you see the URL, it is a grammatical
> mistake? I worry about 'political' commentators who use adjectives
> when they mean to use adverbs (as in 'really' not 'real').

It's unlikely the article was written by the owners of the website.
RealClearPolitics.com is a website that makes available political and
economic commentary that has been written elsewhere. Sometimes
directly, other times thru links.
The citation for the article is something called the "Free Market
Project," which is at least grammatically correct.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:

> Check it out when you are clean.

Appears to be just two guys, one, an academic type with potentially
most peculiar DOD contacts (writes strange scenarios out of a
Psychology Dept.); the other is a more common sort, perhaps, with a
name for an experienced editor writing out of Baltimore. Regardless,
over reservations drawn, what conceivably that could mean, if anything,
together, they've more than amassed a collection of political essays,
neither lacking self-promulgated accolades and editorialized staff
contributions, nor a web presence, after all;--All but for a
reservation and the hint of a trail out of the Psych. Dept., into the
DOD for contrivances suitable enigmatic;--By and farther, than any mere
pedantry from one critic I noted, who has labeled them for a
conservative bent and inclusion of errors in accounting a specific
poll.

"I could prove God statistically." -GGALLUP

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>>
>
> 'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>
> 'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>
> ;-).
>

NoDick knows that!

He's a professional writer and mensa too!

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Steven L. wrote:

> RealClearPolitics.com is a website that makes available political and
> economic commentary that has been written elsewhere.

Nope - there's an 'about us' on the site with mail links. Names that
can be linked as well to papers posted on the site.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Steven L. wrote:
> darkness39 wrote:

> It's unlikely the article was written by the owners of the website.
> RealClearPolitics.com is a website that makes available political and
> economic commentary that has been written elsewhere. Sometimes
> directly, other times thru links.
> The citation for the article is something called the "Free Market
> Project," which is at least grammatically correct.

Mea culpa for not checking.

Although 'free market project' is also a warning sign (to me) that I'm
about to encounter religious fervour triumph-of-capitalism type stuff
(as on the left when one reads words like 'corporate conspiracy' or
'multinationals').

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

But you can't write a URL that way ;-).

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"Clear" can be used as a noun; therefore, technically "Real Clear" then is
grammatically correct.

"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>>
>
> 'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>
> 'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>
> ;-).
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Steven L. wrote:
>> darkness39 wrote:
>
>> It's unlikely the article was written by the owners of the website.
>> RealClearPolitics.com is a website that makes available political and
>> economic commentary that has been written elsewhere. Sometimes
>> directly, other times thru links.
>> The citation for the article is something called the "Free Market
>> Project," which is at least grammatically correct.
>
> Mea culpa for not checking.
>
> Although 'free market project' is also a warning sign (to me) that I'm
> about to encounter religious fervour triumph-of-capitalism type stuff
> (as on the left when one reads words like 'corporate conspiracy' or
> 'multinationals').
>

Has not capitalism triumphed?

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

darkness39 wrote:
>
> But you can't write a URL that way ;-).

I had been tempted to post that it should be: really%20clear, but upon
reading my draft, observed that this was not "really clear".
--
Mark Freeland

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:

> "darkness39" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>>darkness39 wrote:
>>
>>>It's unlikely the article was written by the owners of the website.
>>>RealClearPolitics.com is a website that makes available political and
>>>economic commentary that has been written elsewhere. Sometimes
>>>directly, other times thru links.
>>>The citation for the article is something called the "Free Market
>>>Project," which is at least grammatically correct.
>>
>>Mea culpa for not checking.
>>
>>Although 'free market project' is also a warning sign (to me) that I'm
>>about to encounter religious fervour triumph-of-capitalism type stuff
>>(as on the left when one reads words like 'corporate conspiracy' or
>>'multinationals').
>>
>
>
> Has not capitalism triumphed?

It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.

Without their oil, the Middle East desert kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
would still be in the Middle Ages, both culturally and economically.
With their oil, they're still in the Middle Ages culturally, but
economically they've achieved a high standard of living as the world's
parasites.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> "Clear" can be used as a noun; therefore, technically "Real Clear" then is
> grammatically correct.
>
In my dictionary "clear" can be an adjective, adverb and verb, but not a
noun. So "real clear" is grammatically incorrect. "really clear" is correct.

> "darkness39" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>>
>>'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>>
>>;-).
>>
>
>
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Steven L. wrote:
> NoEd wrote:
>
> > "> >
> >
> > Has not capitalism triumphed?
>
> It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
> It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.

But 'capitalism' in the sense Marx meant it is essentially
non-existent. Not even in Hong Kong as was. Let alone China (no legal
definition of property rights). Look at all the poster children: US
and Europe have mixed economies with huge government sectors.
Singapore practices benign state guidance, and has an investment fund
collected from the workforce which is greater than GDP. Japan? Well
it's not capitalism as we understand it. Korea? Unclear: I don't
think Adam Smith would have predicted the Chaebol.

The reality is the 1930s killed that sort of 19th century free market
notion (which only Britain was ever a real free trader within,
certainly the US and Germany were not)-- the instability threatened the
very consensus on which democracy is based, so a series of reformers
swept to power in the major industrialised nations (in this sense FDR
and Hitler were very similar, except of course Hitler's goals were to
overthrow democracy which he saw as corrupt).

>
> Without their oil, the Middle East desert kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
> would still be in the Middle Ages, both culturally and economically.
> With their oil, they're still in the Middle Ages culturally, but
> economically they've achieved a high standard of living as the world's
> parasites.

Actually the standards of living on a GDP/person basis have been
falling for over 20 years: oil revenues are constant in real terms but
populations have soared (this latter, a consequence of improved
healthcare-- it is the first stage of the demographic revolution of any
society, the normal second phase is a subsequent fall in the birthrate,
with rising female education).

The Gulf States are doing alright but Saudi, like Venezuala and
Nigeria, is not in good shape.

There is precious little evidence that finding oil benefits a country
in any meaningful way: a small elite gets very rich. Norway or Alberta
are maybe good counterexamples.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

I'm trying to think of a sentence using 'clear' as a noun?

In any case, in the context it is used, it is clearly not a noun: one
doesn't say 'real clear xx'.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

PS David apologies I misread your post as being NoEd's.

My point stands, when someone in writing says something is 'real clear'
he is either trying to manipulate me (by appearing to be folksy) OR he
is very poorly educated OR it is the case of dialogue as in 'The cowboy
said he heard me "real clear"'.

3 doesn't apply. 2 is possible. 1 I suspect is the case.
Particularly when the old villain 'the media' is invoked. As if Fox
was The Sun was The Mail was The Guardian was The Economist was the
BBC. (the first two owned by the same person, but operating in
different countries).

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

PS I don't call it parasitism to sell us a commodity we desparately
hunger for (oil and gas). That is good business, and no different than
the US shipping wheat and lumber to China. We did great business for
decades selling weapons to Saudi Arabia now *that* was parasitism ;-).

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Steven L. wrote:
> It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
> It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.
>
> Without their oil, the Middle East desert kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
> would still be in the Middle Ages, both culturally and economically.
> With their oil, they're still in the Middle Ages culturally, but
> economically they've achieved a high standard of living as the world's
> parasites.

Middle Ages - sounds distinctly a Christian construct. I believe the
followers of Mohammed may have largely waived that course, possibly,
while experiencing an entirely new regime during a Middle-Age
timeframe, the likes which wouldn't spread into Western civilization
until some time later though northern Italy and the Dutch. Although,
tempting to place ongoing evidence as a correlation relative to
feudalism, the ideology dates farther back in the tribal sense more
directly to shiekdoms;--a very factious contention, to be sure,
although not without broader ties united under the esprit de core of an
Arabic emigre. As for cultural ties of impoverishment, Islam, by and
large, hasn't the lineage (and most certainly would not fall sway to,
more of recent, a media indoctrination) in the sense of capitalism;
Gibbon, in the Fall of the Roman Empire, extensively annotates from a
severity akin to arid harshness, for a formulative vein inherent within
Arab tribal bloodvalues. In the Western world's bowl of cultural
oranges and apples, I should say, the Arab is apt to unequivocally
present a palm date for his behest.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

On 12/20/05 9:42 AM, darkness39 wrote:
> PS David apologies I misread your post as being NoEd's.
>
> My point stands, when someone in writing says something is 'real clear'
> he is either trying to manipulate me (by appearing to be folksy) OR he
> is very poorly educated OR it is the case of dialogue as in 'The cowboy
> said he heard me "real clear"'.
>
> 3 doesn't apply. 2 is possible. 1 I suspect is the case.
> Particularly when the old villain 'the media' is invoked. As if Fox
> was The Sun was The Mail was The Guardian was The Economist was the
> BBC. (the first two owned by the same person, but operating in
> different countries).
>

Actually, it is syntactically correct (if semantically questionable) if
both "real" and "clear" are treated as adjectives, modifying "politics".
A comma should be included, as in "real, clear politics"; that gets
omitted from the URL.

As I say, not necessarily meaningful, but grammatical.

-Jim

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

I wouldn't have use that wording. How about "When he broke into the clear
he took the shot?"


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:do9cps$es$
> NoEd wrote:
>> "Clear" can be used as a noun; therefore, technically "Real Clear" then
>> is grammatically correct.
>>
> In my dictionary "clear" can be an adjective, adverb and verb, but not a
> noun. So "real clear" is grammatically incorrect. "really clear" is
> correct.
>
>> "darkness39" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>>>
>>>'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>>>
>>>;-).
>>>
>>
>>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"darkness39" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Steven L. wrote:
>> NoEd wrote:
>>
>> > "> >
>> >
>> > Has not capitalism triumphed?
>>
>> It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
>> It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.
>
> But 'capitalism' in the sense Marx meant it is essentially
> non-existent. Not even in Hong Kong as was. Let alone China (no legal
> definition of property rights). Look at all the poster children: US
> and Europe have mixed economies with huge government sectors.
> Singapore practices benign state guidance, and has an investment fund
> collected from the workforce which is greater than GDP. Japan? Well
> it's not capitalism as we understand it. Korea? Unclear: I don't
> think Adam Smith would have predicted the Chaebol.

So what? Do attribute the world's bounty to socialism or capitalism?


>
> The reality is the 1930s killed that sort of 19th century free market
> notion (which only Britain was ever a real free trader within,
> certainly the US and Germany were not)-- the instability threatened the
> very consensus on which democracy is based, so a series of reformers
> swept to power in the major industrialised nations (in this sense FDR
> and Hitler were very similar, except of course Hitler's goals were to
> overthrow democracy which he saw as corrupt).

Again, so what.


>
>>
>> Without their oil, the Middle East desert kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
>> would still be in the Middle Ages, both culturally and economically.
>> With their oil, they're still in the Middle Ages culturally, but
>> economically they've achieved a high standard of living as the world's
>> parasites.
>
> Actually the standards of living on a GDP/person basis have been
> falling for over 20 years: oil revenues are constant in real terms but
> populations have soared (this latter, a consequence of improved
> healthcare-- it is the first stage of the demographic revolution of any
> society, the normal second phase is a subsequent fall in the birthrate,
> with rising female education).
>
> The Gulf States are doing alright but Saudi, like Venezuala and
> Nigeria, is not in good shape.

Then the statement is true?


>
> There is precious little evidence that finding oil benefits a country
> in any meaningful way: a small elite gets very rich. Norway or Alberta
> are maybe good counterexamples.
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> I wouldn't have use that wording. How about "When he broke into the clear
> he took the shot?"
>
The noun is "clearing". "clear" is not a noun. I thought you were
supposed to be writer!
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:do9cps$es$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>>"Clear" can be used as a noun; therefore, technically "Real Clear" then
>>>is grammatically correct.
>>>
>>
>>In my dictionary "clear" can be an adjective, adverb and verb, but not a
>>noun. So "real clear" is grammatically incorrect. "really clear" is
>>correct.
>>
>>
>>>"darkness39" <> wrote in message
>>>news:
>>>
>>>
>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>>>>
>>>>'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>>>>
>>>>;-).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> "darkness39" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"> >
>>>>
>>>>Has not capitalism triumphed?
>>>
>>>It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
>>>It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.
>>
>>But 'capitalism' in the sense Marx meant it is essentially
>>non-existent. Not even in Hong Kong as was. Let alone China (no legal
>>definition of property rights). Look at all the poster children: US
>>and Europe have mixed economies with huge government sectors.
>>Singapore practices benign state guidance, and has an investment fund
>>collected from the workforce which is greater than GDP. Japan? Well
>>it's not capitalism as we understand it. Korea? Unclear: I don't
>>think Adam Smith would have predicted the Chaebol.
>
>
> So what? Do attribute the world's bounty to socialism or capitalism?
>
Neither one nor the other alone, but a bit of both.

At one stage UK politicians referred to the "Social market economy". As
other posters have said no country has total, unfettered capitalism. All
have a mixture of socialism and capitalism and only the proportions vary
from country to country.

>
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Jim Davidson wrote:

>
> Actually, it is syntactically correct (if semantically questionable) if
> both "real" and "clear" are treated as adjectives, modifying "politics".
> A comma should be included, as in "real, clear politics"; that gets
> omitted from the URL.
>
> As I say, not necessarily meaningful, but grammatical.

Jim

If you stick real in front of clear, the former used as an adjective,
doesn't the 'real' have to be an adverb modifying clear?

But I take your point that if you include a comma you could say they
were both adjectives modifying politics as in real politics and clear
politics. One just wouldn't write it as real, clear politics. Maybe
that is what is intended, but it still smacks of 'revealed truth' and
all those other wonderful shibboleths of 'the one true way' internet.
You might say both the title 'Media... Myths' and the URL signal
'warning, extremist political/economic views'.

It strikes me (as has been pointed out) that clear can be used as a
noun as in 'in the clear'. But you wouldn't say 'in the real clear'.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

It's even more subtle than that. Property rights are the key to
capitalism. But no country has unfettered property rights-- for
example aircraft can pass freely over my house, and satellites, without
my intervention, and Thames Water can dig under it.

As I understand it in the UK, one doesn't even have property ownership.
In the end, all land belongs to the Crown, we just acquire the rights
to live on it permanently (unless the Crown deems it necessary for the
national interest to expropriate it eg to widen the M1). But our use
of property is tightly controlled in most countries (in the US by
zoning, here by planning).

So even in a 'free market capitalist' economy there are some pretty big
delineations of property rights that are controlled by the government
and can be varied by the government. And that is true of any market
activity we undertake-- as various purveyors of adult content on the
internet are finding out (the US government objects and is shutting
them down, even if they are not hosted in the US, because US consumers
can view them). The executives of a number of online gaming companies
cannot enter the US even in transit because of fear of arrest for
violating the Wire Act which prohibits interstate gambling. All
government intervention in a 'capitalist' market economy.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> So what? Do attribute the world's bounty to socialism or capitalism?

Capitalism of course rests on society, prodded variously by
governmental oversights; key to society, though, is its economic
dispensation. Say, a random group of people encased within boundaries
form a nationalistic society, XYZ, whose population skew is 25%
deficient and at best menially profiecient. Attendants, servers, and
clerks. While another 50% of XYZ's collective augment a pragmatic
profiency level in dealings within day-to-day business cycles. A
merchantile class. Residing above are the elan-elite, intellectuals
and achievers with the cognizant will to herd XYZ's echelons, and
impact greatest potential over otherrwise stagnant resources capitalism
extols as commodity -- whether be it a prerogative might of
industrialized armory over factious demographies, or intermediate
economic incentives at balance in supply-and-demand. The apex never
changes, you see, although the view to the boundaries and a population
beneath may.

'You can go anytime you want, but you can never leave.' -Eagles, Hotel
California.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

darkness39 <> wrote:
> activity we undertake-- as various purveyors of adult content on the
> internet are finding out (the US government objects and is shutting
> them down, even if they are not hosted in the US, because US consumers
> can view them). The executives of a number of online gaming companies
> cannot enter the US even in transit because of fear of arrest for
> violating the Wire Act which prohibits interstate gambling. All
> government intervention in a 'capitalist' market economy.

Add that to the fact that we have a centrally planned economy via the
Federal Reserve. We insure banks via the government, fannie mae may
as well be a government office, we have government oficials determine
interest rates as opposed to the market doing so.

We heavily subsidzie industry after industry that no one seems to be
happy with: airlines, oil companies, health insurance companies etc..
etc..

The Milton Friedman style of capitalism is a failure. It's not been
adopted succesfully by any country anywhere. We've tried numerous
"free market" experiments abroad and they've all failed miserably.

-Mike

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Mike Stone wrote:
> darkness39 <> wrote:
> > activity we undertake-- as various purveyors of adult content on the
> > internet are finding out (the US government objects and is shutting
> > them down, even if they are not hosted in the US, because US consumers
> > can view them). The executives of a number of online gaming companies
> > cannot enter the US even in transit because of fear of arrest for
> > violating the Wire Act which prohibits interstate gambling. All
> > government intervention in a 'capitalist' market economy.
>
> Add that to the fact that we have a centrally planned economy via the
> Federal Reserve.

If there is one thing we have learned since the end of Bretton Woods,
it is that no government has policy autonomy-- foreign exchange rates
and monetary conditions *do* matter. Even the US government pays
attention to international economic forces.

I don't think the Fed 'plans' the economy, it just tries to be a little
further into the wind than the rest of the flotilla.

> We insure banks via the government,

Because the 1931 (?) bank crash showed that if confidence stops in the
banking system, then the whole economy grinds to a halt. Banks are
unique in this regard.

What would be better would be *risk-based* deposit insurance-- the
level of cover dependent on the type of underlying investment made by
the bank with the depositor's money.


fannie mae may
> as well be a government office,

the GSEs are one of the worst concentrations of risk in the whole US
financial system. They have been allowed to expand, almost
unregulated. there isn't much about the US economy on the downside
that doesn't centre around the potential for trouble in the housing
market.

we have government oficials determine
> interest rates as opposed to the market doing so.

The Fed only controls the overnight rate. Its impact on the rest of
the yield curve is limited. It is the most important factor, but
hardly the final one.

If we get a housing bubble bust, I suspect we will see how little power
the Fed really has-- witness the Japanese living through their bust
through the last 14 years, despite aggressive government intervention.

>
> We heavily subsidzie industry after industry that no one seems to be
> happy with: airlines, oil companies, health insurance companies etc..
> etc..

It's not a small number, the total subsidies, but in the context of a
'planned' economy it is relatively small. Regulation is a greater
factor. Greater problems are with the subsidisation of certain
activities over others: eg suburban sprawl, free interstates, water use
at below marginal cost, etc.

Health insurance the subsidy is a taxpayer one: employer provided
benefits are not taxable. This is a recipe for waste, and lo and
behold, that is what the US system has. But *changing* that would
cause a political apocalypse (as would eliminating mortgage
deductibility).

Agriculture is by far and away the worst offender: sugar costs 1/4 in
Canada what it does in the US (wholesale price) and the US spends more
on cotton subsidies (an average of $800k per farmer and over $4bn in
total) than the entire GDP of some small African cotton producing
countries.
>
> The Milton Friedman style of capitalism is a failure.

I don't think he ever wanted to do away with central banking. He would
argue that the Central Bank ought to follow predictable, mechanical
rules re money supply growth.

It's not been
> adopted succesfully by any country anywhere. We've tried numerous
> "free market" experiments abroad and they've all failed miserably.

Some wins, some losses. Latin America by and large hasn't worked. SE
Asia has adopted free markets where it suits them, but not where it did
not-- call it enlightened mercantilism. Eastern Europe has some very
good success stories (Slovakia now). Russia was a disaster-- basically
the result was nation-sized fraud, and now political autarchy. Africa
the problems are so deep-rooted that 'free markets' aren't going to
solve them, in and of themselves (although a change to world
agricultural policies would do a lot of good).

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

I write a lot for a living, business reports, by I'm not a writer. But I
found this in Websters:

Main Entry: 4clear
Function: noun
1 : a clear space or part
2 : a high arcing shot over an opponent's head in badminton
- in the clear 1 : in inside measurement 2 : free from guilt or suspicion 3
: in plaintext : not in code or cipher <a message sent in the clear>

But I didn't find a similar citation in other dictionaries.



"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dob19c$m29$
> NoEd wrote:
>> I wouldn't have use that wording. How about "When he broke into the
>> clear he took the shot?"
>>
> The noun is "clearing". "clear" is not a noun. I thought you were supposed
> to be writer!
>>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:do9cps$es$
>>
>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Clear" can be used as a noun; therefore, technically "Real Clear" then
>>>>is grammatically correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>>In my dictionary "clear" can be an adjective, adverb and verb, but not a
>>>noun. So "real clear" is grammatically incorrect. "really clear" is
>>>correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"darkness39" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>'real' is an adjective. 'Really' is an adverb. ;-).
>>>>>
>>>>>'realclear' should be written as 'reallyclear'
>>>>>
>>>>>;-).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dob1id$7ot$
> NoEd wrote:
>> "darkness39" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>Steven L. wrote:
>>>
>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"> >
>>>>>
>>>>>Has not capitalism triumphed?
>>>>
>>>>It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
>>>>It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.
>>>
>>>But 'capitalism' in the sense Marx meant it is essentially
>>>non-existent. Not even in Hong Kong as was. Let alone China (no legal
>>>definition of property rights). Look at all the poster children: US
>>>and Europe have mixed economies with huge government sectors.
>>>Singapore practices benign state guidance, and has an investment fund
>>>collected from the workforce which is greater than GDP. Japan? Well
>>>it's not capitalism as we understand it. Korea? Unclear: I don't
>>>think Adam Smith would have predicted the Chaebol.
>>
>>
>> So what? Do attribute the world's bounty to socialism or capitalism?
>>
> Neither one nor the other alone, but a bit of both.
>
> At one stage UK politicians referred to the "Social market economy". As
> other posters have said no country has total, unfettered capitalism. All
> have a mixture of socialism and capitalism and only the proportions vary
> from country to country.

I agree there are no pure economies, but capitalism is the system that
allows for the most production since it is most aligned with human nature. I
am a Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek fan.


>
>>
>>
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> So what? Do attribute the world's bounty to socialism or capitalism?
>
> Capitalism of course rests on society, prodded variously by
> governmental oversights; key to society, though, is its economic
> dispensation.

What makes a capitalism work is that wealth is generally dispensed to those
who produce it. Without incentive few will produce. Marx was wrong as
reality has shown: "From each according to his abilities, to each according
to his needs"



Say, a random group of people encased within boundaries
> form a nationalistic society, XYZ, whose population skew is 25%
> deficient and at best menially profiecient. Attendants, servers, and
> clerks. While another 50% of XYZ's collective augment a pragmatic
> profiency level in dealings within day-to-day business cycles. A
> merchantile class. Residing above are the elan-elite, intellectuals
> and achievers with the cognizant will to herd XYZ's echelons, and
> impact greatest potential over otherrwise stagnant resources capitalism
> extols as commodity

Do you have any examples of "stagnant resources that capitalism extols?"
Try rereding the chapter.



-- whether be it a prerogative might of
> industrialized armory over factious demographies, or intermediate
> economic incentives at balance in supply-and-demand. The apex never
> changes, you see, although the view to the boundaries and a population
> beneath may.

Let me try to translate. All societies all through history have formed
classes. Wow, what simplicity and clarity. But let me add that in a free
society, classes are based on meritocracy and not blood.




>
> 'You can go anytime you want, but you can never leave.' -Eagles, Hotel
> California.
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

darkness39 <> wrote:

> The Fed only controls the overnight rate. Its impact on the rest of
> the yield curve is limited. It is the most important factor, but
> hardly the final one.

But they control the money supply, margins & if the head of the
Fed feels someone needs a good bailing out, they'll get it.

BTW, I'm not saying these are all bad things.

> If we get a housing bubble bust, I suspect we will see how little power
> the Fed really has-- witness the Japanese living through their bust
> through the last 14 years, despite aggressive government intervention.

I'd guess their massive government spending helped cushion the impact.
But I agree, deflation is a possibility here also and I believe the
Kodratief business cycle is valid.

> Some wins, some losses. Latin America by and large hasn't worked. SE
> Asia has adopted free markets where it suits them, but not where it did
> not-- call it enlightened mercantilism. Eastern Europe has some very
> good success stories (Slovakia now). Russia was a disaster-- basically

Slovakia? I had just read an article a few weeks ago saying their
agricultural output declined dramatically because of the reforms they've adopted.

-Mike

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

darkness39 wrote:

> Steven L. wrote:
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"> >
>>>
>>>Has not capitalism triumphed?
>>
>>It certainly has triumphed over socialism.
>>It's still hasn't triumphed over Islamic feudalism.
>
>
> But 'capitalism' in the sense Marx meant it is essentially
> non-existent.

In what sense do you think he meant it? Marx was quite able to keep his
analysis of capitalism (in which he idealized away things like
government regulations and labor unions) from his description of actual
capitalist conditions. Do you?

Certainly in this country, infrastructure development always had
substantial government involvement. Always.


> Singapore practices benign state guidance, and has an investment fund
> collected from the workforce which is greater than GDP. Japan? Well
> it's not capitalism as we understand it. Korea? Unclear: I don't
> think Adam Smith would have predicted the Chaebol.
>
> The reality is the 1930s killed that sort of 19th century free market
> notion (which only Britain was ever a real free trader within,

No, the idea was never "killed," and the Internet has revived it. The
ability to download applications, information, etc., (all tremendously
valuable in the 21st century), from any nation on earth with a bare
minimum of government interference is as close to a pure free trade
model as we are likely to ever see.

You need to get with the program and realize that today, some of the
world's most valuable products are insubstantial (information-based).
And that is a nearly free market. (In the case of Internet child porn,
it's probably a little too free.)


> certainly the US and Germany were not)-- the instability threatened the
> very consensus on which democracy is based, so a series of reformers
> swept to power in the major industrialised nations (in this sense FDR
> and Hitler were very similar, except of course Hitler's goals were to
> overthrow democracy which he saw as corrupt).

In that sense, both FDR and Hitler deliberately misused the sound ideas
of economists like John Maynard Keynes to support their political
agendas. Keynes never said the answer to capitalism's instabilities was
to create a welfare state. NEVER. Keynes saw government pump-priming
as a way to put a capitalist system back on track. All that other stuff
that FDR instituted like Social Security and government regulations had
nothing whatsoever to do with government pump-priming. If anything, it
discouraged business from expanding at a time when that was sorely needed.


>>Without their oil, the Middle East desert kingdoms like Saudi Arabia
>>would still be in the Middle Ages, both culturally and economically.
>>With their oil, they're still in the Middle Ages culturally, but
>>economically they've achieved a high standard of living as the world's
>>parasites.
>
>
> Actually the standards of living on a GDP/person basis have been
> falling for over 20 years: oil revenues are constant in real terms but
> populations have soared (this latter, a consequence of improved
> healthcare-- it is the first stage of the demographic revolution of any
> society, the normal second phase is a subsequent fall in the birthrate,
> with rising female education).

Compare the per capita GDP of the Middle East oil kingdoms to comparable
Muslim desert kingdoms that have no oil, such as, for example,
Mauretania. That's what I was talking about.


>
> The Gulf States are doing alright but Saudi, like Venezuala and
> Nigeria, is not in good shape.
>
> There is precious little evidence that finding oil benefits a country
> in any meaningful way: a small elite gets very rich.

That wasn't the case here in America. The discovery of vast oil
reserves in America in the 19th century is what enabled the automobile
industry in this country. (As well as coming in very handy to fuel
weapons of war in World War II.) But the difference between finding oil
in America vs. finding oil in Saudi Arabia is that America was already
capitalist and could exploit the oil for many economically desirable
purposes. Saudi Arabia is a feudal society, and feudal societies don't
create wealth, they don't spread wealth, the wealth is hoarded by a few.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> What makes a capitalism work is that wealth is generally dispensed to those
> who produce it. Without incentive few will produce. Marx was wrong as
> reality has shown: "From each according to his abilities, to each according
> to his needs"

In an efficient system - wealth would be by measure accorded
proportionately. Socially measured, self-serving and circular, need
then need not suffice to be further above than growth accords. Yet,
reality would have need be delineated, we provide by a trickle-down
effect through Marx's advantaged abilities of the bourgeoisie to the
outweighed and needy proletariat. Marx's dialectic synthesis ability
has to equate by profit. The capitalist need perceive, if not
synthesize, disequilibrium between social classes, in order to extort
profit. Just as the labor force need accede to disequilibrium and to
struggle for a meaure of parity, in order to evolve with capitalism.

> Do you have any examples of "stagnant resources that capitalism extols?"
> Try rereding the chapter.

While and within what exists as stagnant to a circular efficiency
status quo abides; potential resources which capitalism cannot abide,
by dint of its very nature, the elite-elan innovator has to shift and
spin over, to create perceived means disequilibrium accounts by
incentive and ultimately profit.

> Let me try to translate. All societies all through history have formed
> classes. Wow, what simplicity and clarity. But let me add that in a free
> society, classes are based on meritocracy and not blood.

We Judo-Christians think in terms of civility and merit lacking a
barbarous overture wont in forgone ages;--In our better moments,
perhaps.

'And a man comes on the telley, telling me more and more, about some
useless information, supposed to drive my imagination.' -Rolling
Stones, Satisfaction.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> What makes a capitalism work is that wealth is generally dispensed to
>> those
>> who produce it. Without incentive few will produce. Marx was wrong as
>> reality has shown: "From each according to his abilities, to each
>> according
>> to his needs"
>
> In an efficient system - wealth would be by measure accorded
> proportionately.

Wealth is measure by the market for what you own.



Socially measured, self-serving and circular, need
> then need not suffice to be further above than growth accords.

Yea right. LOL!

Yet,
> reality would have need be delineated, we provide by a trickle-down
> effect through Marx's advantaged abilities of the bourgeoisie to the
> outweighed and needy proletariat.

I see your point.


Marx's dialectic synthesis ability
> has to equate by profit.

That is a great point, agian.

The capitalist need perceive, if not
> synthesize, disequilibrium between social classes, in order to extort
> profit.


Just as the labor force need accede to disequilibrium and to
> struggle for a meaure of parity, in order to evolve with capitalism.

You obviously are a bright guy.

>
>> Do you have any examples of "stagnant resources that capitalism extols?"
>> Try rereding the chapter.
>
> While and within what exists as stagnant to a circular efficiency
> status quo abides; potential resources which capitalism cannot abide,
> by dint of its very nature, the elite-elan innovator has to shift and
> spin over, to create perceived means disequilibrium accounts by
> incentive and ultimately profit.

Hmnm? I will think on this one.

>
>> Let me try to translate. All societies all through history have formed
>> classes. Wow, what simplicity and clarity. But let me add that in a
>> free
>> society, classes are based on meritocracy and not blood.
>
> We Judo-Christians think in terms of civility and merit lacking a
> barbarous overture wont in forgone ages;--In our better moments,
> perhaps.
>
> 'And a man comes on the telley, telling me more and more, about some
> useless information, supposed to drive my imagination.' -Rolling
> Stones, Satisfaction.
>

Why waste your time? Get a life!

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> >> Try rereding the chapter.
> >
> > While and within what exists as stagnant to a circular efficiency
> > status quo abides; potential resources which capitalism cannot abide,
> > by dint of its very nature, the elite-elan innovator has to shift and
> > spin over, to create perceived means disequilibrium accounts by
> > incentive and ultimately profit.
>
> Hmnm? I will think on this one.

You've got a marketable point of view - an engineered product, the
psychs and advertizers have honed to a T, which various companies are
marketing under their own brandnames. Since there are no copyright
issues, and resources for making the product aren't scarce, the product
may be considered generic. Each company, of course, will be disposed to
claim their product surpasses quality standards by a value it exacts
above another company's similar product. While such a value exists
close to and does not widely deviate from its true worth, supply and
demand should be seen the single-most autonomous factor that levels
profitability. Society effectively has then set its value, which is
based on observance that the product does not sell apart from an price
equilibrium within a norm of all similar products. Such is the status
quo that, to capitalism, isn't necessarily abiding. So, along comes
the true entrepreneur, the visionary, whether a tinkering engineer with
a better mousetrap, or an advertising psychologist with
pheromone-scented automobiles. Such is the the spin and shift of
unrelenting profit above all else - to equate worth with merit is
purely ancillary. As were a circular serpent seen devouring itself
from mouth to tail, so capitalism is inwardly coiled and turned upon
itself, looking within for evidence of cracks to widen disequilibrium,
society then buys at profits where once there were none.

An incomplete view into an unfinished chapter from a funny kind of guy
- undistinguished roots and rather haphazardly tossed into a finer
academic faculty, he rose roundabout from German Marxist surroundings
to a British post to teach economics. Apparently, with something of a
vengeance, as he enjoyed showing up at the dean's office for faculty
meetings dressed in red riding habit replete with crop.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Mark Freeland wrote:
>
> I had been tempted to post that it should be: really%20clear, but upon
> reading my draft, observed that this was not "really clear".
>
Yes, but spaces are clearly illegal in domain names, encoded or not.
I'd stay clear from any URL that purports to have a space in the domain
name part.

I guess nobody is really discussing the article, eh? Unreal.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> >> Try rereding the chapter.
>> >
>> > While and within what exists as stagnant to a circular efficiency
>> > status quo abides; potential resources which capitalism cannot abide,
>> > by dint of its very nature, the elite-elan innovator has to shift and
>> > spin over, to create perceived means disequilibrium accounts by
>> > incentive and ultimately profit.
>>
>> Hmnm? I will think on this one.
>
> You've got a marketable point of view - an engineered product, the
> psychs and advertizers have honed to a T, which various companies are
> marketing under their own brandnames. Since there are no copyright
> issues, and resources for making the product aren't scarce, the product
> may be considered generic. Each company, of course, will be disposed to
> claim their product surpasses quality standards by a value it exacts
> above another company's similar product. While such a value exists
> close to and does not widely deviate from its true worth, supply and
> demand should be seen the single-most autonomous factor that levels
> profitability. Society effectively has then set its value, which is
> based on observance that the product does not sell apart from an price
> equilibrium within a norm of all similar products. Such is the status
> quo that, to capitalism, isn't necessarily abiding. So, along comes
> the true entrepreneur, the visionary, whether a tinkering engineer with
> a better mousetrap, or an advertising psychologist with
> pheromone-scented automobiles. Such is the the spin and shift of
> unrelenting profit above all else - to equate worth with merit is
> purely ancillary. As were a circular serpent seen devouring itself
> from mouth to tail, so capitalism is inwardly coiled and turned upon
> itself, looking within for evidence of cracks to widen disequilibrium,
> society then buys at profits where once there were none.
>
> An incomplete view into an unfinished chapter from a funny kind of guy
> - undistinguished roots and rather haphazardly tossed into a finer
> academic faculty, he rose roundabout from German Marxist surroundings
> to a British post to teach economics. Apparently, with something of a
> vengeance, as he enjoyed showing up at the dean's office for faculty
> meetings dressed in red riding habit replete with crop.
>

Very interesting.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:

> Very interesting.

He argues capitalism is eventually headed into its own demise - while
dragging my feet over finishing the book.

- Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A
creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire
to beat others. -- Ayn Rand, "The Moratorium on Brains"

Nice thing for the creative, considering it's from a romantic.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"Yes, it is strange how little a while a person can be contented." -- Mark
Twain, "The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"



"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> Very interesting.
>
> He argues capitalism is eventually headed into its own demise - while
> dragging my feet over finishing the book.
>
> - Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A
> creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire
> to beat others. -- Ayn Rand, "The Moratorium on Brains"
>
> Nice thing for the creative, considering it's from a romantic.
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

TK Sung wrote:
>
> Mark Freeland wrote:
> >
> > I had been tempted to post that it should be: really%20clear, but
> > upon reading my draft, observed that this was not "really clear".
> >
> Yes, but spaces are clearly illegal in domain names, encoded or not.
^^^^^^^

Not so clearly, as it is written (RFC 1912):

"Allowable characters in a label for a host name are only ASCII letters,
digits, and the `-' character. [Additional rules extending this, and
examples of domains violating the rules.] It must be noted that the
language in [RFC 1035] is such that these rules ARE VOLUNTARY -- they
are there for those who wish to minimize problems." Emphasis added.



RFC 1035 is "Domain Names - Implementation and Specification"


> I'd stay clear from any URL that purports to have a space in the domain
> name part.

That I agree with completely.

> I guess nobody is really discussing the article, eh? Unreal.

You are right that no one has addressed the contents of the article -
perhaps because in its attempt to "correct" the facts, it omits major
facts itself, e.g. by touting Reagan's 1985 deficit, while ignoring the
fact that Reagan had been increasing taxes (though obviously not enough
to cover the shortfalls) for years:



Nor the fact that deficit spending during a recession (1981-82) is
textbook Keynsian economics. Are we in a recession now?



--
Mark Freeland

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

NoEd wrote:
> "Yes, it is strange how little a while a person can be contented." -- Mark
> Twain, "The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"

I think I've found another link closer to the person responsible for
the OP. May have linked one name on that site into the DOD (dissimilar
style, equivocal variance), and though "The Media's Top 10 Economic
Myths of 2005" is an unsigned submission (12/16/2005 5:42:36 AM PST),
perhaps there are more clue lying about for obstinancy's sake. It's a
grass-roots conservative thing, webwise, not necessarily at the
storefront (though appears to have arrived there without delay) -- and,
so, I'll proceed directly to anonymously quoting his gist: Now I live
Alexandria, Va. Work caused me to move. Sometimes, I miss Texas. I like
running, working out, reading, and Freeping. A busted ankle has
curtailed my rugby, but I still avidly follow the game. I work for the
US Army Cost Estimation Division as a Cost Analyst. I'm proud of the
fact that weapons that I help determine costs for are now being used to
hunt down the enemies of our great nation.

"As concerns this question, our inspired Founder instructs us that the
fealty due from the Ultimate in connection with and subjection to the
intermediate and the inferential, these being of necessity subordinate
to the Auto-Isothermal, and limited subliminally by this contact, which
is in all cases sporadic and incandescent, those that ascend to the
Abode of the Blest are assimilated in thought and action by the
objective influence of the truth which sets us free, otherwise they
could not." .....It was just a snow-flurry on a warm day: every flake
was distinct and perfect, but they melted before you could grab enough
to make a ball out of them. - "Three Thousand Years Among the
Microbes"; -ibid.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> "Yes, it is strange how little a while a person can be contented." --
>> Mark
>> Twain, "The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"
>
> I think I've found another link closer to the person responsible for
> the OP. May have linked one name on that site into the DOD (dissimilar
> style, equivocal variance), and though "The Media's Top 10 Economic
> Myths of 2005" is an unsigned submission (12/16/2005 5:42:36 AM PST),
> perhaps there are more clue lying about for obstinancy's sake. It's a
> grass-roots conservative thing, webwise, not necessarily at the
> storefront (though appears to have arrived there without delay) -- and,
> so, I'll proceed directly to anonymously quoting his gist: Now I live
> Alexandria, Va. Work caused me to move. Sometimes, I miss Texas. I like
> running, working out, reading, and Freeping. A busted ankle has
> curtailed my rugby, but I still avidly follow the game. I work for the
> US Army Cost Estimation Division as a Cost Analyst. I'm proud of the
> fact that weapons that I help determine costs for are now being used to
> hunt down the enemies of our great nation.
>
> "As concerns this question, our inspired Founder instructs us that the
> fealty due from the Ultimate in connection with and subjection to the
> intermediate and the inferential, these being of necessity subordinate
> to the Auto-Isothermal, and limited subliminally by this contact, which
> is in all cases sporadic and incandescent, those that ascend to the
> Abode of the Blest are assimilated in thought and action by the
> objective influence of the truth which sets us free, otherwise they
> could not." .....It was just a snow-flurry on a warm day: every flake
> was distinct and perfect, but they melted before you could grab enough
> to make a ball out of them. - "Three Thousand Years Among the
> Microbes"; -ibid.
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Did you take into account that the sun and the moon may work in concert, but
not knowing the true relationship with the peoples of the earth?




"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> "Yes, it is strange how little a while a person can be contented." --
>> Mark
>> Twain, "The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"
>
> I think I've found another link closer to the person responsible for
> the OP. May have linked one name on that site into the DOD (dissimilar
> style, equivocal variance), and though "The Media's Top 10 Economic
> Myths of 2005" is an unsigned submission (12/16/2005 5:42:36 AM PST),
> perhaps there are more clue lying about for obstinancy's sake. It's a
> grass-roots conservative thing, webwise, not necessarily at the
> storefront (though appears to have arrived there without delay) -- and,
> so, I'll proceed directly to anonymously quoting his gist: Now I live
> Alexandria, Va. Work caused me to move. Sometimes, I miss Texas. I like
> running, working out, reading, and Freeping. A busted ankle has
> curtailed my rugby, but I still avidly follow the game. I work for the
> US Army Cost Estimation Division as a Cost Analyst. I'm proud of the
> fact that weapons that I help determine costs for are now being used to
> hunt down the enemies of our great nation.
>
> "As concerns this question, our inspired Founder instructs us that the
> fealty due from the Ultimate in connection with and subjection to the
> intermediate and the inferential, these being of necessity subordinate
> to the Auto-Isothermal, and limited subliminally by this contact, which
> is in all cases sporadic and incandescent, those that ascend to the
> Abode of the Blest are assimilated in thought and action by the
> objective influence of the truth which sets us free, otherwise they
> could not." .....It was just a snow-flurry on a warm day: every flake
> was distinct and perfect, but they melted before you could grab enough
> to make a ball out of them. - "Three Thousand Years Among the
> Microbes"; -ibid.
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Did you take into account that the sun and the moon may work in concert,
> but not knowing the true relationship with the peoples of the earth?

Arch Crawford knows.

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Did you take into account that the sun and the moon may work in concert,
> but not knowing the true relationship with the peoples of the earth?
>

Blowing the good weed today, eh?

>
> "Flasherly" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> NoEd wrote:
>>> "Yes, it is strange how little a while a person can be contented." --
>>> Mark
>>> Twain, "The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"
>>
>> I think I've found another link closer to the person responsible for
>> the OP. May have linked one name on that site into the DOD (dissimilar
>> style, equivocal variance), and though "The Media's Top 10 Economic
>> Myths of 2005" is an unsigned submission (12/16/2005 5:42:36 AM PST),
>> perhaps there are more clue lying about for obstinancy's sake. It's a
>> grass-roots conservative thing, webwise, not necessarily at the
>> storefront (though appears to have arrived there without delay) -- and,
>> so, I'll proceed directly to anonymously quoting his gist: Now I live
>> Alexandria, Va. Work caused me to move. Sometimes, I miss Texas. I like
>> running, working out, reading, and Freeping. A busted ankle has
>> curtailed my rugby, but I still avidly follow the game. I work for the
>> US Army Cost Estimation Division as a Cost Analyst. I'm proud of the
>> fact that weapons that I help determine costs for are now being used to
>> hunt down the enemies of our great nation.
>>
>> "As concerns this question, our inspired Founder instructs us that the
>> fealty due from the Ultimate in connection with and subjection to the
>> intermediate and the inferential, these being of necessity subordinate
>> to the Auto-Isothermal, and limited subliminally by this contact, which
>> is in all cases sporadic and incandescent, those that ascend to the
>> Abode of the Blest are assimilated in thought and action by the
>> objective influence of the truth which sets us free, otherwise they
>> could not." .....It was just a snow-flurry on a warm day: every flake
>> was distinct and perfect, but they melted before you could grab enough
>> to make a ball out of them. - "Three Thousand Years Among the
>> Microbes"; -ibid.
>>
>
>

Re: The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths of 2005

Mark Freeland wrote:
> It must be noted that the
> language in [RFC 1035] is such that these rules ARE VOLUNTARY -- they
> are there for those who wish to minimize problems." Emphasis added.
>
Ah, but you can't register a domain name containing spaces in reality.
Therefore it's de facto illegal. OK, may be it's not clearly illegal,
but at least the top domain name with spaces is clearly illegal on the
Net. Would that be a clear abuse of the word 'clearly'?