Priggly,

I have taken some time to agree and disagree with a number of your points. Your use of generalizations to attack and demean the positions you do not like makes your case much weaker.

trite- lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale:

"An individual who fails to see the inextricable link between has little if any concept of what makes the world go round."

OK there is a strong link between "political thought and economics" but to deny that political thought and the majority vote can be bought by and corrupted by large corporations and moneyed interests, is to deny much of the world political history. I really see no difference between the vote buying in New York in the 1800's and Chicago in the early 1900's.

You must also realize that the media has a powerful role in the propagandizing of the populace. As I have said many times, propagandist Goebbels from Germany and the Nixon campaign functionaries would be jealous of the efficient and pervasive propaganda that is spewed by the FOX organization. I do not say FOX news because there is a thin line between the news side of the channel and the opinionated talking heads. This separation is carefully crafted to be indistinguishable to the masses. It is intentional.

You may or may not know that the general economic thought you pro-port to adhere to is in fact called classical liberalism which got it's foundations in Laissez faire economics. What many here counter with is called modern liberalism.

A regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power.

The below section was taken from Wickipedia.

Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Modern(Social) liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.

In the United States in the second half of the 20th Century, many classical liberals allied with social conservatives and attacked the very concept of liberalism, calling their beliefs conservatism.

If the teachings of the Austrian school had been adhered to, would the world now be in the same mess?
Maybe yes maybe no. If you believe in Martin Armstrong's cycles or the writings of Nikolai Kondraity and his K-Wave theory of Cycles...yes we might be.

Failure to grasp the absolute importance of "politics" as they relate to economics is to remain ignorant of just how the world got into its present economic catastrophe.

Here you are starting the name calling....I would just say that the two sides of the argument in a modern day society have a place. I really don't want to see people dieing in the streets or living in tent cities because we don't have a social safety net. I also think society should demand work for the common good if you want social benefits...but that might be to collectivist for many....but is it demanding work for help..or a communist society. I'm not sure.

The section below was taken from Wikipedia.

According to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, the central bank's policy of attempting to control the market economy is ineffective and creates volatile credit cycles or business cycles, and, as a necessary by-product, inflation (especially in asset markets).[81] By the central bank artificially "stimulating" the economy with artificially low interest rates (thereby permitting excessive increases in the money supply), the government-sponsored central bank itself allows debasement of the means of exchange (inflation), often focused in asset or capital markets, resulting in "false signals" going out to the market place, in turn resulting in clusters of malinvestments, and the artificial lowering of the returns on savings, which eventually causes the malinvestments to be liquidated as they inevitably show their underlying unprofitably and unsustainability.

The other side of the coin is a gold or commodity backed currency that the Austrian's espouse. Would the US economy be as big as it is...would the world population be as large... a commodity based currency has limits to the growth of the economy. If we had stayed on one ...it might be better. But the world had massive recessions under the gold backed dollar in the late 1800's and early 1900's.....so who knows.

... America's conservative Christian principles were central to its development and mastery of the world's geopolitical and economic domains for almost two hundred years, the fact remains that that singular point distinguished it from all other countries.

Boy you sure drank the kool-aid here.

The US didn't become the world dominate power until after WWII...it's just a fact. I know it doesn't fit in into your world view but it's true.

On the Christian principles...yes they are important...they played a role for good in many ways....but Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian...and the Constitution called for a division between church and state.

I would say a great Constitution, an abundance of natural resources and a land mass that we conquered from the indigenous peoples was also largely responsible. Yes Africa was there but the peoples of the world advanced at differing speeds.

By the time Columbus got to America the the Africans were still a tribal people...without a central government...so no America being religious didn't have anything to do with that.


For his part, Ron Paul remains the basically ONLY honest and knowledgeable Member of Congress and yet you demean and find fault with him and accord even worse to his honest and capable son without so much as a plausible reason why.

Well, wow....you think that Ron Paul is basically the only honest and knowledgeable Member of Congress. Gosh we gave you reasons that we agree with Ron Paul and his son...they have positions that I find abhorrent. I will state them again....you need to reply if you agree with is positions on these two items....

1) They think the civil rights bill of 1964 was unconstitutional. This bill made all people in the US equal in the eyes of the courts...Priggly ...do you or do you not think this position is correct.
Rand stated and I am paraphrasing. - It is a bad business decision to not serve blacks in your restaurant...but it should be the right of the business owner to decide who to serve.

2) They believe that we should not have the various Federal agencies that protect the citizens... SEC, FDA FAA and many more. So if the eggs have salmonella...you should have checked them your self, if the banks steal from the citizens..no one is watching...if the drugs you take cause you to have a stroke...to bad.

Both Ron and Rand and Sarah Palin are well-meaning patriots who, whatever their relatively minor faults (do YOU know any perfect people?!) would serve the country well and help reverse its present move towards the cliff along with all the lemmings so anxious to follow the "change." Harry Reid, Pelosi, Frank and the other wrong-headed traitors whose insane policies are destroying the country never have and never will.

I can't answer this as it's just opinion...no facts...but both parties have had their turn to drive the bus and it's still going to go over the cliff no matter who drives the last ten feet....so if you want to get the ticket go ahead and take the wheel.

Why do they think gold and silver and the shares are going up in the first place? Very simply because everything else is going DOWN including the value of the currency and freedom which are inviolably linked. If there is no freedom, no preservation of purchasing power, nothing else will matter and the newly gained riches from the PMs will ultimately amount to nil as freedom is sacrificed and lost. And once lost, it is NEVER re-gained.

Ya. I think we can agree with this....maybe not in our lifetimes....and with the servaliance powers of the state...maybe never again.

The whole last three paragraphs are in my opinion your case for you being a superior patriot and your attack on those that disagree with you. But you do not have any moral superiority on these issues.

The tea party was hatches by Dick Armey and the republican elite to excite the base and win the election...now their single most important objective is to defeat the President...not fix the country...not get people jobs...not fix anything....

You have not shown any willingness to HEAR what others have to say....you are so sure that you are correct and because you are Christian, you have dismissed other sides of the argument....

So many of us do not want to hear a closed minded individual make ideological statements...we would listen to a reasoned philosophy.

So you might want to go back to the top and read the definition of "trite" again....

I hope I have not attacked Priggly but rebutted his position and statements.

GO ECU!

Scout