Please contribute public feedback. Feel free to say
whatever you like, positive or negative. General public feedback will be
posted here. I may or may not reply to it here as well. Send general feedback for
public display to email@example.com.
You can also provide feedback on specific articles by
using the "View/Provide feedback on this article" feature at the
bottom of every article, which will allow you to post a blog comment for that
Date: October 4, 2005
Without taking much time, just wanted to show my
appreciation for your site. Hands down, you have the best
argued researched and documented site I have ever come across.
You're world analysis is right on and your rational-moral
perspective is to be commended. Keep it up, the world needs
more of us.
Date: September 30, 2005
I have been reading slowly through your main article and have
enjoyed it thus far. Coming across your trickle down economics I
had a problem with the description of what the true problem is;
namely the devaluation of money.
I agree that the changing "value" of the dollar is actually a
significant problem especially for the poorer citizens of an economy.
Lending for business/wealth expansion when the dollar equals X% of the
total wealth of an economy and then having to repay that dept when the
dollar now equals <X% of the total wealth can bankrupt people and
businesses but I'm not sure how it applies to you analogy of the people
in the room.
If the Total Value of the room is $10.00 and the government is taxing
whatever income [at years end] Jim, Susan, ..., and Bill made/have that
taxed money is wealth of the government to save or spend. The total
value of the room is still $10.00 there is just another entity called
"Government" that has some percentage of that wealth.
If the government decides to repeal taxes then it essentially decreases
its own wealth at the expense of its citizens [Jim, Susan, ..., and
Bill.] If the US government repeals taxes [or decreases them] it isn't
as though they have printed more money to put into circulation but
rather took less of the citizen's wealth for their own needs.
I assume that Sam is supposed to represent the government in your
analogy and that he is giving everyone [but mostly Jim] money in the way
of tax refunds, or whatever. The US Government isn't outside the room,
they don't just make up money to give to the market, they live within
the market and either have savings or debt like any other citizen. Or
am I wrong on this account? Are they somehow like Sam in your analogy
and I just don't understand?
I agree with everything else [though not being an economist or really
knowing anything about economics might not mean a lot] like the benefit
of supply side economics benefits mostly the wealthy. My confusion is
that if one gave only minor refunds to the wealthy and huge tax relief
to the poor couldn't you shift the "unfair" advantage on the poor? Give
Bill $6.00, and everyone else $1.00. Bill end up owning 30% of the
wealth and Jim would only own 25% of the wealth.
I thank you if you could clarify this for me because I'm not a fan of
the "trickle down" economic policies of Regan and Bush(es) but from a
theoretical level I don't have a grasp to argue against it in all [or
even most] cases.
Thanks for the feedback. One of the biggest problems with
discussions of economics in this country is that it focuses
almost exclusively on taxes. For the most part there is an
assumption that the system by which people "get money" is
perfectly fair. The reality, however, is that you can't address
taxation until you first address income.
Take all of the flat-tax arguments for example. All of the
arguments in favor of flat-tax based on fairness make the
assumption that the means by which everyone receives an income
is 100% fair in the first place.
Not only can this assumption not be made, but the flat-tax
proponents typically refuse to even engage in a discussion of
incomes, typically calling anyone a communist if they even
question the underlying economic structure. Without going into
too much detail here on this subject I will just point you to
the series I did on capitalism:
As for the room example, I would just say that the example I
gave is meant to illustrate the argument used to convince lower
income people to go along with the large tax cuts for higher
income people. The argument was basically that if everyone gets
something then it doesn't matter if one group gets more than
another, because its still better for everyone. The reality,
however, is that all wealth really is relative, which ironically
is something that we learn from market theory. It was meant to
illustrate that even if everyone gets a tax cut (or money back),
the fact that one cut (or money back) is larger than another can
actually decrease the value of the other cut (or money back).
The claim that "just because the rich get richer at a higher
rate doesn't have any negative affect on the rest of us" simply
is not true on a wide variety of levels. Its not true on a
purely economic level, because value is relative. If you go to
an auction and you have $100 and everyone else has $10,000, then
you aren't going to be able to outbid anyone unless they simply
choose not to try to outbid you. On the other hand, if you go to
the same auction and you have $100 and everyone else has $10,
then you can outbid everyone.
In addition, on a social level there are a wide variety of
implications. Many studies have shown that relative wealth has a
greater influence on happiness than absolute wealth. For
example, if a person has an income of $30,000 a year, but
everyone in their family and their friends have incomes of
$100,000 then they will more likely be unhappy, while if someone
has an income of $30,000 but their friends and family have
incomes of $15,000 then they will tend to be happy.
This says nothing of the political and social implications that
come with dramatic differences in access that arise with
disparities of wealth. The more disposable wealth that people
have the more influence they have on politics, etc, and can
therefore influence society in favor of their interests, both
through politics and private means.
Date: September 23, 2005
I just came over your website and read the "Understanding Capitalism Part
IV: Capitalism and Culture". Very well written and great information
presented. I am wondering how do you find the time to gather all the data
and write those essays? Well, keep on going - I will stop by every once in a
Best regards from NJ,
Thank you for the feedback. It certainly takes a lot of time to
research and write, but I find the time. I read and write fast,
and I don't watch tv much, plus I have studied these issues for
Thank you for the feedback
Date: September 12, 2005
Damn! That's heavy! I have just read one page and I have to get back to
work, but I have bookmarked it so I can continue reading as soon as I
take my next break. Keep up the good work!
From: C. Bride
Date: September 3, 2005
Having just read your May 3, 2005 'blog' with the heading 'Congratulations to the People of Iraq', I felt compelled to write you, and let me first say that I both greatly admire and appreciate your work, so
that I may cut to the chase:
Isn't it a little bit disingenuous, perhaps even
naive, to suggest that these elections are some kind
of positive hallmark moment for the Iraqi people?
Your statement of congratulations seemed to my mind to
be in the vein of a lot of the back-pedalling,
meet-them-halfway peace offering statements I've been
hearing lately from some left-ish people I know. If
not purposefully misleading, then just a white lie
told to oneself in the name of reaching out to the 62
million Americans who voted for Bush2.
It seems to be an attitude of 'well, I didn't want us
in Iraq, but we're there now, so let's make the best
of it.' An effort to 'reach out' to right-wingers in
an effort to find common ground.
This attitude seems to consist of giving Bush2 et al
some kind of 'credit' for 'accomplishments' in Iraq
(for example, these recent Iraqi elections).
I realize you were giving credit to the Iraqi people
directly, but since the election itself is a byproduct
of the Bush2 Iraq plan, by doing so you also give
credit indirectly to Bush2.
So I guess my question is, is it wise to validate what
Bush2 has done in Iraq by recognizing and even
applauding the Iraqi elections? Or more to the point,
do you truly find validity in the Iraqi elections that
transpired? Considering that said elections were
orchestrated by self-interested capitalists (Bush2 and
the people/interests he represents), how can this lead
to anything resembling 'freedom' or independance or
sovereignty? How can this lead to anything positive
for Iraq and its people? Won't Iraq simply become
another example of our master/slave capitalist
relationship with other countries, like Indonesia?
After all, when in history has power or freedom ever
been *given* to people? Surely this election is just
an illusion of power, created in an attempt to sedate
the people of Iraq?
Forgive me if this all seems harsh, I promise you I am
really looking for a response here rather than trying
to hog the soapbox. As I said, I have great respect
for you and in fact, I consider your site to be the
best on the internet as far as political analysis. I
have learned much from this site and appreciate your
listing of sources. I recommend this site to people
all the time. I thank you for your work, and I look
forward to a response from you at your convenience.
You bring up good points, and believe me I am not one who
gives any credit to Bush, but one can only hope that something
good will come of this. I think that one can congratulate the
Iraqis and still maintain, as I do, that war was not the best
way to achieve this goal, and that this timeline and this
approach is not the best approach.
I also like to point out that the right-wingers (the public
citizens) didn't support going into Iraqi to bring freedom to
people, they supported it out of fear and hate, etc.
I would have supported a war of liberation led by an honest and
altruistic leader, but I know that the Republicans would not
I hope the best for Iraqis, but it looks like they are going to
go into a theocracy and women will have fewer rights. Perhaps in
the long run, however, it will be beneficial that they have at
least some kind of democratic framework established, even though
its corrupt and backwards, its better than dictatorship in that
it has better long term potential.
This is no easy subject for sure. I certainly don't have all the
I think that the Bush approach was #1 not the best way to
achieve the results and #2 it was deceptive regardless and his
deceptions can never be defended no mater what the outcome is,
because if the outcome is good then he should have been able to
make a case based on the truth, which he did not do.
No matter what happens, his lies will stand as lies and his
abuse of the American people will always be a source of
Date: August 19, 2005
Just came across your site about 45 min. ago and will admit, at
first glance, the appearance, format, structure had the
characteristics of a potentially qualified, informative blog/opinion
website, and my curiosity was tweaked.
I began, as you suggested, with the "Forward", proceeded through
the "Intro" and then halfway through the "Lies" sections. After
reading the Forward, my initial hope for the above mentioned
qualities, diminished rather quickly. However, I pride myself on
giving time to, and learning all sides of an issue (only makes
for a legit and intelligent person, not to mention fair and
honest, .....at least that's what I think) and continued on
without ease, through the Intro, and like I said, half way
through the Lies section when I just had to stop and give some
quick and short feedback. Please understand that I have every
intention of returning to your site and finish reading it in its
entirety. However, I'm not going to commit to taking the time to
give any more feedback in the future. I may or may not.
Right from the start, I made notes etc. on a tablet as I read.
The 21/2 sections read, produced over 3 pages of notes. Notes
that had very legitimate questions about your "theories,
rhetoric, ( well written and disguised rhetoric I might add) and
points to challenge a number of your "facts". A number of which
were facts, yet your interpretation and ability to so carefully
bend and shape them to fit your beliefs was of concern.
I may or may not come back and provide some of these
questions/explanations I have for you. For taking up your time
and making you read this brief feedback, I should be fair and
come back and provide my opinion. But, I'm sorry I cant commit
to that either.
Reason I cant is that I am so damn exhausted of listening to the
constant rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and downright almost
hysterical dribble from those, who, for whatever reason don't
approve of our President Bush. I am tired of responding to it
over and over is what I am trying to say. It's pointless. But in
short, that is exactly what I got out of simply reading just
21/2 sections-again cleverly written yet disguised rhetoric, the
twisting of facts, and conspiracies. I intend, before I return
to finish reading what you have written to jot down some points
or thoughts where I think you are going to go next regarding
Bush etc. Hopefully you will prove me wrong but my experience
tells me otherwise.
For the record, I am a registered independent. I was a Democrat
for nearly all of my voting years. (43 y/o now) and I voted for
Clinton both terms. Without getting into that, entirely
different issue, I did vote for Bush the second time around
only. There are probably more issues that I am not satisfied or
disagree with Bush than those that i agree with. But I feel
those issues, are or will be irrelevant should Radical Islamic
Fundamentalism continues to spread like it has, and the "TERROR"
that appears to go along with it grows.
Feel free to reply to me via my email if you care too.
Peace to you and God Bless America
First of all, in relation to This War In About So Much More,
keep in mind that I wrote the entire piece over a period of
about 1 month starting on the day that the war started. I
followed-up, edited it and added some content over time, but the
basic content was done and reflects my views during the first
month of the war on Iraq. I’ve made sure not to change anything
that relates to Iraq in the piece since I first wrote it.
Having said that, what do you believe is the more accurate
presentation of the issues revolving around the war in Iraq at
that time: My presentation of information, President Bush’s
presentation of the information, or the major news media’s
presentation of the information?
Basically, going back to March 2003 what has proven to be more
accurate: What I said in 2003, what Bush said in 2003, or the
coverage that you got from the news media in 2003?
would challenge anyone to deny that my presentation of the
situation in 2003 was not the most accurate from among those
That being the case, why?
Incidentally, I ask you why George Bush was so determined to
have John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN?
may have noticed from reading this website that John Bolton was
a member of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC.
Now, the question is, why is it that during the yearlong lead-up
to the war with Iraq that not one single major news organization
even mentioned the PNAC? Why is it that since the start of the
war no major news organization has mentioned the PNAC? Why is
that during the long dragged out Bolton nomination process, when
President Bush clung to Bolton for no reasonable explanation,
with even many members of his own party opposing Bolton, that
the PNAC still wasn’t mentioned in the news?
Is this information completely not relevant? Did the press not
report it because it wasn’t even noteworthy? I don’t think that
anyone would agree that the fact that virtually every major
member of the Bush administration was a member of an
organization that had developed plans for the invasion of Iraq
back in 1998 is not at least newsworthy as a mention.
Doesn’t that seem like it’s at least worth a mention by the
press at a time when the Bush administration was presenting
highly dubious information to support its plan for war?
What This War Is About So Much More is really about is
the American press and popular American perceptions and why it
was so easy for the Bush administration to lie to the American
people and get support for a war based on deception.
The fact that Bush entered into this war
on false premises is a forgone conclusion, that was clear to
anyone paying attention before the war even started. Every
single claim made by the Bush administration during the lead-up
to war had been proven false by the time the war started, every
But, more than anything else, what the war in Iraq really was,
was the most dramatic example of the Bush administration’s
“faith based” policy. Yes, it was faith based all right, because
it sure wasn’t based on facts.
think the Bush administration really did believe a lot of their
own hype. They really did believe that they could win the war
and win the peace in less than 6 months.
wrong and bind can a group of people be, and why in hell are
these people still leading our country? They are obviously
completely out of touch with reality. It’s a proven fact at this
point that either A) the Bush administration is 100% out of
touch with reality, B) the Bush administration knowingly
deceived the American people and lied about everything they said
just to get into the fight, without actually believing that we
could win the peace in 6 months, or C) All of the above.
major claims made by the Bush administration leading up to the
war were: We “know” where the Weapons of Mass Destruction “are”,
and: The war and occupation will take 6 months at the longest.
they lie, or were they really that insane? Choose your poison.
any case, on the day that the war in Iraq started I had already
recorded the facts as they were known at the time, and at the
time the war started it was already known that every major claim
of the Bush administration was false, and I knew good and well
that it wasn’t going to be a 6 month win. I had to sit in this
country every day and listen to the most vile lies and
propaganda coming out of my television day after day for months,
and it sickened me to the core, it upset and it made me fear for
the future of my country.
When an average person who simply pays attention is more correct
than the President of the United States of America and presents
better facts than the major news media, then yeah, you know that
something is wrong.
I have said on this website, you are free to interpret the facts
that I present in ways completely differently than me of course,
but the biggest point is that most of these facts aren’t exposed
at all, one way or the other, in the news or in general society.
Now, as for the war itself, I’m not inherently opposed to it,
and in fact I now support staying in Iraq for as long as it
takes to establish stability. I think it was a mistake to start
the war, but now that it’s started we have an obligation to the
Iraqis to see it through, and all the Americans who were so
gung-ho to go romping and killing people overseas need to see
their obligation through. So many Americans were waving flags
and in love with the idea of going and bombing Iraqis and
killing people, now it’s time to make the real commitment to
war. War isn’t a game, it’s not fun, and not something you go
into on a whim, but yet that’s exactly the attitude that the
majority of this country had in 2003 and I remember it very
well. Where is the party now? Every flag waving American that
supported this war should be forced to send their children to go
fight in it.
People should have done more thinking two years ago. If people
had paid attention to the “lefties” in the first place, who were
basically right about everything, then we wouldn’t be in this
certainly could have supported a war of some kind if it had a
valid purpose, an important objective, was focused on
individuals who were actively a threat to the United States, and
more importantly, if we had been led into it honestly. I’m in
favor of wars of liberation in fact, the problem is that these
types of wars have to be led by sincere and progressive leaders
who really have altruistic motives, and they have to be fully
supported by the public for what they really are.
That’s where so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom went horribly
wrong. The American support for this war was based on fear and
hate, trumped up by lies from the administration, and then,
about one week before the war started, they started playing up
the “liberation” angle. That was never a main focus of the
American public though. The support for the war was based on
nationalism and aggression and bloodlust. People thought it was
going to be cool to see the American military in action “f*ing
Now, however, it’s a real war, where Americans are getting
killed, and the only objective is to try and help protect the
formation of a new democracy. Not so exciting is it? Do we
really want to make sacrifices to help other people? Most
Americans don’t. The war was only fun when it was “Shock and
Another point of interest: every major act of terrorism since
9/11 has been perpetrated by citizens of American allies. The
9/11 bombers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The bombing in
Spain was by people from Morocco and other places. The bombings in London
were from British citizens of Pakistani descent who had
recently visited Pakistan.
anyone from Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan engaged in a terrorist
attack against the West? Nope. Arguably you can make the case
for Afghanistan, but still.
This whole war and campaign is so ill conceived that its mind
blowing, and why is it that everyone on CNN, FOX News, ABC, NBC,
etc, were so gung-ho behind the President in the lead up to war
when he was spouting lies left and right? I think that Amy
Goodman of Democracy Now! said it best when she said, “If this
were State media, how would it be any different?”
that’s what This War Is About So Much More is really about,
it's about the American media and the American public, and why it
is that the American public is so easy to be deceived and
I agree with you about combating Islamic terrorism and religious
fundamentalism, however I think that its completely impossible
to have a religious fundamentalist leader, such as President
Bush, lead a war again religious extremism. I also think that
the Islamic terrorism of today is rooted in real problems that
have been caused in the Middle East by Western powers over the
past 100 years. This is a reaction to real forms of aggression
that the US and Europe have perpetrated on the people of the
Middle East, and until we come to grips with that and
acknowledge it publicly, and work at this from that perspective,
there will never be any solution. And furthermore, Iraq was never a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism until
we launched the war in Iraq.
another note, I have since moved on well past the topic of the
war in Iraq and have written many different articles, which are
actually better sourced and perhaps also better thought out. You
can view these in the Articles section.
Date: April 12, 2005
Have been browsing your site, top class work so far then I came to
the bit about economics.
There is a great deal of truth in what you have to say but you're missing the
major part of the puzzle. The true reason for the growing gap between the rich
and poor is not "supply side" per se, which is a flawed system for certain but
was never really used anyway, but inflation.
There's a reason the founding fathers wanted a gold standard, to prevent your
country doing exactly what it did when it dumped the standard (31 and 77 I
Inflation is NOT a natural part of a capitalist system, it is an entirely
artificial creation, created by increasing the money supply via the federal
(fractional) reserve bank.
It is a form of tax. You nearly got it right with your (absurdly simple) example
of people in a room. 2 points:
1. It is NOT your "share" that counts, it is your purchasing power! It need not
impoverish you if the rich are very rich, likewise making the rich poor does not
All that matters is what you can buy and afford. In that sense reducing the tax
on the wealthy can indeed "trickle down" but in reality the problem is freshly
produced money going to politically connected people first, at full value, then
trickling down to you and me, by which time is has shed much value. Likewise
your savings and current income have lost much value.
They tax you by sucking the purchasing power of your money away by printing more
money, to put it crudely.
This allows foreign adventures and other boondoogles while retaining the claim
of "low taxation".
When you see Greenspan or some other liar talking about "tackling inflation"
just remember there IS no inflation without the government producing it! Think
about it, all prices in a free market economy go DOWN as efficiency and
technology advance. Fast moving industries do indeed move fast, so fast that
even the government's theft fails to hide this fact. Can you imagine a world
where computer power was going UP in price? Yet we accept that for baked beans
or autos the price is "naturally" going up?
It's THE biggest lie of the state by far.
That's the whole point of the gold standard, to prevent the state from doing
When you say there is no school of thought that really works, I must disagree.
The Austrian school, very politically incorrect and much hated by the
government, is true economics. Yes it's free market - REAL free market,
condemning pretty much anything the government does, because anything the
government does is harming the economy - and invariably in ways that benefit the
rich and politically connected. The Austrian school predicted the 30's crash,
while other schools still argue over something they failed to predict.
Likewise a major part of Austrian School economics is that you CANNOT use any
form of "scientific method" because you are not dealing with science, you are
dealing with people, who cannot be predicted.
This was explained in intense depth in Mises 1000 page book "Human Action",
arguably the best book on economics ever written (if a hard-to-read book can be
To give you an idea of how you cannot use "science" when dealing with human
fads, fancies, fears and so on, consider the fact you can put the same person in
the same situation twice and get 2 different results, depending on their mood
No hard science can cope with it and even if somehow a magic science could, it
cannot do what economics should do, improve the human condition. If I WANT
cheese then no model that gives me peanut butter is working, is it?
Also consider this, you give graphs showing "1997 dollars".
There's no such thing as a measurable "1997 dollar".
How do you measure it? Spose you say "in 1997 you could buy 1 pound of cheese
for $1". Great, so then you say "Today a pound of cheese costs $1.26, thus the
rate of inflation is.."
There may be more cheese on the market or more cheese lovers buying it or more
cattle/milk available or a cheaper way of making cheese or cheaper
transportation or cheaper advertising or more expensive packaging..
1997 cheese is not 2005 cheese.
Likewise if cheese is $1.26 what does that say about a $1000 computer that is
now $599? Has the dollar gone down.. or up?
Again, HOW do you measure it? Take cheese again, you're measuring the SAME
AMOUNT OF CHEESE! "But I gave the price.." you might say. OK, what's the price?
The price is the AMOUNT OF MONEY, IE DOLLARS.
How on Earth can you measure dollars with.. money?
As one Austrian school economist put it, "that's like taking the thermometer
with a temperature"!
Inflation is by far the biggest con job of governments and America, having the
reserve currency (for now) is the biggest offender.
You can see this is a detailed subject that cannot be covered in a page or two
of a website, so allow me to make a suggestion?
Remove the economics section completely, skip it.
For a start you will find yourself dealing with ideology and people wont change
their views just on your site. Republicans claim to be in favor of the free
market - few things are further from the truth! But that page will kill your
credibility with soft republicans who fail to understand the Bush and indeed all
administrations are strongly anti the free market.
Seriously, I LOVE your website but skip the economics bit, it's your weak spot
and it's un-necessary.
Just whack em with the truth, there's plenty of it!
Thanks for the feedback.
Actually, the "gold standard" has nothing to do with the
founding fathers. In fact, the Continental currency wasn't
backed by anything, and was fiat currency. This led to huge
inflation problems during the Revolutionary War with rates of
inflation of hundreds of percent.
States also issued currency as well, which also had major
Due to this, almost all of the early banks in America failed.
America used mostly Spanish gold coins, other foreign money,
gold and tobacco for currency for the first 100 years. Barter
was also common.
The "gold standard" was adopted as a part of the creation of the
Federal Reserve. Prior to that, there were many different forms
of money, issued by different types of banks, that had different
types of backing, or no backing at all.
The US economy was plagued by currency inflation throughout its
early history until the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Secondly, the Gold Standard simply makes no economic sense. The
idea was a holdover from the old British mercantile days. Gold
itself is just another form of currency. There are many problems
with using gold as a currency, but the biggest problem with a
gold standard is that it is an arbitrary limitation on the size
of the economy. Basically, your money supply becomes limited by
the amount of gold that your country can obtain.
This is an arbitrary measure.
The only reason that the US was able to use the gold standard at
all was because the US had the largest supply of gold in the
world during the late 1800s and early 1900s because of gold
finds in the newly discovered territories. Those were one time
finds, that just happened to be large enough to correspond to
the size of the US economy at that time.
Eventually, though, the US economy outgrew the gold supply and
the standard became impossible to maintain.
Money is just a representative of value. Gold, when it is used
to back money, then also becomes a representative of other
value. If you don't have enough gold to represent all of the
value in the system, then you have a constraint on the economy.
The only "real" value is in the actual goods and services that
In addition, there are many forms if inflation, and not all
forms of inflation are related to the money supply.
There is cost/push inflation, demand/pull inflation, and there
is monetary inflation. Monetary inflation results from the "over
printing" of money. However, demand/pull inflation results when
demand increases at a rate faster than supply. Cost/push
inflation results when the cost of production increases.
Share is extremely important in an economy because all value is
relative. All value is relative to other goods and services. The
more equal shares in an economy are, the more "democratic" the
market is, and thus the more "free" the market is. A "free
market" is truly only a theoretical concept. A 100% free market
would only exist if every individual in a market had a
completely equal share of resources. Any disparity of resources
creates market pressures, which, by definition, disrupt the free
market condition by influencing prices via extraneous factors.
What you can "afford to buy" depends on what other people can
afford to buy. If you go to an auction with $100 and everyone
else at the auction has $1,000,000, then you aren't going to be
able to afford to buy anything that the other people want to
buy. If, however, you go to an auction with $100 and the other
people all have $10, then you can afford to buy any item of your
choice at the auction. The balance of the market is dependent
upon relative shares of actors in the market.
The more unequal the shares, the "less free" the market.
Hence the reason that capitalism naturally destroys free markets
due to capital concentration. This is a part of the paradox of
capitalism. The functioning of the system is dependant upon
conditions that the system itself undermines.
All prices do not go down in a "free market" because #1 free
markets don't really exist, and #2 prices can go up, as I said,
when demand exceeds supply or when the cost of production
increases, which can be for a variety of reasons.
Date: April 6, 2005
Dear Rational Revolution, I came upon your site
when researching the detrimental effects of capitalism on the
environment and must say that I was immediately interested. My
favorite part is the "rational" in the title. So often people,
revolutionaries, dissidents, whoever... go crazy with it (which
is easy to do when one is passionate about something) and buy
into the same propaganda they're against with the only
difference being the side that the propaganda is on. But here is
a site where the articles are clear, well supported and
researched, and are most about presenting the actual facts than
shoving phrases and slogans down people's throats. It's very
effective. If you have any plans or suggestions for
mobilization...count me in. -Mary
Thanks for the feedback Mary. I don't have any plans for
anything at the moment other than just trying to continue to
educate, spread information, and challenge people's assumptions.
Something I can certainly recommend though is to just get out
there and at least try to meet likeminded people, if its through
local clubs, or through things like Meetup.com, it does good to
make contacts and build a community.
Date: February 25, 2005
Thank you for your excellent articles on capitalism and
its effects. So much information packed in a clear style.
It's a shame you don't apply academic tools of exact source
references. These would make your articles more useful for
students (and even for scholars) at least in the field of
literary and cultural studies, where I come from.
By the way, there's a short description at your feedback site,
cited below, which I find informative (even if it's a little
messy). I realize it is a synthesis of many sources (as your
articles tend to be), but is there any you would especially
mention? (Well, I think there's several hundred pages of Marx
All the best,
Thanks for the feedback. As for sources, I have had several
people bring up this point. So far I have to plead laziness. I
will get around to using a formal bibliography eventually.
for the description of capitalism, I believe you are referring
to my reply to the September 17th post by Jeff. Yes, it was an
off the cuff reply, and thus a little messy, and yes there are
shades of Marx in the analysis, but that history of the
development of capitalism isn't refuted by anyone. Exact
"definitions" of capitalism do very between people, and there
are typically political motivations behind the definitions. The
Marxist view recognizes capitalism to have developed a bit later
than some other views, which associate capitalism more with the
trading practices of the Dutch. I find that highly misleading,
because, first of all, the term "capitalism" was really brought
into use by Karl Marx in the first place. Marx wasn't THE first
person to ever use the term, but it was not used by anyone until
the 1800s and it was always used in a negative way, by people
who opposed the system. This is an irony, because the term
"capitalism" was really made popular by Marx and other
anti-capitalists. The term capitalism, when used by its original
developers, was used to describe a system based on the private
ownership and consolidation of capital.
economists downplay that aspect of capitalism and focus on "free
trade" saying that the defining feature of our system is "free
markets" and trade. The problem here is that one can easily have
free trade without having "capitalism". In fact, Karl Marx spoke
often in favor of free trade. Free trade isn't a distinguishing
factor of any economic system. In fact, as Marx pointed out, it
is often capitalists (consolidators of capital) who oppose "free
trade". Free trade, in the capitalist system, is opposed or
promoted by different individuals based on how it impacts their
interests. Capitalists who have a lot invested in domestic
production often support tariffs and regulation of trade in
order to promote their interests, while those that can't get a
foot hold in the domestic production market, often go outside
the country to find "cheaper" places to produce in undeveloped
labor markets and then promote "free trade" in order to leverage
their position. So, the issue of trade is a matter of how
capitalists compete with each other, its not a defining feature
of the system.
Free trade is also opposed by nationalists, who
seek to maintain national superiority over other countries. This
is another reason why Marxists support free trade, because
Marxists seek global unification and equality, and thus want
free trade to break down national boundaries.
In regard to my
analysis and description of economics, I rely on a knowledge of
many schools of economics, including Classical, Marxist,
Keynesian and Neoclassical economics. There are strengths and
weaknesses in all of these schools of thought, and I do pull
from all of them for my interpretation of economics. I also
think that all of these schools of economics are insufficient
given our current knowledge of biology and behavioral evolution.
All of these economic system of philosophically based social
studies, and its time to move on to science based analysis.
Date: February 11, 2005
Excellent work. I have read all of the articles on your
site and they are outstanding. Your opinions are right on
and you do an incredible job backing up your points with facts.
I really enjoyed the articles on FDR and fascism. Its
helpful I think, to take a look back throughout the 20th century
to get an idea of where this country may be heading(though
exactly where we are heading I am still not sure). Your
articles on Bush, Iraq, and the Project for the New American
Century were very informative. I went to the PNAC website
and downloaded their Sept. 2000 publication Rebuilding America's
Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century.
In it I read this about American global military domination,
"The process of transformation is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl
Harbor". This was one year before 9-11 and Bush immediately used
the situation to start implementing the plans of the PNAC.
It is amazing to me that no one have mentioned PNAC to has ever
heard of them. Why is this? I have a couple questions for
you. First off you are highly critical of capitalism but
what system of government do you think would be best, socialism?
Second, where do you think this country is going and where will
it be in coming decades. It doesn't look too bright to me.
I don't see how our way of life will be maintained. Is
there anything I am missing? What would you recommend for
this country? And finally do you have any right-wing
people in your family? How do you deal with them? I
am constantly subjected to the ignorant, hate filled, right-wing
propaganda spewed by my in-laws. How do you possible argue
with people who make outrageously ignorant statements such as
Iraq attacked us first(9-11) and sit around quoting Bush("Stay
the course", "Fight them there so we don't fight them here").
How does an intelligent guy like you deal with living in one of
the most politically ignorant countries in the world? Anyway I
love your site, I recommended it to my friends and they love it
as well. Thank you for the work you are doing, it is
Michael, Boston MA
Date: January 10, 2005
I stumbled across your site a while ago looking for information
about disparity in income of America, and have since found your
articles to be extremely engrossing and informative on a level
that has not shown itself anywhere else. Therefore, I
would like to point you to an article that a conservative person
I know has claimed is a product of the "damned liberals".
Perhaps in the next article you write you might want to shed
more light on this subject than this article did. Again, thank
you for writing such enjoyable and informative articles. It is
practically cathartic to read these ideas I have floating in my
head combined into a cohesive argument.
this is the link:
I wouldn't be too concerned with that article one way or another.
The Heritage Foundation is an ultra-libertarian, "free market",
type foundation that defines "economic freedom" in its own
specific way, that many other people may not agree with. In
actuality it would be considered by most people in common
political language to be a "right-wing" institution, so its
definitely not a product of the "liberal media".
The whole analysis from beginning to end has problems with it, so
its kind of hard to discuss. One of the interesting points is
that they talk about how other countries are "throwing off the
shackles of big government spending", and of course these
countries have a huge advantage because they are not
There is an inherent cost to being a "superpower", which is
something that Americans need to realize.
Its funny because "conservatives" are the ones who WANT to be a
"superpower" and they also complain about taxes and government
spending. Well, guess what, I'd be willing to bet that the cost
of being the world's only "superpower" alone accounts for a 10%
tax burden on the public. The military, diplomatic,
humanitarian, financial costs, etc of being #1 isn't small. The
question is, of course, is the benefit worth more than the cost?
When you look at their top 5 "countries" (Hong Kong is not a
country, its a city inside a country) you notice that none of
them are even close to having to deal with the kinds of issues
that America has to deal with, few of them even have militaries.
The other thing you notice is that most of the countries ranked as
"free" are far more "liberal" than America, and most are what is
called "welfare states".
Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Canada, Finland, and Netherlands are all
welfare state systems.
The UK, and Australia are both semi-comparable to the US, and both
have much more liberal economic policy, liberal in the American
sense of the word. Aside from the war issue, the UK's Labor
Party is left of the American Democrats.
Hong Kong and Luxembourg don't really count because both of those
places are so small. Their economies are only made possible
because they simply serve as brokers for foreign capital. They
are small dependant regions that set themselves up as places
where international business can be easily conducted, thereby
generating a high volume of traffic within their boarders, which
enables them to use lower taxes to generate high government
income. These are not self-sufficient systems, or systems that
can be modeled by other large countries.
If we set up our system like Hong Kong it would be a nightmare,
and besides, Hong Kong regulates the prices of a lot of
commodities, including the cost of housing.
What places like Hong Kong and Luxembourg actually do is hurt the
normal economies and allow international businessmen to make
huge profits at a cost to the working classes in producer
countries by diverting large volumes of economic traffic away
from producer countries.
Hong Kong is a city, so for example, if they can attract 10 times
more foreign capital into their region than the inhabitants
have, then they can reduce their taxes by 9 times and then still
collect more taxes than if they didn't have these "low burden"
policies. It only works though because they can attract a huge
amount of capital from China, Europe, America, etc. into one
tiny little region. If the whole world followed Hong Kong's
lead, the effect wouldn't be even remotely the same as what we
see in Hong Kong, it would be a disaster.
Date: December 30, 2005
I really like your site, particularly about the New Deal and
fascism, and your discussion about political categories, and the
Nolan chart specifically. I learned a lot.
It's good to know that someone is taking Libertarianism
seriously, particularly as a challenge to an accurate
understanding of reality. I mean that there are a lot of people
who are accepting the Libertarian chart as an accurate
representation of political positions. It's difficult trying to
convince them that communism and fascism are at opposite ends of
the political spectrum. Your article might work on
them, or at least give them something to think about.
I just read your article about the Red and Blue states, and found
Thank you for the feedback. The biggest problem that people
have with understanding the difference between communism and
fascism is the overly simplistic American view that all
government action is inherently the same, which of course is
nonsense. Stalinism itself created many other problems, since
Stalinism abandoned so many of the fundamental principles of the
Communist movement. I would agree, however, that in practice the
system of the U.S.S.R. did resemble fascism in many superficial
Date: September 17, 2004
Your ignorence on economics is overwhelming. I can only
assume that you consider yourself to be an academic; smarter
than the greedy bastards who only strive for money. It is
evident that you do not have any concept of economics; the
generation of wealth, the reinvestment of that wealth, the
distribution of income, the rate of unemployment and the
correlation between the growth of investment capital and the
capability enhancement that comes with with such growth of
capital. In order to explain your econimical theory,
especially considering the "trickle down' effect, one must
travel back in time to the pre-Renaissance merchantile economic
thought and even then it was the trickle down of the ruling
European nations through the purchase f luxury goods, not food,
that enabled the rising merchant class to provide for the
employment of the society once the capital investment of the
Catholic Church ceased. The growth of capital is imperative
to enhancement of mankind's growth of capability enhancements
and substantive freedoms here and around the world and when the
capital is tied up in the distribution channels (ie-tax).
The fall of monarchies is directly related to the reliance of
the people on the promises of governments who then in turn tie
up all growth capital into social safety-nets thus elimating the
ability to provide their subjects with the "freedoms" that the
state had promised. In your essesment of trickle down you
come to the assumption that all "rich" people hide their money
under their beds (like most "poor" people) thus hoarding the
income and distorting the income distribution. Consider
this: "those with incomes over $200k have 18% less cash on hand
than those with incomes between $25-100k. The reinvestment
of capital by the top 2% provides in excess of $20 trillion to
the GDP. If the top 2% locked up their capital in
self-interest like the other class I mentioned, unemployment
would stand at close to 20% and the beta of incomes could go to
18-20. This is something that's not taught in philosophy
or history." -Greenspan. I am glad that you have taken the
liberty of self exploration of your intellectual capabiltiies
but once you believe in conspiracy, your bias towards rebellion
distorts your view of the true facts that often go both ways.
Please, on account of all who get it, don't try to explain
something that you have no training in. Incorrect
information and uneducated opinions poison the spread of the
I suggest you read this before commenting on my knowledge of
economics, or lack thereof:
Economy Web- Understanding Capitalism
I think that I know a little something of capitalism and the
role of capital.
Regarding the history of capitalism: Merchants are people who
exchange commodities and are involved in trade. That's not
capitalism. Merchants don't own capital. Capital is the tools
and machinery that are used to create products, i.e. property
that is used to produce value ("the means of production").
In the feudal system the merchants didn't own the means of
production, the craftsmen did. The craftsman produced goods, and
then sold the goods to the merchants, who then traded the goods
with different regions and sold the goods from foreign regions.
The mercantile economy was one in which individuals still owned
and operated the means of production.
The Merchant class did evolve into the capitalist class because
merchants acquired wealth and then used that wealth to begin
buying, owning, and controlling the full chain of production so
that instead of simply buying
goods from different craftsman from different regions and then
selling those goods for profit, they were able to maximize
profits by owning the entire chain of production itself so
instead of paying a premium to craftsmen for
their independent labor, they instead acquired the products at
production costs instead of the marked up cost of the craftsman.
The craftsman produced goods and then sold them for his own
The merchant had to pay this profit margin for the craftsman.
As merchants became capitalists they instead employed workers to
create products for them directly, paying them a wage instead of
buying products from them, they instead bought their labor
power, and were able to get the
products produced at a lower cost.
This was the first step in the development of capitalism.
Then, the capitalists began to use their money to create factories
and such to increase efficiency and make the cost of production
Capitalists then owned major means of production and employed
thousands of workers each.
This is what a capitalist is, and how capitalism formed.
The fall of monarchies had nothing at all to do with social safety
nets. The "socially conscious" state didn't develop until the
20th century, in both fascist and socialist forms. The
monarchies were overthrown by liberals at a time when there was
also lesser need for social safety nets in the first place. The
American founders certainly didn't institute any social safety
nets, and they continued to practice slavery as well. Napoleon
did institute some minor social safety nets, but nothing major
at all. The establishment of a Constitutional Monarchy in
Britain didn't see the rise of social programs either. The
Germans were the first to develop a modern social security
system, well after the monarchs had been cast aside.
Monarchies were thrown over by liberalism and lassiez-fair
I certainly don't insinuate that the wealthy hide their money
under the bed, I specifically discuss the role of capital gains
income, and for your information, poor people don't hide money
under the bed, they spend it as fast as it hits their pockets.
If and when they do hide it under the bed they get no return on
Your statements about the top 2% are a really funny joke though,
because you make it sound like investing is a charity! LOL!
Investing IS DONE in self interest, which is... ummm... the
whole point behind the system so says the developers of the
Secondly though, "poor people" certainly aren't "locking their
money up", they are spending it. As evidenced by
this Depart of the Treasury information:
Income Class -
Expenditure to Income Ratio
Less than $10,000 - 2.07
$10,000 to $20,000 - 1.31
$20,000 to $30,000 - 1.08
$30,000 to $40,000 - 0.91
$40,000 to $50,000 - 0.85
$50,000 to $75,000 - 0.80
$75,000 to $100,000 - 0.70
$100,000 or More - 0.67
Thirdly, the GDP doesn't measure anything other than activity.
Both positive and negative activity register the same in the GDP
figures, so that when a hurricane hits a state and destroys a
lot of property GDP measures everything as a gain and ignores
the loss. Likewise, as the divorce rates in America go up this
results in more economic activity, and thus a rise in the GDP.
As more people suffer from mental illness, depression, and
anxiety, guess what, this causes the GDP to go up due to more
use or prescription drugs, therapists, doctors, etc.
GDP simply measures activity, it doesn't measure progress. Its
like the difference between measuring the miles a car puts on
its odometer (GDP) vs. the distance a car has traveled towards a
destination (progress). One car may travel 100 miles going
around in a circle and another car may travel 20 miles in the
direction of its destination. The car that went 20 miles in the
right direction is better off than the one that traveled around
the block over and over again for 100 miles.
GDP is a nonsense measure that was developed for use during the
FDR administration to measure how the state-directed economy was
functioning. It made limited sense then because the economy was
being directed in a certain way, thus by inference they
assumed that GDP was also measuring progress in the direction
that they were directing. Now there is much less direction and
GDP is increasingly useless.
Cash on hand is a useless measure as well. Wealthy people use
American Express, Money Market accounts, etc. Why you or
Greenspan would even bring up this statistic I am not sure.
The top 2% couldn't "lock up their capital in self interest"
because it isn't in their self interest to do so. "Locked up
capital" isn't making money, in fact its technically not even
capital unless it is making money. The whole point of investing
is to get a return on investment. If they pull their money out
of markets they stop receiving income from it. Likewise, if the
working class stops working the wealthy also stop receiving an
income from it, because all "investment income" is a tax on
labor. Money does not make money, only labor creates new value,
which is then represented by money, which is then transferred
from the workers to the property owners. That's simply how it
works, and is, in fact, why it is completely impossible for
wealth to "Trickle Down". Wealth trickles up. All wealthy are
dependant on those below them to do work, which all ultimately
supports the wealthiest members of society, who are completely
dependant on the working class for their existence.
"Who" invests is somewhat meaningless from the perspective of
industry. If the money invested in "the markets" come from the
top 2% or it comes from the bottom 90% it makes no difference,
$20 trillion is $20 trillion. By your accounting, if one man in
America comes to own 90% of all the wealth in the country, and
of this wealth he has 99% of it invested, you will stand up and
defend this situation by telling everyone to be thankful that
this one person who owns and controls everything is allowing us
all to use his money.
You have fallen into the very trap of the situation, and have
bought into the fear mongering of the right. The problem is,
just as I stated in my article on Trickle Down economics, that
the more wealthy the wealthy become, the more our economy is
dependant upon them, and the more a few people control the
economy, and then the more leverage those few people have on our
entire society. You've already simply accepted this fact. "Well,
the top 2% have all the leverage, so... we better get out of
The way the system is going, it won't be long until the top 1%
controls that $20 trillion, and then the top 0.5%, and then the
top 0.1%, etc. Ownership of industry is becoming increasingly
consolidated, people are becoming increasingly disenfranchised,
and you are just the first line of defense for the oligarchs.
The only thing that has made the system appear to work has been
the trade deficit with China, India and Mexico etc. Its just
basically selling America out, using the wealth that was built
up in this country between WWII and the 1970s as a reserve from
which to fuel massive consumerism in a non-producing society,
but we are basically just living off the seed corn. We aren't
planting much, and what we do plant we consume immediately.
Between WWII and the early 80s hard work was being done and people
were living off the crops that were grown and putting aside some
seed corn to boot. Then came Reaganomics and the rich got their
eyes on that big store of seed corn. Well, of course deficit
spending went into effect, outsourcing went into full swing, and
the rich have opened up the silos and flooded the streets with
the seed corn. Oh yeah, it all seems great, more corn, less
work, what's not to love. And while everyone is busy gobbling up
the seed corn, the rich are busy buying up their farms, erecting
barbed wires fences, and consolidating power. Of course they
want increased globalization, but not because they are
cosmopolitan minded humanists, but because they know good and
well they are screwing America and they need to get their base
of capital out of the country and they need to establish new
markets because this one is about to turn to shit when the seed
corn is all eaten up (which isn't too far off BTW).
Over the past 20 years we have begun the program of forfeiting
this country's future in order to make a few people super rich
And BTW, Greenspan also said that capitalism is falling apart from
too much corporate corruption too, so don't forget that :p
From: Doug Johnson
Date: August 24, 2004
Congratulations on your site and efforts to establish
Professional Democracy in the United States. More and more
Americans need to be visible on Labor Day weekend in
demonstrations asserting a third party voice in our American
political affairs. We cannot continually be dragged down
by the immorality, incompetence and expensive mediocrity that
our two parties have brought upon us. Americans can
communicate directly to their civil servants and establish
national forums with ideas for a cost efficient government that
works. We do not need to surrender our authority to biased
representatives. If third parties and independent
political activists unite, the voice if perhaps seventeen
million Americans (estimate of voters who do not like the two
party oligarchy) can introduce progressive change, like a
Bull Moose party or other third party movements of the past.
Our politics are obsolete and they cost blood and money, perhaps
greater social and economic dangers lie ahead without our
compassionate and creative participation in a broader democracy.
Let logic and love for humanity prevail.
Third parties have certainly played a more progressive role in
America in the past: prior to WWII. After WWII American politics
was greatly homogenized, however the American political system
is effectively incapable of supporting any kind of serious third
party because of how it is setup. Though there are some good
aspects of the American political system, such as the scheduled
elections every 4 years, there are also many many problems, some
of which are just a product of our old and outdated political
model and some of which are intentional constructs of the ruling
parties. It would surprise many Americans to know that there are
a great number of countries in the world with much more open
democratic system than America. These democracies were all
created after America of course, but because of that they also
have more modern practices and rules that encourage more
fairness and openness. This is why so many democracies around
the world don't just have three major parties, but in fact many
democracies have a dozen or more major parties who regularly win
Date: June 27, 2004
Dear Mr. Geoff:
I want to acknowledge that I appreciate your articles and your
I commend your efforts and am thankful that you have written and
researched your work. Please do not be discouraged by the
many in the world who simply cannot respect what you have
written. It is the balance of
views, evidence, and perspective that help maintain truth, and
help weed out mediocrity, complacency, and
evil which overwhelmingly consumes the majority in blinding and
lightening fast fashion.
Many of your articles confirm views that I have gathered,
experienced, and studied. It is mind boggling at how
accurate most of your analyses is. Many people who are not from
the region where you and I live and who have not traveled and
lived around North America and abroad as extensively as us may
have become blind to the reality of self-evident and
evidence-based truths, that are simply too shocking for them to
accept in their closed-minded idealized, less informed
perspective of things.
I hope you gain all the strength in the world to continue in your
endeavors. Your efforts are noble and worthy. Your
contribution is substantial and worthy of an éclat!
You help bring us back to a time of revolutionary and fundamental
democratic principles, proselytized by the
great philosophers, thinkers, and founders of this nation of
Thomas Paine, John Locke, and others.
I am confident I speak for many.
Carry on, dear chap!
Thank you for the feedback. Don't worry about me, I'm not
discouraged by much :p Living in the South certainly provides a
valuable perspective on American culture I think, but I also
like to make it clear that I am from the South to dispel
Southern stereotypes as well, and so that other progressive
people from the South can know that they aren't the only ones
I'm actually currently working as a research assistant on a
book with award winning author Edwin Black about Iraq, which is
due to be out soon. I will have more info on that when the book
I also have an article planned that will discuss John Locke and
how many of the ideologies of John Locke and Adam Smith have
been greatly twisted by so-called "conservative" thinkers. Its
amazing how many people claim that their views are shared by
John Locke, I wonder if half of them have even read anything
Date: June 8, 2004
Hey I liked your article on American Tax. I thought it was well
written fairly balanced, a hint of distain for republicans, but
overall intresting. The rest of the articles I read were
horribly biased, if you are going to claim that you are merely
presenting facts you should find someone with generally opposing
views to you and have them help keep you rational as your
website implies! I couldn't read all your articles some were
just too much like a "rant". I found it strange that you out of
hand dismiss anyones opinion if this person is a person of
faith. I think you called it "religious escapism" and anyone who
has a belief stemming from religion is in a fantasy world. I am
not a person of faith myself but I think that people of faith
are just as rational as anyone in their views. Next topic, how
come there is almost zero bashing for democratic politicians?
There really should be. You know they are just as big a part of
the "ruling elite" in america as any republican. The Paradox of
Democratic Capitalism was somewhat intresting except I think
your blame of capitalism was misplaced. The fact that division
of labor has become so specialized is due to the sheer amount of
technology out there now. There has always been a BUTCHER, a
BAKER, a CANDELSTICK MAKER(this is division of labor) but during
these times you weren't also expected to be a sowtware engineer,
certified electritian, account, auto-mechanic just to be self
sufficient. Again, the Tax paper was intresting read, the rest
of what I read was WAY to opinionated to hold any weight. Maybe
you could hire an editor, OMG no not more division of labor!
Thanks for the feedback Eric. There is of course general
distain for Republican politicians in my articles, because
Republican politicians are certainly a big part of the problems
facing America and the world today. While you may not have read
my comments about Democrats I have certainly been critical of
them as well, mostly President Clinton who simply continued the
Supply-Side policies of the Reagan era. Also, I plan on getting
around to bashing the Democrats more, in fact I do so in a piece
I am currently working on. This website was started as a
reaction to the Bush administration and thus that was the
primary initial direction.
"Bias" is a somewhat subjective term. I consider essentially
everything in the major media to be extremely biased. You are
only seeing my so-called bias in relation to the more accepted
popular biases of our society. If you can point out anything
that is factually incorrect then please do so. The fact that
many of the facts that I present on this website are not a part
of our common culture and common knowledge is only
representative of the popular bias in our society. My discussion
of thee facts is not my bias, the lack of discussion of these
facts is our society's bias.
Some of my articles are rants. There is a mix of opinion pieces
and more journalistic pieces.
If religious views were just as rational as non-religious views
then why aren't you religious? Certainly you are not a person of
faith because of some level of rationality that goes above and
beyond that of "believers."
As for the division of labor, the whole point of that article
was pointing out the paradox of the situation. Division
of labor is increasing and cannot but increase as society
becomes more complex. Socialists attempt to counter the negative
effects that division of labor has on society with education and
cultural programs. These may be of some value, but I didn't
discuss those considerations in that piece; its mostly a piece
to get people thinking on their own.
Date: May 2004
Wow. Your article did not address any of the statements brought
up by Mr. O'Neil. You just tried to slime him by saying he does
business with a country that is trying to rebuild itself. Is
that the best you can do? Pretty pathetic. Maybe you should try
another venture like actually creating something tangible that
helps people or the environment. But I guess that kind of work
might get your pale white hands dirty. Sadly, Julie Freeman
Beverly Hills, CA
I am not sure what you are talking about, because I only
address an "O'Neil" (Paul O'Neill) in one place on this website
and that is in the "Introducing the Bush Admin" page that is a
part of "This War is About So Much More" That page was written
in April of 2003 and was just a quick listing of people in the
Bush cabinet and a few quick facts about them. I have left that
page essentially "as is" since the time it was written for
historical purposes. Other than that the only references to an
"O'Neil" that I made to Paul O'Neill are in references made to
his comments when he came out against the Bush administration,
though I never discuss O'Neill himself in any way, generally
because there is too much else to write about. So... as with
many of the other comments left here, I'm at a loss as to what
to make of this comment. I assume you are talking about Paul
O'Neill. If so, the brief comments I made about him don't say
anything about him trying to do business with other countries
anyway, so I'm not even entirely sure what you are talking
|From: Jim Stone
Date: May 2004
Pretty much everything , from the ultimate truth to the most
outrageous lie has been written . What we believe is what makes
us what we are. Readers, don't believe any of this bull shit.
What you believe may "make you who you are", but what you
believe does not make reality what it is. If you don't believe
in reality then who "you are" is someone who does not believe in
Date: May 2004
How in the hell can you put out so much bull shit? What is
wrong with you? Where are you from? Why do you hate the US?
do u wanna be in our bored movie!!!!!!!!!!! Cos that fully
describes your CRUDDY ESSAY!!!!!!!
How do you define "casualty"? Is it death or wounded? In
Putting American Casualties in Perspective, World War I has 7.8
million Military personnel for Austria. However, the number of
deaths (1.2 M and Military casualties of 7.02 M, total 8.2 M)
exceeds the number of military. How can you have more military
fatalities than you have in the military?
Deaths are a subset of casualties. Casualties include all dead
and wounded. The 1.2M is a part of the 7.02M.
Date: March 2004
I came across a link to your site on IIDB.
I must say, I'm really amazed at the sheer amount of original,
well thought out content. What I've read so far I've enjoyed a
lot. Thanks for your efforts!
Why the Hell are you using websites, which is pretty much a
pro-North Korean agency set up in South Korean, and therefore
backed by the dictator there who OPPRESSES THE PEOPLE as
"legitamite sources". I read your articles, even with some
belief, until I read your sources. You people - for all your
intents and purposes - abhore one side for being extremist and
irrational, while quickly using facts directly supported by the
other. A "rational revolution" this is not! I cannot believe you
on what you right anymore because I doubt the legitamacy of some
of your sources which you claim. I cannot accept that you would
use some form of hypocricy to justify you actions. I do not feel
that what you are doing is any more right then the extremist
idealogues that we see taking over the Republican party.
I have no idea where the above comment is coming from, as I
have no articles at all on this website even dealing with North
or South Korea, though I probably should. I am certainly not
pro-Kim Jong Il or Kim Il Jong, and I have no idea what was read
on this website that would give that impression, or what
websites are being referred to. As for the articles listed on my
articles page, I have many listed there which present opinions
that I am opposed to, I am simply presenting them because I
think they are important. I'm still curious as to what
"pro-North Korea" links I have on this website. As far as I
know, I have none, and if I do, I will remove them. Please
identify them for me if you would.
Very impressive expansion/improvement to this site since I last
visited - bravo! How are the impeachment proceedings going? Oh,
and a note to rude poo-poohers that trash this site on the
comments board: you are ill and afraid - I hope you get well!
Pick a point or two on which you disagree, and REFUTE it using
EVIDENCE, LOGIC, and REASON. And then, provide a SOUND ARGUMENT
to support YOUR position. If you are not willing to do that, you
are just farting in the wind and embarrassing America even more
than it already is! GP is right, the time has come when
civilized people should refuse to tolerate lies, stupidities,
and the stupidity of the liars' cheerleaders who do not adhere
to the most BASIC principles of 2-way communication.
The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Marxism
I suggest you read a book called "The God of the Machine" by
Isabel Paterson. Aside from the few references to God that are
scattered through the book, which can be safely ignored, this
book is a perfect logical and historical refutation of nearly
everything you believe. Marxism is dead. Learn why, and get your
head into this century.
Ehh... there are thousands of so-called refutations of Marxism,
and I have a number of criticisms of Marxism myself. I'm not
going to mount a defense of Marxism here so I guess there is
nothing more to say.
|From: Elijah Craig
You wrote: It’s important to note that communism and Marxism
are not the same things. Communism is based on Marxist ideology,
but the two are not the same thing. It’s important to make this
distinction because Marxist ideology is extremely significant
and useful in understanding the human condition, history, and
the geopolitical situation.
My comments: What does this mean? I don't understand why you
say "communism" and "marxism" are not the same.
"Marxism" is a system of analysis, a philosophy, a way to view
the world. Communism is a social and economic system that is
based on the idea of cooperative organization of people for the
mutual benefit of all mankind. Not all communists are Marxists,
not all Marxists are communists. So for example the difference
between Marxism and Communism could be said to be similar to the
difference between "Post-Modernism" and "Capitalism".
Post-Modernism is a way to view things, Capitalism is an
implementation of an economic system.
|From: Carol Seaton
What you have done is excellent, however, you are missing
vitally important information about military technology and its
relationship to the 1958 National Defense Education Act that
began preparing us for the New World Order. Without this
information your opinion of education is lacking knowledge of
what means to defend our democracy in the classroom, by
preparing every individual citizen to do so, and thereby making
the present police impossible.
I hold a copy of the 1917 National Education Association
Conference and I can blow your mind with the information that is
in it and my old books on German history. We have adopted the
bureaucracy and education of the New World Order, and I would do
anything to get this information to you if you think you can use
it. Industry, National Defense and Education sat on the same
board for the first time when we mobilized for the first world
war, but not until the military technology of second world war,
did our national defense depend on an economy supporting a very
expensive military force capable of dominating the world,
instead of national defense depending on patroitic citizens. We
have been educating for the New World Order since the 1958
National Defense Education Act, but have known this is 1915...
Taken from "The Anglo German Problem" by Charles Sarolea, 1915.
Sarolea is quoting Dr. Friedrich Naumann:
"The war of the future is a problem of economic organization of
the most difficult nature and the highest technical achievement,
such as has never been hitherto demanded from any army. The old
military qualities must give way to the organizing qualities. No
doubt the courage and endurance of the individual soldier must
remain for all times the foundation of military power, but
organizing genius is required in order not to waste that courage
and endurance. This is clearly shown from a mere examination of
the colossal numbers engaged. To transport, to locate, and to
feed these masses of men is the daily preoccupation of the
That they rightly understand the nature or the problem is
certain, but it is very doubtful wether the problem can ever be
adequately solved by commanders who are recruited from the
Junkertum. Mere military capacity does not suffice here. Both
enemies and friends admit that our corps of officers possess
such military capacity. Anxiety only arises with regard to their
We know that our nation possesses in its industries successful
organizers, brains accustomed to direct great quantities of
material and "personnel"- men who create new conditions of life
for whole economic districts without having to appeal to any
mystical authority. As democratic politicians we may often have
to oppose bitterly those captains of industry, but if it comes
to war we shall be willing to be led by them, because we know
that they have the brains. It is true that they must not meddle
with the technical duties of the officers, but the
administration of the war material must be their province. And
even with regard to the technique of war, it becomes from year
to year more questionable whether this can be managed more
efficiently by a corps of noblemen than by the representatives
of middle-class technique. However much we may value the moral
qualities of the old ruling class- and, with all political
differences of opinion, we shall not minimize those qualities-
we must admit that we are witnessing a transformation of methods
of attack and defence which in addition to the old question of
iron discipline raises the modern question: how far shall we be
able on the battlefield to replace the human unit through
It is obvious that this will never succeed completely, for
there does not exist a machine which does not need a human soul
to work it. At the same time it is doubtless that in this
direction mighty changes are at hand. We can see here a
repetition of the process which we notice in nearly all
industries- the subordination and displacement of human labour
in mines, machines, and means of transportation. If you examine
a weaving mill you shall find comparatively few men: the whole
place is already full of the produce of labour which has been
accomplished elsewhere. Even so in war: the front ranks must be
supplied with human units in as limited quantity as possible;
but those units must have the mechanical ability in the blood.
Those conditions do already exist to a large extent in naval
warfare. Ships are built and equipped with an insignificant
number of men compared to their fighting power. But those men
must work like animated machines. Even so the air fleet of
tomorrow will demand a large amount of technical application and
technical ability, but very few military units. War is becoming
impersonal, and is becoming reduced to a rivalry of money and
economics. That even here military members of the nobility may
achieve great results is shown by the admirable example of Count
Zeppelin. But the impression remains that there still survive in
the army the traditions of the pre- industrial age- traditions
not only loyalty and discipline, but also of technical
ignorance. We have still too much of parade soldier whose knees
are more pliable than his fingers of his brain.
It begins with the artillery, but it ends at the cavalry. We
have still failed fully to realize that under a system of
universal service a nations pays and labours in order that
weapons shall be absolutely of the first class. The nation which
can put the best technique into the military service will
probably, in the altered conditions of modern warfare achieve
At the 1917 National Education Conference J. A. Sinclair,
Surgeon, United States Navy, Portland Oregon Recruiting Station,
Portland, Oregon, said:
"The German military organization is the world's model, at
least from the standpoint of immediate accomplishment of
results, and therefore we can hardly do better than to emulate
it in its perfect working. It was effected in its minutest
detail by the very essence of scientific thought and application
In that organization every tongue fitted its groove, every tooth
its socket. We have seen how the Kaiser's marvelous soldiers
carried their banner to the very outskirts of Paris in August
and September, 1914. It is the Great God efficiency, to which
the Germans were required by their commanders to pay the homage
of worship- and it behooves us either to effect a thing that
will operate as well or to copy theirs. The fact of the world at
war has silenct the erring lips that declared against the
necessity for preparation against disaster, like that of Belgium
In 1899 William James explained the differences between English
and German education in his book "Talks to Teachers on
Psychology: and to Students on some of Life's Ideals". "If we
reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent
in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is
to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately
obvious in Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of the
higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for
advancing scientific discovery. The German universities are
proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out
every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of
intellect, but men so trained to research that when their
professor gives them an historical or philological theses to
prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general
indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves
and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind
out in the requite number of months some little pepper-corn of
new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human
information on that subject. Little else is recognized in
Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his
ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of
The mentality for all this is Prussian. What has been happening
in the US is what happened in Germany following the Prussian
take over. The Prussians lived for military might as we lived
for God, and now we are educated to live for military might and
you are so right about this change in our culture occuring in
secret!!! Right down to the destruction of our heros and
praising of efficiency this is exactly what the Prussians did to
Germany, and the result is national paranoia- excessive need to
be superior and in control. We did not experience a normal
generation gap, but a cultural gap. Some good things have
happened since the 1958 National Defense Education Act began
preparing us for a technological society with unknown values-
but our democracy was not an unknown value, and we stand to
loose that for which stood for 200 years, if we do not
immediately become aware of the take over of public education
and return to defending democracy in the classroom by teaching
the history you have noted we are teaching.
Thanks for the feedback and information, very interesting. I
need your e-mail address in order to get any information from
you. (Her comments were submitted under an old system of direct
feedback without the use of e-mail)
As for the Germans, the Germans actually did a lot of good and
productive things. German history is quite complicated. The
Germans were among the most progressive of the European cultures
and were among the first to implement universal education, which
was why the Germans so strongly dominated the sciences during
the early part of the 20th century. Germany also has a bad
reputation because of WWI and WWII, but there was n fact large
internal opposition to these actions by the German Left in both
cases, somewhat similar to what is going on in America with the
Bush admin and the opposition to Bush today. Its not fair to
characterize all of German culture by the actions of the Nazis
or the imperialist Bismarck regime.
But to be sure, you are correct that there was a lot of
cooperation between Americans and Germans throughout the 20th
century precisely because the Germans were so advanced
Interestingly though we haven't developed nearly the education
system in America as what the Germans had. What we did in
America was to acquire German and other foreign scientists to do
a lot of our research and development for us. The result is much
worse than the German result because the Germans themselves
largely understood their own technology and the science behind
it, but in America we have acquired the technology and the
German attitude, but in a society without the German knowledge,
so its more like chimps wielding dynamite than the German case
which was more like scientists wielding dynamite. Ignorance has
its own follies as well.
Cool site- check mine out at
there is some political stuff there. email me what u think at
Date: May 2003
Interesting document. Although I don't agree with a lot of the
conclusions, being more of a believer in European-type 'social
democracy' than in anything resembling Marxism, your paper makes
some very interesting points:
1) I strongly agree with your conclusions about the social
liberalism that started up in the 1960's!!! I agree that it is a
'bourgeois' type of development and that real _economic_ reform
hasn't been attempted since the 1930's.
2) Notes regarding the years from 1933-1940 are interesting. I
would recommend that you create a bibliography and do some
further research in the area. Suggest using, as a minimum, at
least 15 secondary sources, such as books by Wm. Shirer, Joachim
Fest, Edwin Black, and others. Also suggest doing some
background reading about Roosevelt's cabinet and progressives
such as Harold Ickes as well as depression era projects such as
the WPA and CCC.
a. Specifically, in addition to the material from Ambassador
Dodd, I would recommend a book by Edwin Black called _IBM and
the Holocaust_. Your argument would be presented much more
strongly if you used a reference work such as this book, which
is based on a lot of primary sources, rather than the two
citations that seem to have a vested interest in hemp.
b.The Nazis were fundamentally of German origin, and were not
creatures that were developed by the U.S., notwithstanding the
financial and ideological support they received from Ford,
Lindbergh, Prescott B., et al. Although the Henry Ford book
influenced them in 1927, their original ideological influences
(pan-German nationalism and anti-Semitism) came earlier, from
Houston Stewart Chamberlain (British), Anton Drexler, and some
others. Richard Wagner (composer) was involved as well.
c. Recommend research regarding the 'Ro:hm Putsch' of 1934. The
Nazis actually had socialists (who believed in German
nationalism with a strong social welfare and pension system)
within their ranks up until 1934, which was the reason for that
part of their name. Gregor Strasser was a 'left-wing' Nazi who
had 'socialist' economic ideas, who was killed in the Roh:m
Putsch. After this consolidation of power in the wing of the
Nazi Party that had the support of the industrialists i.e. I.G.
Farben, the German rearmament began, and socialists were no more
in the ranks of the Nazis.
d. Although the Nazis used 'positive Christianity' for public
consumption and as sort of a way to take over the Church (they
imprisoned some representatives of the 'Confessing Church'), the
heart of Nazi religious doctrine was based in a sort of paganism
that held that those who sacrificed themselves for Germany would
return to Valhalla.
3. There is a significant gap in the material between 1942 and
the 'space race.' There should be a page that discusses things
such as the partition of Germany; U.S., British, and French
reaction to the advance of the Soviets to Berlin; Allen Dulles;
the Marshall Plan (which I believe was a good thing); and other
events of the 1950's such as McCarthyism.
4. Agree with you that the strength of the U.S. dollar has been
a good thing for population of the U.S. I have some concern
about its future. Hope my comments were useful.
Yes your comments were very helpful, thank you very much.