Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2878)	10/6/2001 4:31:48 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, pardner. First of all, what kind of capitalist sneers at "economic reasons"? And neither do I. The only difference is that I wouldnt go to war over it. I would find an alternative. The main reason we dont invest in looking for an alternative is that the oil companies will lose their golden goose and then all the money they screwed us out of with their oil depletion allowance wont be sufficient to maintain them in the top economic stratosphere. Its these oil companies that derive the most economic benefit. And you care so much about them that you are willing to send young American kids to get killed. I would rather eat only once a day than have even one of these young kids killed. Of course if the old politicians or the oil company executives were willing to go and get killed, I would not object as vehemently.

To: Ilaine who wrote (2878)	10/6/2001 8:43:49 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

CB - ...Nobody but an extremely naive person or a fool would sneer at economics.... econlib.org "Everyone knows that economics is the dismal science. And almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship. While this story is well-known, it is also wrong, so wrong that it is hard to imagine a story that is farther from the truth. At the most trivial level, Carlyle's target was not Malthus, but economists such as John Stuart Mill, who argued that it was institutions, not race, that explained why some nations were rich and others poor. Carlyle attacked Mill, not for supporting Malthus's predictions about the dire consequences of population growth, but for supporting the emancipation of slaves. It was this fact—that economics assumed that people were basically all the same, and thus all entitled to liberty—that led Carlyle to label economics "the dismal science."..." Regards, Don