Cafe Hayek: The era of free markets

« Lord Acton was onto something | Main | Bedtime reading» Russell Roberts

December 09, 2008

The era of free markets

Russell Roberts

As we prepare to partially nationalize the American automobile industry, it is a good time to remember that George Bush is not a free market ideologue and that he did not pursue free market policies. Please remember that in his last year in office he initiated and condoned measures that helped destroy the natural feedback loops that allow markets to recover from the inevitable mistakes that human beings make. And tell your children. I know. It seems obvious. But twenty and thirty years from now, there will be people writing about how George Bush's free market ideology caused the mess we're in.

Here is the kind of problem that we are going to see more and more of as politicians respond to incentives rather than to some idea of the "public good" (HT: Travis Page). Basically a Wisconsin member of Congress, Steve Kagan, wants the bailout of Chrysler to be contingent on another company involved with Chrysler re-opening two paper mills the company had closed.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when billions of dollars are up for grabs.

Will no one stand up to stop this?

Posted by Russell Roberts in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e20105365346dd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The era of free markets:

Comments

No one with any power to do anything about it will stand up in defense of free markets. Why would they? Either (1), people in power don't know or care about the benefits of free markets, or (2) they do what their constituents want, who don't know or care about free markets.

The only way free markets will come back is if things get too bad that society has to reboot.

Posted by: Neal W. | Dec 9, 2008 12:09:49 PM

I agree with Neal. In a free society, politicians have limited powers. What politician wants that?

Also, You don't have to wait twenty or thirty years for articles blaming the "free market policies of the Bush administration" for all of this. Those articles are being published now.

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 9, 2008 12:27:23 PM

Back in 2004, I remember Kerry trying to compare Bush to Herbert Hoover. At least didn't vastly increase the size and intrusiveness of government AND raise taxes and tariffs (the way Kerry and now Obama claim to advocate), but like Hoover Bush is somehow seen as a "free market" guy, and like the Great Depression, somehow this crisis will be blamed on free markets.

Posted by: Dave | Dec 9, 2008 12:42:18 PM

"Will no one stand up to stop this?"

Its already too late to stop it. Its the politics of pull. Consider the auto bailout. I can't think of a single congressman who is on record as believing that this is a good idea - but they're going to do it anyway. In other words, all the right people already know what is going to happen - all the rest is marketing.

Posted by: Randy | Dec 9, 2008 1:34:24 PM

It seems that you've all given up. There's nothing more we can do. We've tried everything, and nothing has worked.

There may be one thing we haven't tried yet, and should have.

To go for the jugular.

What we have done is lose the forest for the trees, the real issue for the "derivatives."

And what is the real issue, or, "the bottom line," as our own Prof Bourdreaux has called it?

Redistribution.

Since the Left depends entirely upon the assumption that taking from the rich to give to the poor reduces inequality, it would be utterly demolished by the opposite-most conclusion, that it didn't reduce but increased inequality.

That conclusion was first presented to the Austrian School thirty to forty years ago, and has passed every test within it, but has yet to be deployed in battle.

If all else has failed, why not give it a try?

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 9, 2008 4:40:47 PM

The influence of the left is strong, but very limited.

The U.S. government has managed to make very many people, directly or indirectly, very dependent upon its current course.

Even some (SOME) on the left are beginning to wake up to the nature of the beast.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 9, 2008 4:53:20 PM

If no one will stand up to it, what incentives will drive politicians away from bailouts?

a) Eliminate monetary policy as a government revenue source. This leaves two transparently unpopular alternatives for raising bailout money -- raise taxes or go to war. Hopefully, politicians would see that either of those choices would get them voted out. Unfortunately, the idiots might actually choose war.

b) Pay the electorate. cf. Obama's I'll-give-95%-of-you-$1,000-if-you-vote-for-me tax plan. Offer every voter $5,000 [$1 trillion/200million voters] as soon as we ratify a constitutional amendment permanently outlawing bailouts of any kind.

Or, to use the example in a) above, pay every citizen $20,000 as soon as a Constitutional amendment passes which, on the day it is ratified:
* Freezes Central Bank loans and open market purchases
* Prevents outlawing of private, decentralized banks
* Prevents outlawing of private minting / printing of sound money
* Forbids Legal Tender Laws
* Requires overextended banks’ bankruptcies proceed with no government interference and unlimited liability.
* Eliminates central bank and FDIC.
While you've got the voters' attention with the $20k offer, you could also try to educate them -- that this is a Separation of Powers Issue -- Mayer Anselm Rothschild: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."

Posted by: Charlie Perkins | Dec 9, 2008 7:54:08 PM

Sam Grove,

You wrote:

"The influence of the left is strong, but very limited."

Was that directed to me?

You have already agreed with the thesis that taking from the rich to gives to the poor makes the poor poorer.

Are you saying that we should keep it a secret?

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 9, 2008 8:09:48 PM

I'm saying that you can present your thesis to everyone, and little will change.

1. The core of the left is anti-individual, which is necessarily anti-human.

2. They'd rather get rid of the rich, even if it means the poor will be worse off, than have it otherwise. Besides, they plan to be on top of the dung heap they would create.

3. Most others won't believe or haven't the intellectual context to comprehend the thesis.

4. Concern for the poor is a cover story for the book of guilt-plagued and fearful self interest.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 9, 2008 8:50:25 PM

Sam Grove:

You wrote:

"I'm saying that you can present your thesis to everyone, and little will change...Most others won't believe or haven't the intellectual context to comprehend the thesis."

And I'm saying that those who will not challenge the fundamental assumption of the Left concede it, and are not leaders in the fight for freedom, but irrelevant to it.

And that you can lead a libertarian to victory but not make the jackass drink.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 9, 2008 9:46:35 PM

Economic Freedom Index for the US decreased from 2000 to 2006...

Posted by: Mr. econotarian | Dec 10, 2008 1:49:41 AM

Sam Grove,

"The core of the left is anti-individual, which is necessarily anti-human."

That was Ayn Rand's point. Its a difficult concept. Difficult to follow or accept, but the more I observe the more I suspect it is true. And the follow-on question is even more difficult - Who is the guiltiest man in this room? Dg lesvic is asking that very question, but I too highly doubt that reasoning with the anti-individuals will be productive.

Posted by: Randy | Dec 10, 2008 4:58:31 AM

Post Jobs on India's No.1 jobsite

http://www.back2office.com

Post your resume and find your dream job Now !
Search Jobs Post Jobs on India's Premium Jobsite
Search Professionals
India's growing job site.Jobs available in sectors like Accounting,
Marketing,IT,Engineering,Finance,BPO/Call Centers,Bio Technology,
Banks,Adminstration,HR/IR/MR,Media,Sales,Security,
Business Mgmt.,Retails,Hotels & Others.
Find Jobs In India,UK,USA,Middle East.

Posted by: akash | Dec 10, 2008 5:49:07 AM

Randy,

You wrote:

"but I too highly doubt that reasoning with the anti-individuals will be productive."

I'm beginnning to doubt that reasoning with the pro-individuals will be productive.

But at least I won't have to explain to my children and grandchildren, on their way to the gas chamber, why I didn't even try.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 10, 2008 6:02:47 AM

". . . but increased inequality."

Uh huh . . .

Since when do Libertarian argue for Egalitarianism?!

Posted by: Gil | Dec 10, 2008 6:36:42 AM

The government cannot be reformed, politicians will not give up power. Libertarians must become Individualists first and move to reject the ideology of Statism. If enough free people will ignore the state, it will shrivel like a worm in the sun.

Posted by: seanooski | Dec 10, 2008 7:12:15 AM

2. They'd rather get rid of the rich, even if it means the poor will be worse off, than have it otherwise. Besides, they plan to be on top of the dung heap they would create.

Trotsky (and many not as famous revolutionaries) planned to be on top of the dung heap too. You know what they say about the best laid plans....

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 10, 2008 8:40:37 AM

If all else has failed, why not give it a try?

dg,

No matter how many times and how logically you present your arguments to a confirmed leftist, you will get nowhere. It's a religion. Government attracts people who want power. They don't care who gets hurt as long as it's not them and the people voting for them are so unimaginably ignorant that it makes my hair stand on end. Those who aren't merely ignorant are incredibly stupid - observe Trumpit and Muirdiot as an example.

The easiest way to change a country is to create a brain drain. Immigrate.

During the Cold War the U.S. didn't have much competition. Today, the wealthy (for whom it's easy to obtain citizenship as most developed and semi-developed countries have a wealth test for citizenship)have more options. Other countries have realized that liberalizations rather than collectivization leads to more wealth for all. We are on a socialist trajectory while other parts of the world like Asia are on a trajectory to freedom.

Like the Soviet Union, the U.S. now has a law which financially rapes wealthy immigrants on the way out. But the rape can occur only once and if you're a productive individual, it's very well worth it. Asia may very well be the "place to be" soon. Particularly Singapore.

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 10, 2008 8:53:43 AM

Since the Left depends entirely upon the assumption that taking from the rich to give to the poor reduces inequality, ...

The Left (Democrats, whatever) rarely takes from the rich to give to the poor. It only says that. One problem with your theory is that you actually believe what the Left says. Another problem is that the Right (Republicans, whatever) is every bit as interested in redistribution as the Left.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Dec 10, 2008 9:12:39 AM

"But at least I won't have to explain to my children..."

Good luck to you, dg lesvic, but we all have our theories. The truth is that if our theories contradict the propaganda of the political class they will go nowhere. The political class has trillions of dollars and control of the education and information ministries. We have the comments sections of a few libertarian blogs - and if these blogs do start to have some impact they will be shut down. I think that the only feasible approach is, as seanooski says above, "reject the ideology of statism..." Subversion offers the greatest probability of success.

Posted by: Randy | Dec 10, 2008 9:33:34 AM

Gil wrote:

"Since when do Libertarian argue for Egalitarianism?!"

If that's what you want to call the best possible argument for freedom, since they decided to fight for it.

seeanooski wrote:

"If enough free people will ignore the state, it will shrivel like a worm in the sun."

You mean, if enough people bury their heads in the sand.

Methinks wrote:

"Trotsky (and many not as famous revolutionaries) planned to be on top of the dung heap too. You know what they say about the best laid plans...."

Methinks youthinks right.

Oops, didn't see that next post of yours.

The days of the frontier are over. The state has followed the refugees from it all the way to the Pacific Coast. And unless, as you seem to think, we can all just move on to some mythical Shangri La, we must either make our stand at the water's edge or be pushed over it.

The consensus, so far, has been: do nothing.

Aren't there any of you out there willing to stand up and fight for what you profess to believe in? Are you all a bunch of quitters? What is this blog all about? What are the Austrian School and libertarianism all about, mere intellectual pastimes and divertisments, like cross-word puzzles, or solace for the afflicted?

What is most significant is that not a one of you has denied the importance of the issue, nor the validity of the theorem.

All any of you have said was that our masters won't like it.

That's why they're our masters.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 10, 2008 9:41:18 AM

dg,

How much experience have you had in fighting the state? The best way to fight is to leave. Then, the state will have to compete for you and the wealth you create. This is why the liberalization of economies in Asia and central Europe are such a good thing. Competition. Can't beat it (oh! the pun.)

You know, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Waving guns at the government will give you Waco. Waving good-bye, leaves the government with nothing but dependents. A MUCH more effective way to "fight the state".

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 10, 2008 10:14:20 AM

dg lesvic

Perhaps you need to lay out your plan.
Urging people to "make a stand" provides no direction thus no hint of success.

What do you intend? Should we buy an ad in top papers explaining that redistribution makes the poor poorer?

Are we supposed to guess?

Many of us have thoughts on what to do, but until something tangible, with the possibility of effectiveness, can be laid out, then there is little to offer beside urging.

I have my own ideas in this regard, but I see no point in implementing them here as those here who are interested in action seem to have their own, superior, ideas on what to do.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 10, 2008 11:53:26 AM

And I'm saying that those who will not challenge the fundamental assumption of the Left concede it

I'm not at all certain that this is the fundamental assumption of the left. It may be an assumption, but not the fundamental one.

I think the fundamental assumptions of the left is that profit making is evil, that possession of wealth is evidence of theft, that property itself is the systemic flaw in our system, and that equality of results is of greater value than moral equality.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 10, 2008 11:59:10 AM

Methinks,

Why do you think Boudreaux is writing all those letter to the editors?

Just to get his name in print?

He's standing and fighting for his country.

So ask him how much experience he has had in fighting the state?

I'll tell you how much I've had.

I can remember when God was just a kid. We all thought He'd never amount to anything. "Look who thinks he's gonna be God," we all said.

Well, He sure fooled a lot of people, didn't He.

And so did George Washington, and the Israelis, the North Vietnamese.

So, you see, you never really know what you can do until you try.

And what's wrong with trying?

Where are you, now?

In Singapore?

And after they drive you out of there, where will you go, to the moon? Will you never make a stand anywhere, but just keep on running, until there is no place left to run to? And, if you'll make your stand in Singapore, why not in your own country, and the greatest in the history of the world. Would Singapore be worth fighting for, but not America?

As you said, "There's more than one way to skin a cat."

That's right. Surrender is not the only way.

Here's what Boudreaux had to say about redistribution:

It was "the bottom line."

Mises:

"The idea underlying all interventionist policies is that the higher income and wealth of the more affluent part of the population is a fund which can be freely used for the improvement of the conditions of the less prosperous. The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution. Every measure is ultimately justified by declaring that it is fair to curb the rich for the benefit of the poor."

What would be wrong with saying that it won't work?

Hayek:

"Redistribution" was "the crucial issue on which the whole character of future society will depend," and "it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing" it.

So, when are you going to start?

Norman Podhoretz:

"Very few economist today...believe that state control is superior to the free market as a system of creating wealth. On this point the debate...is over. Capitalism has won and socialism...lost. The argument still rages over how much of the wealth can and should be redistributed."

Why concede the argument? What's wrong with trying to win it? What have you got to lose. Excuses for not trying are no substitue for trying.

Freedom lovers of the world. Arise. You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 10, 2008 12:11:30 PM

Sam Grove:

You asked what I would have you do.

I wouldn't presume to tell you.

George Gershwin's mother didn't think much of his music. She wanted to know why Georgie didn't write songs like those of some contemporaries of his, little remembered today, that were so much more popular at the time, and made so much more money.

Fortunately, Georgie did it his way.

You don't tell a Gershwin that he should be doing what a Henderson, Brown, and DeSlva are doing, nor even a Stravinsky.

And I'm certainly not going to tell people doing work without which we would be lost that they should be doing something else.

You have to let everyone contribute in the way that he thinks best.

But I do think that those of us who do little more than bitch and moan about socialism could do a little more about it. And that hitting it where it lives is one thing they could do, not the only thing, just one, and certainly better than running off to Singapore, or the Moon.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 10, 2008 12:37:43 PM

Martin Brock:

Sorry, I missed your comment, which was:

"The Left (Democrats, whatever) rarely takes from the rich to give to the poor. It only says that. One problem with your theory is that you actually believe what the Left says. Another problem is that the Right (Republicans, whatever) is every bit as interested in redistribution as the Left."

From The Forbidden Theory of Redistribution, the whole of which you can access by clicking on my name below:

"Rothbard bypassed economics altogether and tried to answer the question with a political theory. Redistribution could only make the poor poorer, he said, because the politicians would never allow it to proceed from rich to poor, but only from everyone to themselves. But, a political judgment is no better than an economic one. It still lacks what Mises called the 'apodictive and incontestable argumentative power inherent in a praxeological demonstration.'"

Elsewhere I have written:

"Rothbard's conclusion that the politicians wouldn't allow redistribution to proceed from rich to poor, but only from everyone to themselves, missed the point that, even if it did proceed from rich to poor, which is not impossible, it would still make the poor poorer."

Why are you all so anxious to conceal that conclusion?

Whose side are you on?

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 10, 2008 2:37:54 PM

Methinks; I hate the idea of migration as an answer for defenders of freedom. You'll continue to fight a rear-guard effort until eventually you run out of territory.

I agree with dg lesvic, make a stand here; write letters to the editor, start discussion groups, self-publish pamphlets, organize (take a hint from radicals like Alinsky) and most of all, engage and try to inform folks about what's going on.

I'm always taken aback by supposedly educated people who have never even heard of the ideas you guys bandy about on blogs like this one. For instance, a friend of mine from college - a history major no-less - recently responded to my mentioning of the great Hayek with a flabbergasting, "Who?" I used it though as one of those teachable moments. Maybe it will have an effect maybe not, but it was an effort, however small.

Does anyone know of any serious discussions going on about reviving the idea of secession? I heard something was going on in Oklahoma a couple months ago. And there was a flap back during the election about Gov. Palin's possible ties to a Secessionist Party in Alaska. I was trying to figure out why that was considered a negative. Maybe it's time we brought that issue back from the margins.

Posted by: RickC | Dec 10, 2008 4:37:29 PM

dg,

I do appreciate your passion.

However, one of the aspects of a free market is that people will have different ideas about what's best and they will choose what's best for them.

This is my country now because I'm a naturalized citizen. My family and I fled the Soviet Union in the 1970's. My love of this country stems from the principles and restrained vision upon which it was built. When this country abandons those principles enough to significantly interfere with my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, I will leave. It is in my interest and I am self interested. I will repeat this cycle as many times as necessary.

Besides, in my opinion, the best way to fight socialism is to move to any country with significantly freer markets and aiding it in out-competing socialism.

So, if you want to stay and fight, more power to you. I'm much better at making money and I'll send some of it to you to aid you in your fight.

Having said this, I reserve the right to change my mind. Just depends on what I think will be best when the time comes.

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 10, 2008 5:07:22 PM

Rick, I do what I can.

However, I don't even have enough influence to convince the regulator for my industry to work in the best interests of the people it's chartered to protect to instead of creating economic rents for me.

An important skill in fighting any war is to know when to retreat and when to try another tactic.

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 10, 2008 5:10:46 PM

Maybe we could post it on the side of a blimp.

You seem to be having trouble with this.

Most people don't support redistribution to help the poor, they support it to relieve themselves of guilt for being better off than the poor and not caring enough to do much about it other than voting for politicians who mouth concern for the poor.

The left mouths support for the poor and the worker to gain support for their aspiration to wield political power.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 10, 2008 5:17:53 PM

RickC,

At last a voice of sanity. Thank you for that.

Methinks,

You wrote:

"Having said this, I reserve the right to change my mind. Just depends on what I think will be best when the time comes."

Oh no it doesn't. It depends on what I think will be best.

Posted by: | Dec 10, 2008 9:28:57 PM

That last anonymous post was from me, of course. Just forgot the name.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 10, 2008 9:30:16 PM

The politicians messed around with the mortgage market. Why shouldn't they mess around with the auto companies?

Posted by: | Dec 10, 2008 9:37:17 PM

Oh no it doesn't. It depends on what I think will be best.

Al Gore, is that you?

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 10, 2008 10:47:27 PM

OK, you found me out, goddammit.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 11, 2008 12:20:17 AM

By Gaia! Don't you guys let Mierduck see you making fun of His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I!

Posted by: brotio | Dec 11, 2008 3:23:10 AM

Hey, you're making me sorry I invented this goddammed thing.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 11, 2008 4:11:11 AM

Post Jobs on India's No.1 jobsite

http://www.back2office.com

Posted by: akash | Dec 11, 2008 5:55:39 AM

first thing to do is find out how many people like us are out there. we should have a day of morning for the murder of free markets in the US (at the hands of the pres and congress)

Posted by: geo | Dec 11, 2008 8:37:07 AM

Interesting contrast between our friends Methinks and RickC above.

Rick is the fellow who had previously introduced himself thusly:

"I'm not an economist."

"Okay, the true novice in the room is back and still willing to expose himself."

And then there was Methinks, demanding to know how much experience we have had in fighting the state.

The novice and the Old Hand, like the Old Travelers in Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad.

"...those delightful parrots who have 'been here before,' and know more about the country than Louis Napoleon knows now or ever will will know...We love to hear them prate, and drivel and lie. We can tell them the moment we see them. They always throw out a few feelers; they never cast themselves adrift till they have sounded every individual and know that he has not traveled. Then they open their throttle-valves, and how they do brag, and sneer, and swell, and soar, and blaspheme the sacred name of Truth! Their central idea, their grand aim, is to subjugate you, keep you down, make you feel insignificant and humble in the blaze of their cosmopolitan glory! They will not let you know any thing. They sneer at your most inoffensive suggestions, they laugh unfeelingly at your treasured dreams of foreign lands; they brand the statements of your traveled aunts and uncles as the stupidest absurdities; they deride your most trusted authors and demolish the fair images they have set up for your willing worship with the pitiless ferocity of the fanatic iconoclast! But still I love the Old Travelers. I love them for their witless platitudes; for their supernatural ability to bore; for their delightful asinine vanity; for their luxuriant fertility of imagination; for their startling, their brilliant, their overwhelming mendacity."

Clearly the future of freedom is not with those who will not fight for it, not with the Old Hands who know better, but with those who don't know better, the humble novices, willing to expose themselves, to try something new, and to fail.

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 11, 2008 12:45:39 PM

Great quote dg. Thank you.

Posted by: JP | Dec 11, 2008 3:05:32 PM

And then there was Methinks, demanding to know how much experience we have had in fighting the state.

Uh, demanding? Really? dg, you need a chill pill, buddy. It was an offhand question. But, I am curious how Rick's self-professed ignorance of economics makes me an old hand at fighting the state.

Look, dg, you're getting awfully pushy for someone who professes to love liberty so much he's willing to shed blood for it. liberty is people living their lives according to their preferences, not yours. Browbeating and insulting people until they bend to your will is not liberty.

Your definition of liberty is more like that of the French. They don't want their freedom messed with but they want to tell everyone else what to do.

I'm not willing to lift a finger for that "version" of "liberty".

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 11, 2008 6:13:11 PM

"Off with their heads!"

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 11, 2008 8:58:01 PM

yeah, yeah you make fun, but you do know they had port-o-guillotines?

Only the French could figure out a way to elegantly liberate your head from your body anywhere, anytime.

Posted by: Methinks | Dec 11, 2008 10:06:23 PM

Methinks,

You wrote:

"Browbeating and insulting people until they bend to your will is not liberty."

Nobody but yourself can insult you. All anyone else can do is throw light upon it.

Give me the guillotine or give me Death!

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 12, 2008 3:50:14 AM

Post Jobs on India's No.1 jobsite

http://www.back2office.com

Posted by: akash | Dec 12, 2008 5:27:51 AM

dg lesvic,

Here is your opportunity to show us how exposition of your primal insight will bring the left to their figurative knees.

We have a frequent commenter here who is well versed in the progressive dialog.

Shine the light of your insight upon him with your most profound observation and we will see if he deviates in the slightest from his progressive vision.

If you accomplish that mission, then perhaps we will all bow before your implied claim that enunciation of your thesis is what is required to vanquish the barbarians around us.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Dec 13, 2008 12:22:27 PM

Sam Grove,

You wrote:

"Shine the light of your insight upon him with your most profound observation and we will see if he deviates in the slightest from his progressive vision."

You deviated. Wasn't that enough of a start? Do I have to convince Hitler's ghost, too?

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 13, 2008 2:00:12 PM

Sam,

It appears that you want a guarantee of success. There can be no such thing. I can't guarantee you that if you get out of bed in the morning you won't break your leg. But I can guarantee you that if you don't take the chance you won't have much of a life.

To live is to take chances. But how much of a chance is it? You couldn't refute the theory. And you're much smarter than any Leftist. So why worry about them?

Posted by: dg lesvic | Dec 13, 2008 3:29:40 PM