In a message dated 95-07-08 20:37:04 EST, you write: >can’t say that I agree with you there, though. Seems we already have too many
>people trying to legislate morality.
>
I couldn’t agree more. But this one isn’t a case of "legislating morality."
>BTW, did you get the article and photo I sent you via SnailMail?
>
Indeed I did. I haven’t had time to read the article yet - they got here yesterday -
but it was nice to finally be able to put a face to the words. I have kept my promise
to send you my photo. I mailed it this morning.
In a message dated 95-07-10 18:44:12 EST, you write: >I’m just saying that we certainly don’t need any more Republican Presidents
>making up our morals for us, that’s all.
>
I am very skeptical of the ability of a President to "make up" anyone’s morals
for them. All the best Christians are the worst Christians, Presidents included. I am
just trying, again, to remind you, that this liberal President hasn’t exactly been the
best thing that ever happened to personal liberty. You know as well as I do how
important economic liberty is to all other liberties, yet you vote for Democrats who
want to nationalize the Health Care system. I don’t understand that.
>>but it was nice to finally be able to put a face to the words. I have kept my
>>promise to send you my photo. I mailed it this morning.
>Oh, goody!! Are you really as skinny as you said you were???
>
Yep. BTW, I prefer the word "slender."
In a message dated 95-07-10 10:23:36 EST, you write: >> I am very skeptical of the ability of a President to "make up" anyone’s
>>morals for them.
>They certainly do try, though, don’t they?
>
Some do, some don’t. Jesse Helms is certainly out there, but look at, say,
Archer. He wants to get rid of the IRS - the most intrusive gov’t organization
in history, and replace the income tax with a National Sales Tax. Definitely a
step in the Right direction. :-)
>>All the best Christians are the worst Christians, Presidents included.
>What do you mean?
>
Just what I said - the "best" Christians are so full of self-righteousness and
surety of their own godliness that they cannot even approach being what I
understand Jesus to have described as the right way to live.
>>this liberal President hasn’t exactly been the best thing that ever happened
>>to personal liberty.
>I know [sigh]
>
Did you think it would be any different?
>>Yep. BTW, I prefer the word "slender."
>Sensitive?
>
Very. You’re a girl, you can’t understand what it’s like to be too skinny (any
more than I understand why you like skinny guys).
In a message dated 95-07-11 19:42:11 EST, you write: >> Some do, some don’t. Jesse Helms is certainly out there
>You got that right!!
>
I don’t normally use the phrase "right-wing" but in his case, I think it applies.
>>but look at, say, Archer.
>>He wants to get rid of the IRS - the most intrusive gov’t organization in history, >>and replace the income tax with a National Sales Tax. Definitely a step in the
>>Right direction. :-)
>What do you think of that - it certainly sounds like you approve, but why?
>
Three principal reasons:
It would get rid of the IRS. As I’ve said before, the IRS is out of control. We have to tell the IRS personal financial details we might not feel comfortable sharing with our closest friends. No gov’t agency should have that kind of power.
It would encourage savings. You’re an economist - you know what a significantly larger savings pool will do to interest rates and, therefore, to the job creation rate, new construction and home sales and car sales, and so on.
It would be a constant reminder of how much gov’t costs. The primary reason that the liberals like the Withholding system is that we don't really think of that money as ours, we just think of what we take home as being ours. If we put that 25% of our earnings in the bank and had to write a check to Uncle Sam for it every month for it, we’d be a lot more attentive to what he does with it. A Sales Tax, in addition to the benefits above, would do this even better: every time we spent money we’d be reminded how much the gov’t costs. An informed, aware electorate is the nightmare of the big gov’t liberal.
>> Did you think it would be any different?
>I had hoped. My own fault, I’m sure, but I just couldn’t bear another four years of
>the other one.
>
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I didn’t care too much for him, either. Still, he
was very good at foreign policy.
>>>Sensitive?
>>Very. You’re a girl, you can’t understand what it’s like to be too skinny (any
>>more than I understand why you like skinny guys).
>I _love_ skinny guys. Geeky ones, too!
>
There’s a word for girls like you. ;-)
>Oh, I got your pictures today. I like the one in the tux best!
>
I don’t even know why I sent that one. I think I look like an idiot in it. But if you
like it, that’s enough for me.
In a message dated 95-07-13 12:01:34 EST, you write: >>Three principal reasons:
>> 1) It would get rid of the IRS. [snip] No gov’t agency should have that kind
>>of power.
>Well, I am in 100% agreement with you there.
>
I thought you might be.
>> 2) It would encourage savings. You’re an economist - you know what a
>>significantly larger savings pool will do to interest rates and, therefore, to the
>>job creation rate, new construction and home sales and car sales, and so on.
>True, but in the short run, it might cause unemployment to rise.
>
Do you think so? Won’t it occur gradually enough for the market to absorb the changes?
>> 3) It would be a constant reminder of how much gov’t costs. The primary
>>reason that the liberals like the Withholding system is that we don't really think
>>of that money as ours, we just think of what we take home as being ours.
>I hadn’t looked at it this way before. Interesting.
>
Thank you for the compliment. It isn’t easy to give *you* a new idea.
>>An informed, aware electorate is the nightmare of the big gov’t liberal.
>Now that isn’t very nice.
>
I am tempted to make a long commentary about how "nice" welfare and dependency is to the spirits of it’s victims, but I won’t. I don't need to preach to the converted anyway (and the ‘heathen’ don't listen). :-)
>>>I _love_ skinny guys. Geeky ones, too!
>> There’s a word for girls like you.
>And that is?
>
I didn’t say I knew what it was, I’m just sure there’s a word. :-)
>> I don’t even know why I sent that one. I think I look like an idiot in it.
>Oh, no! It shows off how terrifically skinny you are - and I mean that in the nicest
>possible way! :-P
>
I’ll let that go - this time. :-)
In a message dated 95-07-14 23:31:09 EST, you write: >>True, but in the short run, it might cause unemployment to rise.
>>Do you think so? Won’t it occur gradually enough for the market to absorb the changes?
>since what we really have is a Keynsian economy, lower interest rates should cause
>unemployment to rise - a result of the Fed manipulating the money supply - but you know
>that already.
>
Indeed! Don't get me started on that one! :-(
>In the long term, of course it would lead to greater job growth - for reasons you are also
>familiar with.
>
The problem being that politicians rarely get rewarded for good "long-term" thinking?
>Have you been keeping up with the OJ spectacle?
>
I tried not to - I really did. But, if I wanted to know *anything* else that was going on in the world, I had to give up on not knowing what was going on with OJ. He makes the top of the news hour every day, and, unless somebody blows up another building, it looks like he’ll continue to do so. [sigh]
Do you think he’s guilty? Do you think it will matter?
In a message dated 95-07-15 13:04:56 EST, you write: >> The problem being that politicians rarely get rewarded for good "long-term"
>>thinking?
>Something like that.
>
Henry Hazlitt points out that the main fault of the liberal is thinking only of the short-term benefit and not enough about the long-term consequences, while the conservative thinks only of the long-term benefit without thinking enough of the short-term problems.
>>top of the news hour every day, and, unless somebody blows up another
>>building, it looks like he’ll continue to do so. [sigh]
>Depressing, isn’t it. I’d rather watch the Simpsons.
>
Fortunately I don’t have much time or inclination for watching TV. About all I watch is Headline News, C-SPAN, and a couple of shows, off and on. I like Rush’s show, but they only play it late at night. I wonder why....
>>Do you think it will matter?
>Probably not. [sigh]
>
I know. I know.
In a message dated 95-07-17 09:48:00 EST, you write: >> Henry Hazlitt points out that the main fault of the liberal is thinking only of the
>>short-term benefit and not enough about the long-term consequences, while the
>>conservative thinks only of the long-term benefit without thinking enough of the
>>short-term problems.
>I like that. Who’s Henry Hazlitt.
>
He wrote that in a book called _Economics In One Lesson_. It’s beneath your level, but I’d love to see it on the required reading list of every high school in America (pipe dream that it is!).
>> Fortunately I don’t have much time or inclination for watching TV. About all I
>>watch is Headline News, C-SPAN, and a couple of shows, off and on. I like Rush’s
>>show, but they only play it late at night. I wonder why....
>I don’t like Rush. I’m surprised you do.
>
You wouldn’t be if you’d ever given Rush a chance. Hell, I bet you’d like him, too - if you did! When (and if) I ever get up to visit you, I want to go watch them tape his show.
Gotta go - time for me to report to my new job!
In a message dated 95-07-17 09:48:00 EST, you write: >> He wrote that in a book called _Economics In One Lesson_. It’s beneath your
>>level,
>What’s it about, though?
>
He breaks down most bad economic policy to what he calls "The Broken Window Fallacy." In short, say a bakery window is broken by some kid throwing a brick through it. A crowd gathers and talks about it for a while. At first they feel sorry for the baker, since a new window will likely cost him, say, US$200. After they talk some more, they remark that, while it’s lousy for the baker, it is a great thing for the glazier - he’ll get US$200 for a new window that he wouldn’t have had before.
They then begin to discuss the ways the glazier will spend that US$200 and how it will ripple through the community, benefiting everyone it reaches. If they keep this up long enough, the thug with the brick becomes an economic benefactor for the whole town.
And here’s where the fallacy comes in: suppose that the baker had planned to buy a new suit with thatUS$200. Now he will have to spend that money on a new window. Had his window not been broken, he’d have had both a window and a new suit - and the tailor, rather than the glazier, would have been the conduit for all the lovely economic benefits. Now he will only have a window. The crowd can’t see the suit, it never existed, but they can see the window, so they never consider the suit.
Hazlitt goes on to apply this reasoning to such things as gov’t make-work jobs like building un-neccessary bridges and the TVA.
What, as a professional, do you think?
>>you did! When (and if) I ever get up to visit you, I want to go watch them tape his
>>show.
>If I can hold my nose long enough!
>
Now who’s not being nice? :-P
>> Gotta go - time for me to report to my new job!
>The bookstore?
>
Yeah! Didn’t I tell you? They hired me last week. I started training yesterday. I’m very excited!
>BTW, I just sent you a copy of my favourite periodical. It’s a weekly NY >newspaper/tabloid. And I don't just like it b/c they print most of my letters!
>
I look forward to reading it.
In a message dated 95-07-18 16:09:29 EST, you write: >>he’ll get US$200 for a new window
>I’ve noticed that every time you write $, you write US$.
>
And your point is?
>>What, as a professional, do you think?
>It’s basic Libertarianism. I approve.
>
Now if we could only convince Greenspan (again).
>>Yeah! Didn’t I tell you? They hired me last week. I started training yesterday. I’m
>>very excited!
> Great. I’d love to work in a bookstore, but all I have time to do is study (and play Risk,
>of course).
>
Well, of course -- I mean, wait! You play Risk?!! This is scary! I love Risk! How come you haven’t mentioned this before?!?
BTW, you left out watching the Simpsons.
In a message dated 95-07-23 15:01:53 EST, you write: >Where were you?
>
Sorry - I went out of town for a couple of days. I’d have warned you that you weren’t going to hear from me for a while, but it was a spur of the moment thing. You know, living o the edge and all that. :-) I won’t get another chance any time soon. I start my regular schedule at work tomorrow and school is back in session next month.
>>Well, of course -- I mean, wait! You play Risk?!! This is scary! I love Risk! How
>>come you haven’t mentioned this before?!?
>Oh yes, I play almost every Sunday. Lately there’s only been three of us. I like it better
>with five or six.
>
I think five is optimal. Do you play with single-country fortification or as many as you want?
In a message dated 95-07-24 12:34:56 EST, you write: >>Sorry - I went out of town for a couple of days. I’d have warned you that you weren’t
>>going to
>Where did you go?
>
Oh, I’m sorry. I should’ve said. Cincinnati. It’s about as close to a road trip as I can manage any more.
And, yes, we had had a very good time. I have several friends up there I hadn’t seen I years. It was good to catch up.
>> I think five is optimal.
>I agree. But six can be fun. It’s just hard to get that many people together all at once.
>
I know. I haven’t played with more than four in a long time. Sometimes, though, three or four is more challenging. The odds that everyone will get a good base continent are higher - no early wipeouts, if you take my meaning.
>>Do you play with single-country fortification or as many as you want?
>Single. It’s too easy the other way.
>
Me, too. We also developed an house rule years ago to only increment the number of armies you get for a set by one after 20. It slows the game down, but it’s harder.
So, did you, by chance, see what Clinton did today?
