<div>Sunil, Jeff, Joe et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Joe wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-October/049150.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-October/049150.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>And I didn't say that economics was not a science. I implied that it was not an <br>exact science, as you seem to think it is. I don't much care if your teachers <br>told you otherwise. They were wrong. This is a matter of the philosophy of
<br>science, not a matter of economics. Your teachers are not the experts here.<br>------</div>
<div>When reading this paragraph, I immediately thought of former U of I philosophy professor Marvin Henberg, a brilliant academic, from whom I took several courses (Seminar on Bertrand Russell, Philosophy of Law). We discussed economic theory several times, and given his professional published work in this discipline, he expressed an opinion close to what Joe stated above. I would dive into the economic theory regarding so called "unfettered markets," as opposed to whatever Jeff is suggesting the MCA candidates advocate on economic theory, but the post would be very long, and not conclusive. "...not an exact science."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sunil, the war in Iraq, and the Middle East, is relevant to the long term economy of Moscow, to near term security, and to the long term protection of the environment. It is easy to assume this issue is not relevant for those running for city council, but I don't think it should be forgotten in this context. Why? Because encouraging energy conservation and a way of life less dependent on oil is critical, to lessen dependence on uncertain foreign oil, to prepare for the eventual end of oil, and to lower greenhouse gas emissions, all profound long term issues. And these issues can be addressed locally. If you support a war for oil, as even Allan Greenspan has stated was a main reason for the invasion of Iraq, you are likely not focusing on solving these problems.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Our economy and way of life is hostage to access to reasonably priced oil. And the globalized economy is rendering the idea of a mostly "local" economy less and less tenable. Tri-State is full of goods made in China (I don't mean anything against Tri-State, where I often shop instead of Wal-Mart). The assumption of the open markets and globalization will raise all boats club is that cheap energy running the global system will continue, but unless substantial energy substitutes are found, a severe political crisis impacting oil markets or the end of oil will place the US economy in jeopardy. Then we may discover we should have maintained our manufacturing base, instead of letting other nations with cheap labor, few worker protections, and few or no environmental regulations, become the manufacturing base for US consumer goods. Unfettered markets indeed! Maybe we should be more open to local manufacturing in Moscow and Latah County, given the globalization experiment may (some think it certainly will) run into trouble.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Allan Greenspan, who recently explained how libertarian darling Ayn Rand led him away from logical positivism in his twenties, has also recently warned (interesting how freely Greenspan now speaks after stepping down from the Federal Reserve) of the dangers of US critical economic dependence on oil from nations unfriendly to the US in an unstable area of the world. This is so obvious as to not need repeating (yet it seems it must be repeated, as I have in this post, till the problem is solved, just like the greenhouse gas emission problem). I listened to Greenspan speaking on C-Span, hoping cellulosic biofuel would bail the US out! Incredible!
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A local biofuel or solar panel fabrication plant might be a good long term investment for the Palouse, to focus on solving the long term problems of oil dependence, the end of oil, and greenhouse gas emissions. This essential long term view, however, might require government investment, given that the short term economics of these industries are very doubtful. Ethanol from corn in the USA is greatly subsidized by the US government now... Hardly a shining example of the unfettered market! Archer Daniels Midland US Congressional lobbyists at work!
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I find Jeff Harkins assessment of the positive impacts of so called unfettered markets a bit overblown. China has a growth rate due to its adoption of capitalism that far exceeds the USA's. Yet it is still a Communist one party dictatorship, denying freedom of political organization, political speech, with human rights violations in sweat shop factories, appalling environmental abuses (the US exports the environmental consequences of our lavish life style to some extent by shifting the negative ecological impacts of manufacturing to China), CO2 greenhouse gas emissions soaring out of control, a death penalty applied with limited rights for the accused, and gulags for thousands of prisoners who disappear into legal black holes. China has so far negated the assumption of free market advocates who have argued that capitalism necessitates the development of democracy. We see rampant capitalism, yet democracy in China is still a dream.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jeff, I never got your reply about the complicity of US corporations with the Chinese Communist dictatorship in their denial of free speech rights, and freedom of information, to Chinese citizens. I documented that Yahoo had turned over data to the Chinese government on a Chinese citizen using Yahoo's services, that resulted in this citizen being jailed for exercising what we consider protected political speech, and Google's cooperation in censoring the truth, when doing searches using their search engine in China, about the Tienanmen Square massacre. You expressed doubts about the veracity of these claims, and said you would respond. I got no response.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/31/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">If we're going to turn this into a 'wrap ourselves in the flag' exercise and<br>launch into irrlelevancies not yet raised by the candidates themselves, then
<br>I want to know where they all come down on waterboarding, permanent<br>detentions, the suspension of habeus corpus, secret prisons, and the war in<br>Iraq.<br><br>Or we can let the candidates discuss the relevant subjects they've already
<br>brought up.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><br>>From: Steffen Werner <<a href="mailto:swerner@uidaho.edu">swerner@uidaho.edu</a>><br>>To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Leadership
<br>>Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:10:40 -0700<br>><br>>I don't think that a discussion of basic economic theory is what will<br>>move this discussion forward to a constructive and meaningful<br>>exchange about local issues. BJ unfortunately started her post with
<br>>a general statement that Jeff then responded to scholarly - but<br>>unfortunately this focus is missing the main point that followed in<br>>BJ's post. I think all of the candidates running for office in this
<br>>local election (and probably most around this country) have no<br>>objections to our basic economic principle of a free market economy.<br>>The candidates also all share the same sense of duty when it comes to
<br>>making payroll (Tom has quite a few people working for him, none of<br>>whom have filed complaints against him for not doing so - Linda the<br>>same). So - the real issue in this context is a rather small one
<br>>given the big issues raised (and probably not worthy of a Nobel, but<br>>still relevant here in Moscow): How much oversight should the<br>>community, represented by the city council, have over proposed<br>>business development? Should this be relatively unfettered with very
<br>>lax oversight, or should it increase oversight if a development might<br>>have a large impact on the community? I think that this is a<br>>reasonable discussion to have - and neither side of this discussion
<br>>is anti or any growth automatically just by preferring one over the<br>>other. Coming from a system (Germany) where there is a lot more<br>>oversight and zoning restrictions than here, I find some of the<br>
>recently voiced positions quite baffling. If probed I can give some<br>>interesting examples in another post. So - why don't we focus on the<br>>local issue at hand, instead of going off on a tangent (even though
<br>>that might make for better sound bites)<br>>Steffen<br>>--<br>>Dr. Steffen Werner, Associate Professor<br>>Dept. of Psychology and Communication Studies<br>>University of Idaho<br>>Moscow, ID 83844-3043
<br>><br>>=======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>=======================================================<br><br><br>=======================================================
<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>