“RW- I remember when the US made all silicon wafers…we’ll make the next great thing, too.”

I agree, the next great thing America is creating are the radical capitalists that know how to defend capitalism on moral grounds. For example,

“The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism will foster a world-class conversation on certain basic questions:

What are the moral foundations of a free society?

Are there objective principles of morality and justice on which the institutions of governments must rest and by which the decisions of public officials can be evaluated?

What role should government play in a capitalist system?

What is the proper relationship between government and the individual?

What structures of government are most conducive to promoting the ideals of a free society?

What is the relationship between economic and intellectual freedom? ”

I also have a negative assessment of todays politicians who at this time are in the process of nationalizing the housing and financial market, and printing record levels of paper money.

B2, do you agree with the stimulus package or not? If you disagree with the printing of money as a solution to our economic woes than, it terms of fundamentals, I do not see much of a disagreement between us.

Hopefully, you can resolve what I also see as a personal attack on a fellow commenter. I think we should have a higher standard here at the USNI blog, so like several others I am eagerly waiting for a clarification on your postion.

I will wait for a couple of days for any responses to my comments at this point, than I will provide my answer to Question # 1.

I have a couple questions and a comment concerning your Silver lining analogy.

1. What is the difference between a ‘REAL economic collapse versus the “US Economic collapse” version’? In other words, what are thier causes and their effects?

2. What facts of reality need to be identified in order to recognize the difference?

Finally, my comment concerns the idea that “three emerging economies collapsing” as a result of the U.S. economic meltdown is somehow good. This instantly reminded me of the fallacy of the broken window and the following excerpt in particular which is taken from “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt. .

“Chapter III: The Blessings of Destruction

SO WE HAVE finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments’ thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio and television commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways all dilate upon the advantages of destruction.

Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see “miracles of production” which it requires a war to achieve. (p. 25)”

So before you go straight to burner, ask what he meant. What he intended might be something very different indeed. I should know, I’ve had to put up a couple or three apologies for a misunderstanding myself.

This does come off as a personal attack. If that’s what you intended, I think it’s inappropriate. If you meant something else, I invite you to clarify.

b2: BTW, ain’t this a post about economic v. military security?

One of the questions asked was, “Are the current economic problems significant enough to make the economy America’s #1 security problem and warrant substantial reductions in defense spending?” As a result, a discussion to quantify the severity of the current economic crisis seems appropriate.

I think for the purposes of avoiding a partisan brawl we should, however, stick to discussing whether to divert defense dollars in principle and not get into a discussion of exactly what to do with diverted dollars.

He owes me an apology, or this blog isn’t nearly as professional as it tries to come off.

I don’t think so. I think he’s attacking me, my position, and my opinion.

Basically, he dismissed what I had to say by calling me, in a subtle but unmistakable way, “A government dependent Hillbilly.”

That’s what you think my posts are about?

And what does the comment “With a government check for incidentals!” mean. I’d like you to clear that up for me, because right now, I’m seeing that as an unprofessional personal attack. Tell me why I’m wrong.

Anyhow, I’m happy you have plenty of faith in Americans and the military – and zero on politicians. We see that the same.

Where’s the money going to come from? 50 trillion. Where will that come from? We can revisit this matter in the future. In other words – time will tell. In the meantime, I’ve said my bit and done my duty as I see it.

#1 Should read “No, the economy is not the biggest security problem. Even during the worst of the Carter years, the biggest security problem was external (USSR). This remains true today, though the threat is more diffuse.”