I've been saying this for 6 months. The propaganda machine is in full force, and we are simply waiting for the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident to light the fuse.

Want a great source on the absolute and hideous growth of Federal prosecutors? Google Bill Anderson, here is an example in regards to this Spitzer situation.

Spitzer is basically getting nailed for the same unconstitutional bs that he has ruined other people's lives, so it is kind of poetic, but that doesn't mean we should all be cheering yet another abuse by the ever-growing federal prosecutors, who can stick any of us in jail for almost anything these days...

www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019914.html

I'm quite sure all sides of the drilling in America debate can use statistics to make their arguments. But we are once again debating the wrong thing. We are a free country (or were a free country) because of one thing -- property rights. Without property rights, it is logically impossible to be free. All this land that is owned by our government creates a tragedy of the commons, where we must all agree, or at least the majority do to move in one direction or another.

Energy should be a private free market, where governments aren't allowed to screw it up as they have. If an entrepreneur wants to risk a huge investment in drilling in ANWR or North Dakota, let them buy the property, and make damn sure they aren't infringing on other people's rights (which includes pollution) to get it to market. The problem we have now is because governments control so much, prices aren't true market prices, and we really have no clue on how much oil is left to supply our energy needs. The beauty of the market is it uses prices (vital) to determine how to allocate resources most efficiently.

I write a letter about the importance of property rights, which is the foundation of our freedom, and Mike S tells me that it needs government to enforce. Actually it doesn't, but despite that, who says I was against government performing their actual duty? The government's main role (or supposed to be) is to protect our individual rights. My point is property owners should be allowed to drill for oil, transport it, refine it and sell it to highest bidders. However, if they infringe on other people's property rights (e.g. pollution), then they are responsible and can be held accountable (and yes, thru the use of the government protecting their rights).

Nice blog and link to a great article, but if you want to learn more, go to mises.org and download Murray Rothbard's "History of Banking in the United States." It will give you the education you are seeking.

If all the modern-day liberals agree to move to Scandinavia (where the grass is apparently greener), then even I would vote for McCain. But I doubt you would ever keep your promise.

I question myself why it always amazes me on how economically ignorant we are as a country, but then I read articles (and comments) such as this, and it becomes crystal clear. The major fault with this article is it sounds like Paul Krugman wrote it (and that is not a compliment by the way). Krugman believes, as does Sullivan, in this magical 'circular flow' model of an economy, where as consumers spend less, there are less profits, and then less jobs, and it continues to get worse and worse. The solution? To have the government spend more (read: infuse more money into the economy). If this was the answer, why not let the government always infuse massive amounts of fiat currency (and deficit spending) into the marketplace, as we'd be ridiculously wealthy, right? Wrong. The circular flow model fails because of what 'true' economists (Krugman not included) know regarding capital goods. In layman's terms, we can think of it as TIME. Products take time to manufacture, and the capital goods that help make those consumer products take time, which throws a huge wrench into the Disney-dream-world circular flow version of an economy. And what helps create capital goods? Savings! That's right folks, when we consumers save money, it is actually a good thing for the economy.

We are in an economy that is correcting itself, and the sooner it is allowed to correct itself, the better. If, on the other hand, we have economists and journalists and talking heads continuously telling the masses that spending is patriotic and government bailouts and deficit spending are all needed, we are in for a long and horrible spell. If you need proof, look no further than the interference in the early 1930's to see what that led to.

Either you (Leonard) are younger than 30 or you had economic courses with Paul Krugman. Please tell, which one (or both) is it?

Something to think about when you want to save jobs. If it is the job that is sooooo important, why not let the government hire people to dig holes and fill them back up again? The 'jobs' aren't important, it is the productivity that is important to create wealth and prosperity and a solid economy. Just think if we protected all those blacksmith jobs from more than a century ago, because they were too important to fail.

Hope to continue to educate you on economics.

Every time I see an Andrew Leonard article in my Google Reader, I know right away it will be filled with economic ignorance, and the comments as well. I don't know what to say or where to start other than get educated on economics. Best place is mises.org. Good luck.