Chip with simple program for Toy

[Fred Weiss]

On Aug 24, 6:02 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

...supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

You mean that the precondition of free markets is looting its most
productive participants - the rich? That's an absurd contradiction and
stolen concept if ever there was one.

Somehow I doubt that any "outspoken market economist" would have any
difficult in demolishing this delusion. One in fact doesn't even have
to be a "market economist". All one has to do is observe what has
happened in countries where such looting has occurred.

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

Fred Weiss

 

[Bret Cahill]

"Freedom speech on the germane economic issues for all parties is a
precondition of each and every free trade."

This moving target

It's not a moving target. It's _another_ target. I'm giving you
every opportunity to hit _any_ target in case you are too clueless to
hit the shorthand version:

"Free speech is a precondition of each and every free trade."

is an example of why people have been asking you to
define your terms,

I cut a deal with Webster. Webster stays out of my political work and
I don't define terms.

Everyone knows how the newsgroups "define all terms" dodge works:
After I define all the terms then the issue dodger starts asking for
definitions of the terms used to define the original terms.

And so on. The dodge by definition is basically a subclass of the
"cascaded dodge."

A Wiki article points out that asking for definitions is _not_ a valid
debating tactic.

There's no getting around the simple fact:

If you openly admit you are too stupid to look up terms in a
dictionary everyone will think you are stupid.

Your end run didn't work.

and, of course, the opportunity to move the target
once it is hit is why you haven't.

When asked to define your terms, your response was "define them any
way you want".

Michael did.

Who cares about some chat group nit wit?

The goal was to get an outspoken _professional_ economist to answer
The Question.

Here I'll repost what you wanted to cut/snip dodge:

This is not a wager. It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage
Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*


The Question is:


"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"


The rules are simple.


1. The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*


2. The Question must appear in the body of the letter.


3. Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."


4. The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.


5. Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address. If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash. (Lower 48 only.)


* Other shill tanks may be considered


Bret Cahill

 

[Fred Weiss]

On Aug 24, 6:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

On Aug 24, 6:02 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

...supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

You mean that the precondition of free markets is looting its most
productive participants - the rich? That's an absurd contradiction and
stolen concept if ever there was one.

Somehow I doubt that any "outspoken market economist" would have any
difficulty in demolishing this delusion. One in fact doesn't even have
to be a "market economist". All one has to do is observe what has
happened in countries where such looting has occurred.

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

Fred Weiss

P.S.: Countries, such as those newly liberated from the shackles of
communism in Easter Europe and which have most aggressively adopted
free market policies along with low taxes (i.e. the exact opposite of
what Brat advocates), have experienced among the fastest growth rates
in recent years. Rather than leading to any "exploitation" of working
people, wages have in fact risen rapidly and they are experiencing a
*shortage* of workers, esp, skilled workers. Along with these rising
wages is of course those who make it possible - the very ones Brat
wants to loot - the enterprising entrepreneurs, small and large - from
small-scale building contractors and store owners to founders of large
enterprises employing 100's, if not 1,000's, of workers.

Incidentally, in those countries, as here in the USA, the rich pay a
vastly disproportionate percent of the taxes - and a grossly unjust
"progressive income tax" is not what accomplishes it. In Eastern
Europe the "flat tax" has been widely embraced to encourage wealth
creation and it is *that* which results in rising tax revenues, not
"progressivity".

 

On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).
...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade. I think
near equality of circumstances is required. Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage. Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

 

On Aug 24, 3:02 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

They know supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

They'll eventually need to retrain for the productive sector anyway
because it's so cheap and easy for anyone here to send polite letters
by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market economists.

And then post the letters and numbers here.

The letter could read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                     My Address
                                                     Hometown, ST,
ZIPCO-DEXX

Thomas Sowell
Economics Dept.
Hoover Inst.
Stanford CA, 94546

Dear Dr. Sowell:

I'm a great admirer of your lofty work.  There's a lowly leftwing
smelly obnoxious commie liberaloon peacenik Democrat trolling
newsgroups under the handle "Bret Cahill" who claims he has inside
information on Hoover fellows and that you will refuse any request to
answer a simple question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

He claims he'll pay $200 for a hard copy answer from you.

You can answer with any text you want.

If you spend 5 minutes writing "no" then we can split the money and
both average $1200/hr for our effort, or, even better, discredit that
Cahill guy.

                                             Yours,

                                             Chat Group Chuck

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or you could pretend to agree with me.  I could care less what you say
as long as you get a response to The Question.

Bret Cahill

Actually, I just IM'ed Thomas Sowell on Yahoo Messenger.
He says, "That little cracker, Bret Cahill, just doesn't like
strong conservative black men. Bigoted liberal crackers
like him are a dime a dozen on the open market.

'Nuff said. Case closed.

 

On Aug 24, 2:17 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:

Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:24 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow of
money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety,
for example.
That defies all logic.  How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?
Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the poor
don't work, (create wealth)?

Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation
should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.

How is that 'self evident'? What do you 'see'?

The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created.

One can be robbed by another, so, it is not the only way.

 If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.

I'll stick to the observation. But to say the mechanics is 'wrong',
therefor the observation is wrong, is in poor form.

Properly is to accept the observation and work out the mechanics from there.

It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

Poor does not equal 'none'. Your definition, premise, is wrong.

It wouldn't take long before the poor had none.
That's the problem with the observation. There
is no way to loot the poor unless they are
constantly creating new wealth.

 

[zzbunker]

On Aug 22, 6:21 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:

On Aug 22, 11:29 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:





This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer..
I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*
The Question is:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
? And what possible use could the answer to that question have?
Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.
So what?
now there is a fine example of a logic. its called "what me worry"
Actually he has "bigger fish to fry" than trillions a year, i. e.,
trying to debate a self evident truth.
but, alfred e. neuman does not fret the small stuff actually he
does not fret anything, he is unable to.

Even AEN might have had some basic reasoning ability.   This one's
thought processes have been compromised so severely he's not
functional.

He once tried the dumbest of all newsgroups bluffs:

Claiming he had a patent but he wouldn't post the patent number.

Think about it:  An inventor who is ashamed of his work!

You can't get nonsense that good in _Alice In Wonderland_ or
_Catch-22_.

He always outs himself when trying to fake a tech background so all he
can post is:

"LOL!"

"Cite?"

"Show your work."

Bret Cahill

If yer happy and you know it type "LOL!"  [clap clap]
If yer happy and you know it type "LOL!"  [clap clap]
If yer happy and you know it,
Then yer life is sure to show it!
If yer happy and you know it type "LOL!"  [clap clap]

 and he still refuses to answer a simple question. i have run into a
few like that. i give them a short line or two to refute, i get back
reams of nonsense, that when i am done reading it, still does not
answer my question. so good luck.- Hide quoted text -

You will have no luck.
Since robots, Digital Sytems, adaptive A.I. Fiber Optics.
Broadband, Holograms, HDTV, Cell Phones,
laser printers, tasers, Ebooks, Microcomputers, CD, DVD+rw, Solar
Energy, PV Cells,
XML, Blogs, On-line Publishing, and USB were all invented because
of wafflers like market economists.

- Show quoted text -

 

[Bret Cahill]

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade. ďż˝

Free speech is the 800 lb gorilla.

I think
near equality of circumstances is required. ďż˝

You'll get that quickly with free speech on economic issues.

Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage. ďż˝

Now you gotta explain what "power" has to do with it.

Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

You haven't been watching.


Bret Cahill

 

[Les Cargill]

forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).
...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

Power is force. It's not economic. You are equating economic inequality
with slavery. I do not think that is valid, and it ... insults people's
value and ability to be self-determined.

This is the Prime Mistake of Marxism.

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade. I think
near equality of circumstances is required.

Then it's information-theoretic impossible. Since trade is *the*
mechanism for people to *improve* their lot, it casts them
into an eternal subclass.

Interchange by non-trade *is* force.

Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage. Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

All businesses do, very much. Now, the culture is decaying and tells
people that they can "do it all", but the very mother's milk
of interdependency is trade.

--
Les Cargill

 

On Aug 24, 7:49 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:17 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:24 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the
flow of money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always
exceeds any flow of money from the rich to the poor. viz. see
the studies by Saez and Pickety, for example.
That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?
Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the
poor don't work, (create wealth)?

Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation
should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.

How is that 'self evident'? What do you 'see'?

The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created.

One can be robbed by another, so, it is not the only way.

If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.

I'll stick to the observation. But to say the mechanics is 'wrong',
therefor the observation is wrong, is in poor form.

Properly is to accept the observation and work out the mechanics
from there.

It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

Poor does not equal 'none'. Your definition, premise, is wrong.

It wouldn't take long before the poor had none.
That's the problem with the observation.  There
is no way to loot the poor unless they are
constantly creating new wealth.

That completely mangles the history too. Part of the reason
the Raj was so successful was because of the taxes imposed
on the poor that the rich could avoid with complete immunity.

The Raj was only successful at causing the worst famine
that ever happened outside of a communist country.

 

On Aug 24, 7:26 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 24, 4:21 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:





On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade.  I think
near equality of circumstances is required.  Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage.  Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

By the same token, the laborers don't need that
particular job to survive.  Competition is choice
is competition is choice.  The problem with
socialist amd fascist monopolies is there is no
other alternative.

By their circumstances labors need jobs.
Unless they are allowed to organize they are
at a disadvantage to capital. It's still unequal
power. The benefits acruing to capital should be
at best rent.

 

On Aug 25, 12:27 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:41 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).
...

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

Power is force.

Ownership is power. There you go.

It's not economic.

I always thought economics was the study of the
distribution of scarce resources.

You are equating economic inequality
with slavery.

Do you consider all trades between unequals "slavery"?
Are children slaves to their parents?

I do not think that is valid, and it ... insults people's
value and ability to be self-determined.

Nature limits one's ability to be self-determined.
People have always inserted themselves into the
system so as to advantage themselves at others'
expennse.

Unless people can be traded their value is not
economic.

This is the Prime Mistake of Marxism.

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade.  I think
near equality of circumstances is required.

Then it's information-theoretic impossible.

I believe so.

Since trade is *the*
mechanism for people to *improve* their lot, it casts them
into an eternal subclass.

Not eternal. Different people have different talents
and skills. Even when disadvantaged in any particular
trade as long as ownership is not totally denied the
individual a person can accumulate wealth and over
time reduce the disadvantage. Likewise a person
with economic power but no talents or skills will
slowly lose it. Some of this may take generations
but it's not eternal.

Interchange by non-trade *is* force.

The issue isn't trade/non-trade but fairness of
the trade.

Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage.  Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

All businesses do, very much.

Why would an escential employee agree to non-ownership
terms? If owners are disadvantaged by the terms with
an escential employee then trading ownership for income
would restore balance.

Now, the culture is decaying and tells
people that they can "do it all", but the very mother's milk
of interdependency is trade.

All I seek is fair trade. It is the commoditization of all
items traded. It is making the market at the point where
both parties would feel equally comfortable on the other side
of the trade give reversed circumstances.

 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:27:26 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?


Power is force. It's not economic. You are equating economic inequality
with slavery. I do not think that is valid, and it ... insults people's
value and ability to be self-determined.

LOL. Let me introduce you to the concept of "the Company store".

It's absurdly foolish not to recognize economic power derived from
economic inequality. When you can't eat or feed your family without
the "generosity" or assistance of another - you can find that other
holds a considerable power over you.

 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Fred Weiss
<fredweiss@papertig.com> wrote:

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that (for the most part). What they need is free markets
- and, in effect, *more* rich people.

Wow after this rant I wonder there is any Kool-Aid left for anyone
else.

 

[Fred Weiss]

On Aug 24, 7:21 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

There's nothing wrong with organizing per se - so long as its
peaceful. But in a free market economy it's completely unnecessary.
The (economic) power of producers rests entirely on the choices of its
customers. To exercise their power all the customers have to do is
stop buying. That's how companies fail. That's why companies -
regardless of their economic power - are continually subject to the
demands of the market, e.g. are required to innovate and to improve
their products in the face of competition. That's why prices are
continually lowered making products increasingly affordable to more
and more people, even those with relatively low incomes (see for
example Henry Ford and the automobile).

Thus the greatest beneficiaries of capitalism are the poor. So, it's
hardly organization that they need. The simply need to bask in the
abundance and opportunities which surround them - and take advantage
of them to improve their lives. That's in fact why 10's of millions of
them first came to the USA - and why millions still do. They didn't
need "to organize" to accomplish it. They simply needed to get on
boats and get here. Then they needed to spread out across the country
and find where the greatest opportunities were. (That would still be
true if they didn't need to fear immigration thugs bolstered by the
unfortunate xenophobia of many Americans).

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade.  I think
near equality of circumstances is required.  Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage.

Of course economic power is unequal. Some people are smarter than
others and/or more productive. The question is how they achieve that
power and what they are required to do to keep it. In a free market,
where their survival rests on the free choices of their customers,
they must continually innovate, improve their products, and lower
their prices.

If you think that puts anyone at a disadvantage - rather than
presenting them with a great boon to their lives, including tremendous
opportunity for improvement - then you need a better grasp of economic
history.

 Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

Businesses need their customers. If you want to see how much "freedom"
business owners really have, try going into business for yourself. If
you understood the economics of it, you would understand why business
owners typically work far more hours then their employees and
experience far greater stress. True, a worker may lose his job. But
then he simply finds another one. A business owner typically risks
everything and can easily face total ruin should he fail. That's also
of course why the rewards are far greater should he succeed. But no
one would take it on otherwise.

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that (for the most part). What they need is free markets
- and, in effect, *more* rich people. It is the rich after all who
provide the ideas and capital for economic growth which is then
enjoyed by the rest of population. Think about it. What did you do to
create the vast abundance of products on the shelves of a typical
supermarket, such that you can fill your cart to overflowing at a
relatively small percentage of your income (in comparison to the
subsistence existence of most people throughout much of history and
even in much of the world still today)?

Fred Weiss

 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Free markets are good for the economy!

But not people. Go figure.

The economy is an imaginary construct. People are real.

 

[Bret Cahill]

As soon as the rightard is moved off his biolerplate, he resorts to
the straw man:

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Who decides how much it too much?

...supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

You mean that the precondition of free markets is looting

Only a censor would claim "free speech" was the same as "looting."

its most
productive participants - the rich?

Who decides who are most productive?

That's an absurd contradiction

Then why did you post it?

and
stolen concept if ever there was one.

It was _your_ straw man.

Somehow I doubt that any "outspoken market economist" would have any
difficult in demolishing this delusion.

But can he answer The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

One in fact doesn't even have
to be a "market economist". All one has to do is observe what has
happened in countries where such looting has occurred.

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

The outspoken market economist is Free to Choose to stipulate that.

Just get an answer to The Question.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

P.S.: Countries, such as those newly liberated from the shackles of
communism in Easter Europe and which have most aggressively adopted
free market policies

That's _my_ point!

Free markets are good for the economy!

The problem is your outspoken GOP "market" economists refuse to
support free markets by answering The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

Here, it's cheap and easy for anyone to show everyone on newsgroups
that the outspoken "market" economists are outright frauds.

Just send polite letters by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market
economists and immediately post the letters and tracking numbers
here.

If you want to pose as a rightard the letter might read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1234 My Address
Hometown, ST,
ZIPC0

Thomas Sowell
Hoover Fellow
Economics Dept.
Hoover Inst.
Stanford CA, 94546

Dear Dr. Sowell:

I'm a great admirer of your thoughtful work. There's a lowly
leftwing smelly obnoxious commie liberaloon peacenik Democrat
trolling
newsgroups under the handle "Bret Cahill" who claims he has inside
information on Hoover fellows and that you will refuse any request to
answer a simple question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

He claims he'll pay $200 for a hard copy answer from you or
any other fellow at Hoover.

You can answer with any text you want.

If you spend 5 minutes writing "no" or "yes" or anything and then sign
your name we can split the money and both average $1200/hr for our
effort, or, even better, discredit that Cahill guy.


Yours,


Chat Group Charlie

USPS Tracking #

6754 9823 7527 5253 3951

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or you could posture as being politically neutral or whatever. I
could
care less what you say as long as you get a response to
The Question.


Bret Cahill

 

[Fred Weiss]

On Aug 25, 11:15 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.
True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Who decides how much it too much?

Broadly, no one. The market decides - a result of the choices of
buyers and sellers or, in this instance, employers and workers. For
example, if you pay workers too little, they will quit and go
elsewhere and you will have difficulty finding replacements. On the
other hand, if workers demand too much and a company is unable to pay
them, it goes out of business (or goes elsewhere, e.g. overseas). This
of course is what has happened to the auto industry in the USA.

...supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.
You mean that the precondition of free markets is looting

Only a censor would claim "free speech" was the same as "looting."

So, you are a censor? I'm not the one who is saying that free speech
is looting. You are.

its most
productive participants - the rich?

Who decides who are most productive?

The market again, of course.

(Given the fact that you are an obvious ignoramus in economics, it is
bizarre that you are posing as a great "questioner" of those who are
knowledgeable).

Somehow I doubt that any "outspoken market economist" would have any
difficult in demolishing this delusion.

But can he answer The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

No one can - including yourself. It is a totally out of context
question blatantly and deliberately loaded with ambiguity and
equivocation.

Even on your own delusional terms - if free speech means looting the
rich - that obviously has nothing to do with free trade. In fact it is
the exact opposite.

Fred Weiss

 

[Bret Cahill]

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that (for the most part). What they need is free markets
- and, in effect, *more* rich people.

Wow after this rant I wonder there is any Kool-Aid left for anyone
else.

Fred might not be very effective simply because his boilerplate is so
hackneyed and dated it's boring.

The gun nut bigot who types "KKK" all the time and who has been
denying the existence of microwave weapons "out of my live warm hands"
isn't much better.


Bret Cahill