hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:

Apart from hero worship why do you believe that Friedman is not able to say anything ridiculous?

Because I've read vast chunks of the corpus of his writings and the comment you attribute to him sounds about as much in character as, say, Jesse Helms announcing that he's in favor of gay marriages. Its POSSIBLE that it could happen, but its not bloody likely. He's said many things that I disagree with -- his contentions about fixed rule central banking seem specious, for instance -- but I've never heard him say or write anything out of character.

Since you were so certain that Hess was not a staff member of the Cato institute despite being listed as such on their home page

He isn't. My whole point about P.J. O'Rourke should have made that point, but you just spewed inanities about telecommuting. You obviously had no idea where he worked even though I dropped the major sarcastic hint that it was Rolling Stone, and not Cato. Never mind. I suppose your sense of sarcasm is also impaired. You have contended that Hillary Clinton traded options when she traded futures. You have contended that Hillary Clinton was trading in margin when the facts were that she was trading out of margin. You have contended that Hillary Clinton was trading lots of under $20,000 when she was trading vastly larger sizes. You obviously didn't examine the situation yourself at all. However, having a doctorate in an unrelated field, you apparently believe that you are able to make pronouncements in the absense of facts. Later in your message, you accused the free market faction of being "academic".

Plus, to say that such an analysis would be out of line with "even the most fuzzy headed free market types" is somewhat rich. I have heard plans to eliminate all government apart from the army, privatising roads and the police.

Yes, but since you don't understand how free markets work or how free market types think you can't reason about them. Put it this way -- communists say really outrageous things, right? Well, would it be in character for a communist to go out and endorse joint stock companies as a primary mechanism for distributing factory profits? Just because someone says something you consider weird doesn't mean they aren't thinking in a systematic fashion, and doesn't mean that certain things are and are not out of character. Over and over again, however, you have betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the arguments free marketeers use. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but it is another thing to mischaracterize them. I've read lots of Marx and Lenin, but it doesn't seem like you've bothered to read the writings of even fairly mainstream economists.

I have heard numerous claims that monopolies cannot ever exist under any circumstances unless they are created by government.

I've never heard that, but I myself have made the argument that they are very rare without government intervention. Its a simple fact of the world -- if you disagree with me you are disagreeing with the historical record. I can name the real cases of monopoly that have sprung up over the decades -- Alcoa being about the best example. You probably can't name any to speak of, other than tired and fake examples like U.S. Steel.

I have even heard it stated that had gun ownership been more widespread in the UK the Dunblane massacre would not have occurred. Whether the teacher was expected to gun down Hamilton with the Kalashnikov she carried to school each day

Of course, thank goodness the U.K. has some of the strictest gun control in the world, since it stops these sorts of incidents. (I'll point out for Dr. Hallam-Baker's benefit that this sentence was "sarcasm".) And yes, if she'd been carrying not a Kalashnikov rifle but just a simple pistol in her pocket she might indeed have been able to shoot the guy. I realize this may come as a shock to you, but in a fire fight the winner is the guy who fires accurately first, not the guy with the longer gun. Of course, you prefer to use distortionary language (like refering to carrying a rifle) to make things look ridiculous when in fact non-silly alternatives are possible.

How to save the whales is a logical outcome of Friedman's thesis that markets are everything.

Since you are either misreporting or inventing the comments you attribute to Friedman and can neither cite the actual article nor produce quotes from it, I don't think its entirely fair for you to make claims about his position.

The flaw in Perry's "stakeholder" theory is the same one in many academic theories. It assumes that most people are smart enough to realise their true interests.

Since in practice it always works, and since the alternatives never do, I would say that the collectivists of the world, such as yourself, are the academics here. Amazing how time after time even weak Adam Smithian analysis works just fine. Impose price controls on gasoline, and watch shortages form when supplies change, as in 1973. Remove price controls, and watch shortages disappear. Substantially lower the income tax, growth goes up. Substantially raise it, growth goes down. Make alchohol illegal, watch criminals take over the market. Make it legal again, watch the problems go away. No, Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil., who can't name whether Hillary Clinton traded options or futures and never examined a single trade she made but who can give us details about how those of us who looked at the thing in detail are wrong when we say her trades were impossible, it is you who is the academic high in your ivory tower with no sense of reality whatsoever. Ask all the people defecting from Cuba if they think your way is better some time. Be prepared to wipe the spit off your face. Perry

If you are so bright, why can't you format your line length to something that fits on an 80 column screen? On Sat, 8 Jun 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: Apart from hero worship why do you believe that Friedman is not able to say anything ridiculous? I found the letter to be ridiculous which is why I remember it. Since you were so certain that Hess was not a staff member of the Cato institute despite being listed as such on their home page is it not just a little possible that you might be wrong in this case. ___________________end quoted_________________ I am not attacking your positions on this, but it would be a lot easier (well, a little easier) if I could easily READ it. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@crash.suba.com