America finds itself in a time of crisis. For anyone remotely in touch with the state of our republic, there is a growing sense of dread that whatever is wrong is getting much worse much faster. Voters clamor for “change,” and politicians promise to deliver, but does anyone really know what changes are necessary, or even what changes they want? Is America still the land of opportunity? Is it still the land of the free? Do we still know what freedom is?This book attempts to answer those questions. To do so, it goes back to the beginning to rediscover the meaning behind our most sacred words, and the truth about our natural rights. The answers that this book provides will surprise even the most informed reader, and will reveal the long-forgotten secret behind America’s former prosperity and greatness.
Get Your Copy Here!
Tom Mullen is a writer, musician, and self-employed business consultant. He is a native of Buffalo, NY, where he earned a Master’s Degree in English at State University of New York College at Buffalo in 1989. Tom now resides with his family in Apollo Beach, FL. His writing and music are accessible on his blog at http://www.tommullen.net/.
Home
7 comments:
Tom,
here's an idea. Go back and get an advanced degree in economics since based on a previous post you obviously have little understanding of the subject.
The last thing we need in is another "conservative" commentator who is uneducated in field on which he opines.
Conservative? Of course unsupported insults are made anonymously. I am a liberal, like Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Mill, et al. Another blog commentor "who is uneducated in field on which he opines." [sic]
I left the earlier disparaging remark and I apologize. I was researching where this myth came from that Clinton did not have a surplus when I came across your blog after reading many other posts of a similar nature.
It is very frustrating to me as an economics major that so many people without a degree in economics think that the insights of economics are somehow trivial or common sense.
As someone with an advanced degree in English you should realize that though some may feel they understand a certain poem (e. g. T.S. Eliott's "The Waste Land"), from a cursory reading, the truth is it is their own ignorance of the broader themes of English Literature that allows them to come to this mistaken conclusion.
You don't understand economics. It is obvious in almost everything you write to someone who has studied economics. You don't even understand a simple concept such as budget deficits/surpluses.
That's why I wrote what I did. Also, I shouldn't have called you a conservative. "Ideologue" would have probably been a better description.
Mr. Anonymous,
Thank you for responding. I welcome criticism of my writing or my ideas/positions. HOwever, "you know nothing about economics" is not very constructive criticism. Rather, I would like to hear (and I am open to being convinced)exactly where I have made errors in my analysis.
I should say in fairness that while my Master's degree was in English, it was after 4 years of undergraduate where I was a "4 +1" student, which meant that I had the option to do one more year after my bachelors and receive an MBA. I took many courses in Economics and received virtually all straight A's. However, I continued my education after my college days, and have come to the conclusion that much of what I was taught in college economics courses was nonsense, including, but not limited to, the circular flow of income and Keynesian ideas that attempt to aggregate microeconomic phenomena that cannot be aggregated. I am convinced by the Austrian school that these errors originate from a the collectivist philosophy of their founder (in terms of philosophy) and specifically from their lack of a theory of capital from an economic theory perspective. Furthermore, by not recognizing that production is a process that happens in stages and over time further invalidates much of Keynesian and monetarist theory, in my opinion. I defer to the arguments made by Hayek and Von Mises on these issues, which I believe I have represented accurately, albeit in simplified fashion (blogging, like pop music, only allows you so many minutes). :)
I hope to hear from you again. If you don't wish to disclose your name, make one up - it seems friendlier that way. I look forward to specifics on your criticism of my blogs.
Warm regards,
Tom
Fair enough. Here's why you're wrong about the Clinton Surplus.
1. Historically and currently the national deficit/surplus is defined by Congress to be total Federal expenditures subtracted from total Federal revenue. Only from 1990 to 1993 was it defined differently
2. The definition above is the common sense definition and does not rely on poorly defined ad hoc terminology such as intergovernmental borrowing.
Social Security has to buy Federal debt with it's surpluses but this does not mean the government actually will owe that much to Social Security. How much Social Security needs in the future depends on economic growth and any adjustments done to the program as occurred in the 80s.
3. Macroeconomic effects of deficit spending such as crowding out of private investment are determined solely by the definition of the deficit given above. A reduction in public debt means more money for private investment.
4. A private company in which one subsidiary borrowed from another subsidiary would not record a net increase in debt nor does it make sense for the Federal government to do so.
Also, the dot.com bubble did not cause the surpluses in SS. The surpluses during the last 8 years were far greater than during Clinton's presidency. Semi-responsible fiscal policy during the Clinton years gave us surpluses and reckless fiscal policy during the Bush years gave us deficits.
LSMV
Dear Anonymous,
You are either the government's ideal fatted calf or you need to cut back on whatever medication you're on.
Regards,
Illinois Patriot
Post a Comment