Re: Re: POLITICS - Who you should vote for

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> Interesting - thanks for posting. My top scores were 26 for Biden, 25

> for Kucinich, 22 for , although Biden had 4 unknowns and

> had 2 unknowns that could change the score. Even Clinton at

> 19 and Obama at 20 outscored at 14. I was very surprised that

> does not support net neutrality. I listed that as a key issue.

I think I opposed that, and I might even have put it was important or

key. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it sure sounds to me

like it means regulating the internet. The internet is so

decentralized in nature -- I don't see why it needs regulations to

maintain " neutrality. "

Now, I can see that with tv corporations, where a handful own most of

the airwaves, I can see a rule saying they need to give equal time to

political candidates, but obviously web sites should be allowed to be

as biased as they want. With hundreds of milions of them, it works

out fine.

There are already such government regulations for tv networks, and

they are hardly fair and balanced. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-

> I was very surprised that

> does not support net neutrality. I listed that as a key issue.

What in the name of the flying spaghetti monster made you think Ron

would support net neutrality? He's against government

regulation, including regulations preventing abuses such as traffic

shaping. Maybe he'd say that as a matter of personal taste, he

objects to companies leveraging their power over the last mile, but

net neutrality regulation would be foursquare against his fundamental

philosophy.

Of course the irony is that without it, his candidacy could never have

gotten off the ground in the first place, as he's the ultimate YouTube

candidate -- and if it goes away in the future, as it's already

starting to do, there might eventually be no more net-based political

insurgencies.

> raised a good point - that the list of issues is not very

> comprehensive. It doesn't include any sustainability/food/supplement

> related issues that most of us have.

True, but services like these seem reasonably accurate, at least in

the broad strokes.

This one gave me 76 points for Kucinich, 65 points for Gravel (hah!),

52 for Obama, and so on down the line. The only Republican who got a

positive score at all was Ron , but he brought up the rear at 18.

Another site worth trying is <http://glassbooth.org> which has a

slightly different mix of issues and provides more explanation of

their results. They also pick Kucinich for me.

Then there's <http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html> which

has another somewhat different mix of issues; interestingly, this is

the one site that doesn't identify Kucinich as my best candidate,

instead picking Barack Obama. Kind of odd.

And another couple quizes:

<http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460>

<http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html>

None of them cover certain issues central to this list, but that's

because those issues just haven't hit the mainstream or even anything

close as of yet.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I think I opposed that, and I might even have put it was important or

> key. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but it sure sounds to me

> like it means regulating the internet. The internet is so

> decentralized in nature -- I don't see why it needs regulations to

> maintain " neutrality. "

>

> Now, I can see that with tv corporations, where a handful own most of

> the airwaves, I can see a rule saying they need to give equal time to

> political candidates, but obviously web sites should be allowed to be

> as biased as they want. With hundreds of milions of them, it works

> out fine.

>

> There are already such government regulations for tv networks, and

> they are hardly fair and balanced. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Where to begin? Net neutrality has nothing to do with regulating

websites and everything do with requiring bandwidth providers not to

selectively choke off the bandwidth of their competitors so that the

bandwidth consumers pay for is equally available to browse any sites

they want.

Here's a hypothetical scenario. My ISP is Time Warner Cable. I get

VOIP phone service (Voice Over Internet Protocol) from Vonage. Time

Warner, however, has their own VOIP product which they'd like to sell

me on top of the fee I'm already paying them for internet access, but

it's much more expensive than Vonage and has no extra features worth

the additional price. Without net neutrality regulation, they could

slow any traffic from Vonage way down and thus effectively prevent me

from getting any VOIP service but their own. With net neutrality

regulation, they'd essentially be forced to be a common carrier and

allow me to do whatever I want with the bandwidth I'm paying for.

This is analogous to the landmark decision that opened up the AT & T

phone network to non-AT & T phones and other devices in the first

place. Without it, we'd never have gotten modems, fax machines, cheap

telephones, and everything else related to the modern

telecommunications revolution.

Perhaps more to the point, without net neutrality, an ISP with its own

video business could decide its customers don't get access to YouTube,

and an ISP with ties to the GOP establishment could decide that its

subscribers don't get access to Ron . And lest you think this is

alarmist nonsense, it's already starting to happen, albeit just a

little bit here and there in the more extreme senses as companies test

the waters.

This to me is a classic illustration of why extreme laissez-faire

libertarianism of the Ron variety is a disastrous philosophy.

-

PS I'm sure some laissez-faire types would respond that in a " truly "

free market there'd always be competition, but in general, being an

ISP requires large amounts of capitalization, meaning that the

competitors are going to be few and likely possessed of similar root

attitudes.

[Guest guest]

-

> it appears that we still have internet neutrality.

No we don't. ISPs just mostly haven't been really dramatic about

infringing on it yet.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > There are already such government regulations for tv networks, and

> > they are hardly fair and balanced. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

> Where to begin? Net neutrality has nothing to do with regulating

> websites and everything do with requiring bandwidth providers not to

> selectively choke off the bandwidth of their competitors so that the

> bandwidth consumers pay for is equally available to browse any sites

> they want.

I realized that after a quick Google. The way the question was

phrased on the political quiz did not give me a proper impression of

what it meant at all.

According to this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500735.\

html

The issue seems mostly like a battle between who foots the bill for

technology development, ISPs or data companies.

It also appears from this article that we already have " net

neutrality " and the issue is whether expanded regulation should

eliminate it by not including a provision to keep it or should include

the provision to keep it.

> Here's a hypothetical scenario. My ISP is Time Warner Cable. I get

> VOIP phone service (Voice Over Internet Protocol) from Vonage. Time

> Warner, however, has their own VOIP product which they'd like to sell

> me on top of the fee I'm already paying them for internet access, but

> it's much more expensive than Vonage and has no extra features worth

> the additional price. Without net neutrality regulation, they could

> slow any traffic from Vonage way down and thus effectively prevent me

> from getting any VOIP service but their own. With net neutrality

> regulation, they'd essentially be forced to be a common carrier and

> allow me to do whatever I want with the bandwidth I'm paying for.

> This is analogous to the landmark decision that opened up the AT & T

> phone network to non-AT & T phones and other devices in the first

> place. Without it, we'd never have gotten modems, fax machines, cheap

> telephones, and everything else related to the modern

> telecommunications revolution.

Admitting you know far more than I do about this, my first instinct is

to point out that AT & T was a government-established monopoly to begin

with. I don't want to be naive here, but I think it warrants some

skepticism in comparing this situation to large giants competing in

the market. Not that there aren't analogous problems, but in terms of

scale.

> Perhaps more to the point, without net neutrality, an ISP with its own

> video business could decide its customers don't get access to YouTube,

> and an ISP with ties to the GOP establishment could decide that its

> subscribers don't get access to Ron . And lest you think this is

> alarmist nonsense, it's already starting to happen, albeit just a

> little bit here and there in the more extreme senses as companies test

> the waters.

Do you have a good link for an introduction to the case that this is a

real threat?

> This to me is a classic illustration of why extreme laissez-faire

> libertarianism of the Ron variety is a disastrous philosophy.

Can we be fair to specific candidates by using actual writing of

theirs on an issue to support our claims about their positions? I

mean, enough erroneous information has been tossed back and forth

about Ron 's supposed positions -- but so far the discussion of

net neutrality vis-a-vis Ron is based on these overly simplsitic

quiz sites and your extrapolation from his 'general philosophy.'

> PS I'm sure some laissez-faire types would respond that in a " truly "

> free market there'd always be competition, but in general, being an

> ISP requires large amounts of capitalization, meaning that the

> competitors are going to be few and likely possessed of similar root

> attitudes.

According to the above article, the main attitude of these ISP's is

that they want to be able to charge money to big data-holding

companies that use a greater share of their resources. I wonder if we

coud dissociate this issue, let them charge whatever they want, but

then leave open the question of content discrimination -- I wonder

what the attitudes of these ISPs would be.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/08, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> As long as it stays this way, I would see no need for legislation.

> But if content providers are no longer treated equally in servicing

> the passage of information through the net, then I believe we should

> have legislation to restore that condition.

Then I wonder what Ron 's effective position on it is, since he

apparently has voted against all internet regulation. I mean, if they

have to pass more regulations to make net neutrality go one way or the

other, then RP's effective stance is it stays the same.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> PS I'm sure some laissez-faire types would respond that in a " truly "

> free market there'd always be competition, but in general, being an

> ISP requires large amounts of capitalization, meaning that the

> competitors are going to be few and likely possessed of similar root

> attitudes.

Looks like in free markets there are also open source code creators:

http://www.nnsquad.org/

Is it possible these folks can support net neutrality without gov't

regulation? I don't know the answer to that; just posing the

question.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Then I wonder what Ron 's effective position on it is, since he

> apparently has voted against all internet regulation. I mean, if they

> have to pass more regulations to make net neutrality go one way or the

> other, then RP's effective stance is it stays the same.

NO! We don't have to pass more legislation one way or another!

[EXPLETIVES DELETED] We currently do not have net neutrality. A

laissez faire system would not and by definition could not include net

neutrality.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> According to this article:

>

>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500735.\

html

>

> The issue seems mostly like a battle between who foots the bill for

> technology development, ISPs or data companies.

That formulation is the propagandistic framing according to the ISPs

which want to charge data companies for the service they're already

charging consumers for. Nothing more, nothing less.

What's actually at issue is whether an ISP can sell you, a customer, a

connection to the internet with a certain amount of bandwidth and then

ALSO charge companies on the internet fees for access to its

customers... or just plain prevent its customers from getting to its

competitors on the internet at all.

> Admitting you know far more than I do about this, my first instinct is

> to point out that AT & T was a government-established monopoly to begin

> with. I don't want to be naive here, but I think it warrants some

> skepticism in comparing this situation to large giants competing in

> the market. Not that there aren't analogous problems, but in terms of

> scale.

The situation is directly analogous precisely as far as I took the

analogy, which had to do strictly with effects on customers.

> Do you have a good link for an introduction to the case that this is a

> real threat?

No, sorry; it's something I've been reading about for years, so I

don't have any single resource.

> > This to me is a classic illustration of why extreme laissez-faire

> > libertarianism of the Ron variety is a disastrous philosophy.

>

> Can we be fair to specific candidates by using actual writing of

> theirs on an issue to support our claims about their positions? I

> mean, enough erroneous information has been tossed back and forth

> about Ron 's supposed positions -- but so far the discussion of

> net neutrality vis-a-vis Ron is based on these overly simplsitic

> quiz sites and your extrapolation from his 'general philosophy.'

I'm not basing anything on the quiz sites, though Glassbooth at least

provides specific citations and quotes; I've read enough to believe

that there's no conceivable way he could support net neutrality

regulation while maintaining even a shred of consistency with his

general political philosophy. More to the point, the specific comment

you were replying to was a more general comment about laissez faire

capitalism in which I only included Ron as one example.

> According to the above article, the main attitude of these ISP's is

> that they want to be able to charge money to big data-holding

> companies that use a greater share of their resources.

And this is a fraudulent claim because they are ALREADY CHARGING THEIR

CUSTOMERS (us, the end-users) for usage of those resources! This is

NOT analogous to advertising-supported television broadcasts, in which

some or all of the costs of television programming are sometimes

assumed by companies using the airwaves (the advertisers) to reach end-

users.

> I wonder if we

> coud dissociate this issue, let them charge whatever they want, but

> then leave open the question of content discrimination -- I wonder

> what the attitudes of these ISPs would be.

Dissociate the issue from what? Let them charge whom whatever they

want?

Make no mistake, when AT & T and Comcast and Time Warner and all the

other large media companies with internet businesses claim that they

want to charge Google (which owns YouTube) and other such businesses

for using up their resources, it's a SHAM. We the end-using customers

are ALREADY PAYING AT & T and Comcast and Time Warner and so on for

using their resources (which is to say their bandwidth and all the

support infrastructure involved in providing it). What they actually

want to do is to make it harder or impossible for competitors to use

their pipes at all. This is a big reason that Google is participating

in the 700MHz spectrum auction -- they're afraid of being cut off from

their customers by their competitors, who also happen to provide net

access to most of the population. And though some people might say

that this proves that net neutrality regulation isn't required,

remember that Google is another corporate behemoth. Do we really want

to be caught between behemoths in a fight to the death?

This article isn't an introduction, but at least it touches on the

current situation.

<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071029-once-thought-dead-net-neutrality-\

roars-back-to-center-stage.html

>

More to the point, the issue isn't how much abuse of net neutrality is

going on now; it's what incentives companies have to violate it in the

absence of regulation versus what incentives they have to maintain

it. The only real disincentives to violation are public relations,

and those often succumb to money eventually.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/6/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500735.\

html

> > The issue seems mostly like a battle between who foots the bill for

> > technology development, ISPs or data companies.

> That formulation is the propagandistic framing according to the ISPs

> which want to charge data companies for the service they're already

> charging consumers for. Nothing more, nothing less.

I chose to read that article first because it seemed equally critical

of both sides. It spent several paragraphs talking about how the

presentation of the issue by the ISPs was total hogwash, so I'm

surprised if the author's basic analysis is pure ISP propaganda.

I don't really understand your objection here. They're not charging

twice for one service -- and so what if they were? -- they are

charging customers for their service to customers and Google et al.

for their service to them. Obviously my position vis-a-vis the

internet is totally different from Googles. If you find this a major

objection, fine, but I don't. I am, however, concerned that access to

information would be compromised.

> No, sorry; it's something I've been reading about for years, so I

> don't have any single resource.

[snip]

Thank you for what you've provided. I haven't been reading about it

at all, so I'll mull over this a bit for a while.

As to your statement in the other email that we have no net neutrality

at the moment, the article I link to above says that the current law

does not allow companies to charge differential rates and discriminate

against data providers. Where does it go wrong?

Thanks,

Chris

[Guest guest]

My top score was for Kucinich. My biggest problem with him is that I

understand him to be a vegan and very pro-Animal Rights.

ee in Virginia

[Guest guest]

My top score was also Kucinich, but I'm so disgusted with all my other options

(including Ron , in the last several weeks), that I'm going to just

pretend he's a meat eater

--- cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> Oh ick! me too.

>

> Connie

>

> > My top score was for Kucinich. My biggest problem with him is that I

> > understand him to be a vegan and very pro-Animal Rights.

> >

> > ee in Virginia

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

A lot of folks are hurting because of the gas prices now, which are

three times higher than they were a few years ago. This is especially

true for commuters, people with oil heating, etc. I live in an area

where, especially with the economy in the state it is in, people are

hurting in this respect. I have people in my family who, because of

their commute, are currently making less money than they are paying

out in bills.

Ron is the ONLY person who has identified the cause: paper money.

According to a January 4 Wall Street Journal article, since the year

2000, oil has gone up 350% in dollars, 200% in euros, and stayed

completely flat in gold.

This means if we were on the gold standard, the price of oil would

have stayed the same.

I encourage anyone interested in this issue to read this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119941453085566759.html

It requires registration. You have to give a credit card, but if you

cancel within two weeks, you don't get charged. It's an important

article to understanding this issue, but you can't get it across in

sound bytes. So when Ron cited this article on the January 5

debate, he just got laughed at and that was that, but it's the truth,

and he's the only one saying it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119941453085566759.html

>

> It requires registration. You have to give a credit card, but if you

> cancel within two weeks, you don't get charged.

Are you sure about that Chris? It doesn't say that any where on the

subscribe icon or on the form page. It just says 2 wks free when you

subscribe.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/08, Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...> wrote:

> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119941453085566759.html

> >

> > It requires registration. You have to give a credit card, but if you

> > cancel within two weeks, you don't get charged.

>

> Are you sure about that Chris? It doesn't say that any where on the

> subscribe icon or on the form page. It just says 2 wks free when you

> subscribe.

Yes. On page 4 of the registration when you enter your cc it says:

==========

Enter your credit card information. Remember, you may cancel during

your free trial period and you will not be billed for your

subscription. (The free trial is not available for some special

promotions.)

Your subscription will renew automatically as per our subscriber

agreement. You may cancel your subscription at any time.

==========

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Ron is the ONLY person who has identified the cause: paper money.

>

> According to a January 4 Wall Street Journal article, since the year

> 2000, oil has gone up 350% in dollars, 200% in euros, and stayed

> completely flat in gold.

>

> This means if we were on the gold standard, the price of oil would

> have stayed the same.

This sounds great, but it's not actually true.

Because the dollar isn't presently pegged to gold, the value of gold

relative to the value of the dollar has actually changed dramatically,

increasing from about $300/ounce in January of 2000 to its current

level of over $850/ounce.

<http://goldprice.org/gold-price-history.html#10_year_gold_price>

IOW, the rise in the price of oil has been roughly matched by a rise

in the price of gold.

You can also check out a similarly steep chart of the value of gold in

Euros here.

<http://goldmoney.com/en/charts/0eur120.png>

If we were on the gold standard, the gold:dollar valuation ratio might

have stayed exactly the same during this period of time, but the

dollar (and gold) costs of many things, including oil, could have and

would have changed dramatically.

There are loads of other problems with the gold standard and with the

sort of advocacy of it you generally see (one example of which you've

reproduced here) but that's not to say I'm defending our current

monetary system, which also sucks.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> This sounds great, but it's not actually true.

>

> Because the dollar isn't presently pegged to gold, the value of gold

> relative to the value of the dollar has actually changed dramatically,

> increasing from about $300/ounce in January of 2000 to its current

> level of over $850/ounce.

That's exactly the point. The " price of gold " increasing means the

exact same thing as the " value of the dollar " decreasing.

> IOW, the rise in the price of oil has been roughly matched by a rise

> in the price of gold.

That makes no sense -- the chart is a chart of the price of oil in

gold. In other words, how much gold does it take to purchase oil.

And it's the same.

> You can also check out a similarly steep chart of the value of gold in

> Euros here.

>

> <http://goldmoney.com/en/charts/0eur120.png>

It's similarly steep and the magnitude is lower -- that's why the

price of oil has only gone up 200% in euros instead of 350% in

dollars.

> If we were on the gold standard, the gold:dollar valuation ratio might

> have stayed exactly the same during this period of time, but the

> dollar (and gold) costs of many things, including oil, could have and

> would have changed dramatically.

The chart shows the exact opposite. The price of oil in gold is the

same as the price of oil in gold in 2000. The only difference would

have been that the price of oil would have declined between 2001 and

2004 somewhat and risen somewhat in 2004 to 2006, only to even out by

2007. The changes were nowhere near as dramatic as the change in

dollars and euros.

> There are loads of other problems with the gold standard and with the

> sort of advocacy of it you generally see (one example of which you've

> reproduced here) but that's not to say I'm defending our current

> monetary system, which also sucks.

You haven't mentioned any problem with the gold standard, except to

validate the point that the price of gold has gone up in dollars and

euros, which means that gold is relatively stable and dollars and

euros are not. Their values decline over time, so the price of

everything else goes up.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> That's exactly the point. The " price of gold " increasing means the

> exact same thing as the " value of the dollar " decreasing.

This is only true if you assume that the value of gold is immutable,

which of course it's not.

> That makes no sense -- the chart is a chart of the price of oil in

> gold. In other words, how much gold does it take to purchase oil.

> And it's the same.

You're assuming that there are no interdependencies not directly

reflected in the chart, but there are many.

I'm not enough of a student of economics to know how to explain this

to you better than I have, but if you're really suggesting that the

value of gold has remained unchanged since 2000, then you're saying

that the value of the dollar has dropped by a factor of about 2.833

since then, yet the cost of living has not increased 2.833 times.

That fact by itself ought to make it clear that the superficial

interpretation of the gold-vs-oil chart you're offering isn't

accurate. Nor does it make sense that the value of oil hasn't changed

a whisker while production has remained about flat or perhaps even

dropped a bit even as demand has increased substantially.

More generally, you can get statistics to say any darn thing you want,

particularly when it comes to the dismal (and murky) science.

> > If we were on the gold standard, the gold:dollar valuation ratio

> might

> > have stayed exactly the same during this period of time, but the

> > dollar (and gold) costs of many things, including oil, could have

> and

> > would have changed dramatically.

>

> The chart shows the exact opposite.

The chart shows no such thing. It would have to show the purchasing

power of gold remained the same from 2000 to 2007, but in fact it

doesn't show anything about the purchasing power of gold (or the

dollar) at all.

> The price of oil in gold is the

> same as the price of oil in gold in 2000. The only difference would

> have been that the price of oil would have declined between 2001 and

> 2004 somewhat and risen somewhat in 2004 to 2006, only to even out by

> 2007. The changes were nowhere near as dramatic as the change in

> dollars and euros.

The price of oil in gold only stayed the same because shifts in price

and valuation occurred elsewhere. You're assuming that a radical

change in currency valuation would have no effect on prices. I'm also

not clear why you think (assuming I understand you correctly) that

prices in a commodity-backed currency system can't change.

> > There are loads of other problems with the gold standard and with

> the

> > sort of advocacy of it you generally see (one example of which

> you've

> > reproduced here) but that's not to say I'm defending our current

> > monetary system, which also sucks.

>

> You haven't mentioned any problem with the gold standard, except to

> validate the point that the price of gold has gone up in dollars and

> euros, which means that gold is relatively stable and dollars and

> euros are not. Their values decline over time, so the price of

> everything else goes up.

I haven't attempted to provide a proper critique of commodity-backed

currency because I don't really have the time and it's not my area of

expertise, but I'll try to hit a few of the high points of the

argument against gold.

First, if gold isn't mined at the same rate that the economy grows,

use of the gold standard would result in inflation when new deposits

are discovered and/or gold is mined from existing deposits faster than

the growth of the economy, and deflation when the mining of gold fails

to keep pace with the growth of the economy. And of course if the

economy shrinks, deflation will be even more severe. Moreover, if the

supply of gold fails to keep pace with the growth of the economy, the

growth of the economy will actually be stunted by inflation and

currency constraints.

Second, adopting the gold standard would all by itself dramatically

inflate the price of gold, because there's presently more money than

there is gold. You could argue that this would be a one-time

correction and a necessary evil, except that...

Third, use of gold as a currency backing would compete with its use in

industry all over the world, thus driving up the price of many

products (and the value of gold) on an ongoing basis whenever and

however industrial and/or other demand for gold increases.

There are other reasons too, but I have to wrap this up for the time

being. If the goal of currency policy is to maintain stable valuation

of the currency, though, then tacking its valuation to an arbitrary

commodity which has no functional relation to economic activity is

plainly not sensible; some sort of currency valuation based on real

measures of the economy should instead be used.

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/7/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > That's exactly the point. The " price of gold " increasing means the

> > exact same thing as the " value of the dollar " decreasing.

> This is only true if you assume that the value of gold is immutable,

> which of course it's not.

No price is immutable, of course, but the price of gold is relatively

stable barring fluctuations in the supply of gold. But, for the

purposes of this discussion, the two phenomena are the same, because

the price of gold has risen and fallen in tandem with the price of oil

during this time period.

> > That makes no sense -- the chart is a chart of the price of oil in

> > gold. In other words, how much gold does it take to purchase oil.

> > And it's the same.

> You're assuming that there are no interdependencies not directly

> reflected in the chart, but there are many.

There are basically two important figures: the price of oil in

dollars, and the price in gold. Yes, these are affected by many other

things in the market, but that does not change the basic fact that the

price of oil in dollars has gone up, and the price of oil in gold has

stayed the same. Period.

> I'm not enough of a student of economics to know how to explain this

> to you better than I have, but if you're really suggesting that the

> value of gold has remained unchanged since 2000, then you're saying

> that the value of the dollar has dropped by a factor of about 2.833

> since then, yet the cost of living has not increased 2.833 times.

The value of the dollar relative to oil has dropped, and that is all

that is necessary to understand why the prices of oil and gas are

higher.

The cost of living should never increase in a productive free market

economy. The price index of goods and services has always decreased

in free market economies through world history except in inflationary

paper money systems, and certain isolated incidences where gold was

flooded into circulation.

> That fact by itself ought to make it clear that the superficial

> interpretation of the gold-vs-oil chart you're offering isn't

> accurate.

No, it just means that there are a multiplicity of mitigating factors

in the prices of other goods and services. But I'm not trying to

explain the whole economy; I'm trying to explain the oil price.

> Nor does it make sense that the value of oil hasn't changed

> a whisker while production has remained about flat or perhaps even

> dropped a bit even as demand has increased substantially.

If supply of oil and supply of gold remain flat, then the price of oil

in gold should remain flat. If demand has increased, then maybe

demand for gold or some other factor has compensated. These factors

aren't important. They are just distractions from the central issue

that the price of oil in gold is not any higher now than in 2000, and

the only reason it has more than tripled in dollars is because we have

a paper money system instead of a hard, commodity-backed currency

(such as gold).

> More generally, you can get statistics to say any darn thing you want,

> particularly when it comes to the dismal (and murky) science.

It's relatively straightforward: the supply of gold, is, relatively

speaking, pretty stable. The supply of paper money is only as stable

as the people printing it make it. You can't print gold out of thin

air, but you can print money out of thin air. As you print more

money, if the supply of goods and services stay the same, the amount

of those goods and services that money can buy goes down. But, if you

have gold or another hard commodity, it does not.

So, if international bankers and Congress want to take money of your

pocket and my pocket and transfer them into their pockets and those of

their friends without you noticing that they are robbing you, all they

need do is print money out of thin air and buy treasury bills with it,

and voila, they have stolen from us both.

> > > If we were on the gold standard, the gold:dollar valuation ratio

> > might

> > > have stayed exactly the same during this period of time, but the

> > > dollar (and gold) costs of many things, including oil, could have

> > and

> > > would have changed dramatically.

> > The chart shows the exact opposite.

> The chart shows no such thing. It would have to show the purchasing

> power of gold remained the same from 2000 to 2007, but in fact it

> doesn't show anything about the purchasing power of gold (or the

> dollar) at all.

It shows the power of gold to purchase oil, versus the power of euros

to purchase oil,versus the power of dollars to purchase oil. The

power of gold to purchase oil has stayed the same, while the power of

dollars to purchase oil has been cut in less than a third over a mere

7 years.

> > The price of oil in gold is the

> > same as the price of oil in gold in 2000. The only difference would

> > have been that the price of oil would have declined between 2001 and

> > 2004 somewhat and risen somewhat in 2004 to 2006, only to even out by

> > 2007. The changes were nowhere near as dramatic as the change in

> > dollars and euros.

> The price of oil in gold only stayed the same because shifts in price

> and valuation occurred elsewhere. You're assuming that a radical

> change in currency valuation would have no effect on prices. I'm also

> not clear why you think (assuming I understand you correctly) that

> prices in a commodity-backed currency system can't change.

They do change -- they go down, as long as the economy is growing and

the supply of gold stays roughly the same.

> I haven't attempted to provide a proper critique of commodity-backed

> currency because I don't really have the time and it's not my area of

> expertise, but I'll try to hit a few of the high points of the

> argument against gold.

> First, if gold isn't mined at the same rate that the economy grows,

> use of the gold standard would result in inflation when new deposits

> are discovered and/or gold is mined from existing deposits faster than

> the growth of the economy, and deflation when the mining of gold fails

> to keep pace with the growth of the economy.

This is indeed a problem; however, it is much better than a paper

money system because gold supply tends to be relatively stable while

paper money can be printed at a whim.

In general, deflation has been the norm in market economies with hard

currency, because as economies become more productive, prices fall.

The same is true in our most productive markets, like technology,

where the price always falls.

Increases in gold supply were a major problem in 19th century business

cycles, so simply having a " gold standard " isn't perfect.

Nevertheless, just compare the Bretton Woods period to the neoliberal

period. The former had a gold standard and real wages went up

dramatically, while real wages have mostly stagnated since we went off

the gold standard in the neoliberal period. (There were many factors,

but this is one.)

> And of course if the

> economy shrinks, deflation will be even more severe. Moreover, if the

> supply of gold fails to keep pace with the growth of the economy, the

> growth of the economy will actually be stunted by inflation and

> currency constraints.

If the economy grows and the supply of gold does not, deflation of

prices will occur, not inflation. There is nothing inherently wrong

with deflation. The technology market is constantly deflating prices

very rapidly and it is one of the most booming sectors.

> Second, adopting the gold standard would all by itself dramatically

> inflate the price of gold, because there's presently more money than

> there is gold. You could argue that this would be a one-time

> correction and a necessary evil, except that...

The money doesn't have to stay in circulation because it is there. I

have no idea how to implement a gold standard and I think that is

quite another debate.

> Third, use of gold as a currency backing would compete with its use in

> industry all over the world, thus driving up the price of many

> products (and the value of gold) on an ongoing basis whenever and

> however industrial and/or other demand for gold increases.

The supply and demand of products always goes up and down though.

> There are other reasons too, but I have to wrap this up for the time

> being. If the goal of currency policy is to maintain stable valuation

> of the currency, though, then tacking its valuation to an arbitrary

> commodity which has no functional relation to economic activity is

> plainly not sensible; some sort of currency valuation based on real

> measures of the economy should instead be used.

I don't see why constant valuation of the currency is desirable. The

value of the currency should always be going up, because prices should

fall as goods and services increase.

Anyway, I just want to emphasize that the original point remains

correct: the rising price of oil is due to the decline of the dollar,

and if we did have a gold standard, the price would be the same.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > PS I'm sure some laissez-faire types would respond that in a " truly "

> > free market there'd always be competition, but in general, being an

> > ISP requires large amounts of capitalization, meaning that the

> > competitors are going to be few and likely possessed of similar root

> > attitudes.

>

> Looks like in free markets there are also open source code creators:

>

> http://www.nnsquad.org/

>

> Is it possible these folks can support net neutrality without gov't

> regulation? I don't know the answer to that; just posing the

> question.

You're conflating apples and origami. The fact that open source

software can exist in a free market has absolutely nothing whatsoever

to do with the enormous capitalization required to deploy large

physical infrastructures to support internet access. If you're

suggesting that they can function as private watchdogs and preserve

net neutrality, all I can say is they've already failed, so obviously

the answer is a resounding 'no'.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> It's a real shame that issues like sustainability, food quality, GMO,

> NAIS, vaccines, and supplement regulation aren't higher on the

> mainstream priority list. I'd rate them as " key " issues.

Heartily agreed.

> It's also ironic that if people recognized that the key to good health

> is diet and not drugs, vaccines, and surgery, " health care " might not

> be much of an issue and billions of dollars could be saved to pay for

> better quality sustainable food. I'm afraid most people are severely

> brainwashed in this regard. And as a consequence, our national

> priorities are severely messed up. Our government is funding and

> favoring more and more drug/surgery/factory farm solutions for our

> health and food. Unfortunately this is likely to continue unless the

> masses can be re-educated in this regard. That's where a neutral

> internet is our biggest asset.

I know. My idea of healthcare reform would start with agriculture

and nutrition, not expanding access to statins.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> >

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500735.\

html

>

> > > The issue seems mostly like a battle between who foots the bill

> for

> > > technology development, ISPs or data companies.

>

> > That formulation is the propagandistic framing according to the ISPs

> > which want to charge data companies for the service they're already

> > charging consumers for. Nothing more, nothing less.

>

> I chose to read that article first because it seemed equally critical

> of both sides. It spent several paragraphs talking about how the

> presentation of the issue by the ISPs was total hogwash, so I'm

> surprised if the author's basic analysis is pure ISP propaganda.

Notice how the issue is framed:

>> Put another way, if net neutrality passes, the AT & Ts of the world

>> will be forced to pay for all of their equipment upgrades

>> themselves and could not subsidize that effort by imposing premium

>> fees for premium services. If net neutrality fails, they will be

>> able to recoup more of those costs than they can now from the likes

>> of Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and other major users of the World

>> Wide Web.

>>

>> At its heart, then, the battle is commercial -- over who pays how

>> much for improvements to the Internet that we all use and sometimes

>> love.

>>

>> But that's not what the opposing sides would have you believe.

The article states the anti-net-neutrality argument as fact and then

suggests that the opposing viewpoint is propaganda. Nor do I see

where it characterizes the ISP's presentation as hogwash.

> I don't really understand your objection here. They're not charging

> twice for one service -- and so what if they were? -- they are

> charging customers for their service to customers and Google et al.

> for their service to them. Obviously my position vis-a-vis the

> internet is totally different from Googles. If you find this a major

> objection, fine, but I don't. I am, however, concerned that access to

> information would be compromised.

So what if they were charging twice for the same exact product?

Seriously?

But again, the issue is larger than the mere question of charging more

than once for some products or charging more for others. It's not

merely that AT & T could charge Google for bandwidth that you the end-

user have already paid for; it's that AT & T could make sure that

Google's service never gets delivered at all or gets delivered so

slowly and poorly that most or all customers will stop using Google.

This obviously has vast implications for access to information that

extend far beyond the individual examples of Google and AT & T.

Perhaps an analogy will make the situation clear. As you know, since

you've been here, I live in an apartment. I don't know how familiar

you are with apartment living, but maybe you noticed the mailboxes in

the entryway of my building. Every apartment has its own mailbox

right inside the front door on the ground floor. The rent I pay my

landlord is in part for use of that mailbox, and on every day of the

year except Sundays and some holidays, the mailman comes by and

deposits my mail into the mailbox, and some time after this I open my

box and get my mail. (I'm sorry if this part of the analogy has been

tedious, but the details are important.) Our postal system

effectively features (postal) network neutrality, because anyone can

mail anything to me, and by paying for that mailbox, I can receive any

of that mail. (Yes, there are exceptions in the form of mail that

requires a signature and mail that's too large to fit in the box, but

they're not relevant. The point is that I'm paying my landlord for

use of that mailbox, and nobody gets to interfere with my mail.)

Without postal network neutrality, my landlord could decide not to

allow some mail through at all or just to slow it down dramatically,

to charge certain parties extra fees to mail things to me, and/or to

delay delivery of some mail if the parties sending me the mail didn't

pony up some cash for " preferred access " .

I am already paying for use of my mailbox. Charging the Democratic

Party, for example, or my bank, extra money for delivery of anything

they mail to me would, I think, be a clear instance of charging twice

for a single product or service -- which AFAIK is illegal, and should

be obviously immoral too -- and it's also a very good analogy for what

the ISPs say they want to do. This, however, isn't the full extent of

the problem. Imagine that my landlord supports the GOP instead of the

Democratic Party. Then perhaps no amount of money would enable

Democratic mail to reach me. Or imagine that my landlord has some

sort of vested interest in Microsoft; then maybe no amount of money

would assure prompt delivery of mail from Apple or Sony. You may

think this is an alarmist scenario that isn't at all likely in the

real world, but there have already been isolated instances of

political censorship, and the primary motivation behind ISPs seeking

to overturn such network neutrality as we do have (which is partial

and limited) is profit and competition: they want to monetize their

own media properties and choke off competition from other companies.

Time Warner, for example, is my ISP. What do you think they care more

about, the expense of transmitting YouTube videos to me (which expense

I'm already paying for!) or the fact that YouTube is a competitor and

they'd rather see me spending money on Time Warner content? I'll give

you three guesses as long as they're all the latter answer.

> As to your statement in the other email that we have no net neutrality

> at the moment, the article I link to above says that the current law

> does not allow companies to charge differential rates and discriminate

> against data providers. Where does it go wrong?

I don't think I said we have " no " neutrality (I believe I said we

don't have neutrality, which is different) but if I did, I misspoke

slightly. Time Warner cannot presently charge Google for carrying

YouTube traffic, but they can and do engage in traffic shaping.

You can read about it on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but broadly

speaking, traffic shaping (also called packet shaping) is the practice

of shaping, or constraining, traffic according to user-defined rules.

(In this case, the user is the ISP.) There's a developing controversy

over Comcast's use of traffic shaping to severely constrain P2P

traffic on its part of the network, for example. IOW, even though its

subscribers are paying for X amount of bandwidth (the value of X

depending on their tier of service) Comcast is preventing them from

using anywhere near X if they try to use it on P2P traffic. (And lest

we get sidetracked, there are plenty of legitimate uses for

BitTorrent.) Time Warner, it turns out, has also started using

traffic shaping, but I don't know that anyone really knows what

they're doing yet.

What this means is that though they can't _charge_ Google for passage

of their traffic, they can definitely constrain it, and while I don't

know if any ISPs are constraining Google traffic yet, they definitely

are constraining some kinds of traffic, and in the absence of robust

network neutrality legislation, the situation is only going to get

worse.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> >> But that's not what the opposing sides would have you believe.

> The article states the anti-net-neutrality argument as fact and then

> suggests that the opposing viewpoint is propaganda. Nor do I see

> where it characterizes the ISP's presentation as hogwash.

If you look at the quote above, he says " the opposing sides. " (Sides is

plural.) He states as fact what he believes to be the case, and then he says

that each side is distorting it.

You may have missed the second page. Here is where he runs through all their

claims and calls them hogwash:

=============

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500735_\

2.html

But the exact impact is near impossible to decipher if you read or watch what

the opposing lobbies put out to the public -- a situation that I'm sad to say is

part of the not-so-great tradition of telecom lobbying.

Start with the name of a group backed by AT & T and BellSouth Corp., among others,

that wants to block net neutrality legislation. It's called Hands Off the

Internet. I kid you not.

First, let's be clear: There is very little that is " neutral " or " hands off "

about any side of this argument. These are friendly-sounding terms that have no

real meaning in the context of this battle.

Second, no one can determine who is supporting Hands Off the Internet by looking

at its ads alone. To find out, one must dig into its Web site (

http://www.handsoff.org/ ).

Some of the ads it has on display there are the epitome of doublespeak. In a

television ad called " Road, " a narrator complains about regulating the Web

unnecessarily. Then he says: " The big online companies want the next generation

of the Internet to be built, but they don't want to pay for it. They want to

stick consumers with the bill, and they call their idea net neutrality. "

Where to begin?

First, regulators and/or legislators will have to decide one way or the other on

this one. Objections about regulating or deregulating are nothing more than an

ideological misdirection. Washington is involved, like it or not, no matter what

the outcome.

Second, online firms already pay billions of dollars to network operators. The

quandary is, should they be assessed more for additional or premium services,

such as video streaming?

And third, consumers will pay the freight any way you look at it. That's

Economics 101. They will either pay the telephone and cable companies via higher

rates, or they will pay the online firms the same way. Since costs are passed

through corporations to actual people in competitive markets like this one,

consumers will get " stuck with the bill " either way.

This last deception about consumers is compounded in a print ad also paid for by

the Hands-Off folks. It claims, " The so-called 'net neutrality' provisions would

[take] control away from consumers and [put] government in the role of

predicting the future of the Internet. " Seems like a stretch to me, and also

beside the point.

The other side of the debate is just as slippery. ...

==========

> So what if they were charging twice for the same exact product?

> Seriously?

Seriously. Should a journal not be allowed to charge a publication fee to a

scientist and charge a reader for a subscription at the same time? This seems

analogous. Should a magazine not be able to charge an advertiser for page space

and a reader for a subscription or cover price? Again, seems analogous. Or, as

in your example below (I've come back up to add this here), charging postage to

a sender and charging for a post office box to a recipient.

> But again, the issue is larger than the mere question of charging more

> than once for some products or charging more for others. It's not

> merely that AT & T could charge Google for bandwidth that you the end-

> user have already paid for; it's that AT & T could make sure that

> Google's service never gets delivered at all or gets delivered so

> slowly and poorly that most or all customers will stop using Google.

> This obviously has vast implications for access to information that

> extend far beyond the individual examples of Google and AT & T.

I understand that, and find that much more concerning. But I have not been able

to read the article you posted before on it yet.

> Perhaps an analogy will make the situation clear. As you know, since

> you've been here, I live in an apartment. I don't know how familiar

> you are with apartment living, but maybe you noticed the mailboxes in

> the entryway of my building. Every apartment has its own mailbox

> right inside the front door on the ground floor. The rent I pay my

> landlord is in part for use of that mailbox, and on every day of the

> year except Sundays and some holidays, the mailman comes by and

> deposits my mail into the mailbox, and some time after this I open my

> box and get my mail. (I'm sorry if this part of the analogy has been

> tedious, but the details are important.) Our postal system

> effectively features (postal) network neutrality, because anyone can

> mail anything to me, and by paying for that mailbox, I can receive any

> of that mail. (Yes, there are exceptions in the form of mail that

> requires a signature and mail that's too large to fit in the box, but

> they're not relevant. The point is that I'm paying my landlord for

> use of that mailbox, and nobody gets to interfere with my mail.)

> Without postal network neutrality, my landlord could decide not to

> allow some mail through at all or just to slow it down dramatically,

> to charge certain parties extra fees to mail things to me, and/or to

> delay delivery of some mail if the parties sending me the mail didn't

> pony up some cash for " preferred access " .

Ok. Well, in the libertarian model all that enforcing this would require is

that the firms have an upfront agreement to neutrality, and are persecuted for

fraud if they in any way do not uphold it. There seems to be shortcomings to

either side: if there are not vigilant consumer watchdogs to make sure that

firms do this, some might escape through the loop. If there was a true monopoly

or near monopoly, it is conceivable a firm could just say in your face, I'm

screwing you on this, but that seems unlikely. The shortcoming of government

regulation would basically be the slipper slope argument. If they first get

into network neutrality, could it open the way up, eventually, for licensing,

and making the 'net wind up like the tv networks? It seems like both sets of of

shortcomings basically involve slippery slope arguments, both of which have some

credibility.

> I am already paying for use of my mailbox. Charging the Democratic

> Party, for example, or my bank, extra money for delivery of anything

> they mail to me would, I think, be a clear instance of charging twice

> for a single product or service -- which AFAIK is illegal, and should

> be obviously immoral too -- and it's also a very good analogy for what

> the ISPs say they want to do.

So it is immoral for them to charge postage? And it is immoral for them to

charge more postage for items of larger size?

> This, however, isn't the full extent of

> the problem. Imagine that my landlord supports the GOP instead of the

> Democratic Party. Then perhaps no amount of money would enable

> Democratic mail to reach me. Or imagine that my landlord has some

> sort of vested interest in Microsoft; then maybe no amount of money

> would assure prompt delivery of mail from Apple or Sony.

This would be an outrage. It seems to me that there, as above, are two

situations to this: a law establishing neutrality, or a contractual norm to

upfront guarantee neutrality, punishable by fraud. Since government regulations

always require vigorous consumer watchdog groups, an since vigorous consumer

watchdog groups can also influence free market/contractual practices, it seems

to me the prerequisites for one or the other are simialar.

Like Ron says, in his ideal libertarian scenario, there would be a Ralph

Nader working just as vigorously with the same intent, but through influencing

consumer choice and contractual offerings rather than federal regulations.

>You may

> think this is an alarmist scenario that isn't at all likely in the

> real world, but there have already been isolated instances of

> political censorship, and the primary motivation behind ISPs seeking

> to overturn such network neutrality as we do have (which is partial

> and limited) is profit and competition: they want to monetize their

> own media properties and choke off competition from other companies.

> Time Warner, for example, is my ISP. What do you think they care more

> about, the expense of transmitting YouTube videos to me (which expense

> I'm already paying for!) or the fact that YouTube is a competitor and

> they'd rather see me spending money on Time Warner content? I'll give

> you three guesses as long as they're all the latter answer.

I think there motivation is to earn maximum profits, and I can see them pursuing

a number of strategies, and since I'm not up on it, I'll take your word for it

that they are pursuing this one.

It is worth noting that one of Google's reasons for success is there neutrality.

took the route that they would charge $300 fees to get preferential

treatment in their search engine. Google took the route of providing a better

product to consumers through neutrality. Lo and behold, Google has for some

time been getting 90% of the search engine market share.

> > As to your statement in the other email that we have no net neutrality

> > at the moment, the article I link to above says that the current law

> > does not allow companies to charge differential rates and discriminate

> > against data providers. Where does it go wrong?

> I don't think I said we have " no " neutrality (I believe I said we

> don't have neutrality, which is different) but if I did, I misspoke

> slightly. Time Warner cannot presently charge Google for carrying

> YouTube traffic, but they can and do engage in traffic shaping.

>

> You can read about it on Wikipedia and elsewhere,

[snip]

When I get a chance I will read the article you posted and some others I found.

Thanks for posting them, though I can't talk the details till I learn more.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> It's a real shame that issues like sustainability, food quality, GMO,

> NAIS, vaccines, and supplement regulation aren't higher on the

> mainstream priority list. I'd rate them as " key " issues.

Ron at Farm Food Voices:

Ron on raw milk:

==========

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul422.html

My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase

unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research

and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than

pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these

products without having the federal government second-guess their

judgment about what products best promote health.

==========

Ron on NAIS:

===========

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul326.html

The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal

mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers

out of business. ... NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other

diseases. .... More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and

ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas

competition. As dairy farmer and rancher Bob stated, NAIS is

" too intrusive, too costly, and will be devastating to small farmers

and ranchers. "

============

Ron on vaccines:

===========

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul66.html

As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad

policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad

idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not

be made by government. The real issue is individual medical choice. No

single person, including the President of the United States, should

ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially

millions of Americans. Freedom over one's physical person is the most

basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign

over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make

medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our

bodies.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul203.html

One obvious beneficiary of the proposal is the pharmaceutical

industry, which is eager to sell the psychotropic drugs that

undoubtedly will be prescribed to millions of American schoolchildren

under the new screening program. Of course a tiny minority of children

suffer from legitimate mental illnesses, but the widespread use of

Ritalin and other drugs on youngsters who simply exhibit typical

rambunctious, fidgety, and impatient behavior is nothing short of

criminal. ...

Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and

control over their children's well-being. There is no end to the

bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how

we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the

latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory

education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory

vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony " social

services " agencies all represent assaults on families. The political

right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto

nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents

can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying

real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.

=================

Ron on supplement regulations:

===========

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul261.html

Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate

dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part

of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will

be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international

trade body will have a say over whether American supplement

regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about

it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex

regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the

question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more

likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor's

prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer

is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for

bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.

Pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars trying to get

Washington to regulate your dietary supplements like European

governments do. So far, that effort has failed in America, in part

because of a 1994 law called the Dietary Supplement Health and

Education Act. Big Pharma and the medical establishment hate this Act,

because it allows consumers some measure of freedom to buy the

supplements they want. Americans like this freedom, however –

especially the health conscious Baby Boomers.

This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see

international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around

American law and restrict supplements through international

regulations.

============

> It's also ironic that if people recognized that the key to good health

> is diet and not drugs, vaccines, and surgery, " health care " might not

> be much of an issue and billions of dollars could be saved to pay for

> better quality sustainable food. I'm afraid most people are severely

> brainwashed in this regard.

Ron on access to this information:

=============

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of

Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they

may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA

prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of

neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age

take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA

action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural

tube defects!

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the

scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are

effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids

may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may

reduce the risk of bone fractures.

The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply

with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American

people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the

federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops

the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative,

or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal

court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship.

The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting

the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the

role of nutrients in protecting against disease.

=======

Chris