The Terrible Sweal

I don't think that mere possession of nuclear weapons necessarily causes conflict. I do however think that conflict is an incentive to possessing nuclear weapons. That means that so far, only countries in conflict have developed nuclear weapons. Probably if non-violent countries also developed nuclear weapons it would be a stabilizing force in the world. Accordingly, countries like Canada really should develop nuclear weapons. I think it's clear that the NPT isn't working. Nuclear weapons are proliferating.

So YOU say. But how do WE know? You could be doing something subversive. Unless you have something to hide, I don't see why you would mind us establishing a special program to monitor your fax machine.

It was a reference to P.E. Trudeau's quote. He imlpied that he understood that it was hard for us to be a neighbour to the US(elephant), because as Trudeau said "...one is affected by every twitch and grunt." It wasn't a threat. In fact, for him to refer with any approval anything Trudeau said is a signal of respect for Canadianism. I can't argue that. I agree. I wouldn't tar him with that. Three years is not a long time when it comes to scheduling such things. The true offence was earlier when he made that speech thanking everyone but Canada.

Yes, it does. You see, the primary difference between the stable-money period before 1913 and the unstable period thereafter was the abandonment of the gold standard. Inflation is far easier off the gold standard, while on it, it's only possible with coin debasement which is a primitive method with obvious limits. The mechanics of growth off the gold standard are theoretically the same as they are on it, however, inflation when not on gold becomes far easier. That's exactly my point. Inflation is a different beast depending whether you use a gold standard or not. Thus, your attempt to discuss post-gold standard inflation in the same terms as pre-gold standard is undermined. These figures don't support your hypothesis. Between 1700 and 1913 (Britain went onto gold in 1717), we have over 2100% GDP growth in Britain and virtually no inflation (relative price stability). Between 1913 and 1998, we have 394% GDP growth (a slowdown, not an acceleration), and 400% inflation. 1. Britain went onto the gold standard in 1821. 2. The figures I gave indicated a growth of a bit over 200% for the UK between 1700 and 1820, and 600% for the period 1820-1913. I don't know how you come up with your 2100% figure. 3. Growth for the UK between 1913 and 1998 is in fact closer to 5% (4.94) and the period is eight years shorter. 4. Taking British figures in isolation has a distorting effect due to the rise and fall of the B.Empire. World figures bear out my point. 5. Where are your inflation figures from? 6. I believe the table I offered uses real (inflation adjusted money). Well, I'm actually saying the growth causes the inflation. Or that all demand is real. Why not? That's what investment is all about. There is not an increased demand for money, there is an increased supply of money. But you just said that workers demand MORE money. I think you have fallen into a contradiction. This only happens when inflation enters its final phase and people abandon the currency. Until that point, prices increase first in line with inflation and then faster than inflation, Final phase? No. That's what inflation IS. The decrease in the value of money vs. goods. It is coequal with inflation, not part of any 'phase'. In other words, it re-prices investment risk. (In yet other words, shifts the price equilibrium in the labor/capital market.) And it encourages consumption spending. Increased consumption produces increased aggregate demand. Unmet demand in turn induces increased investment, i.e. repricing investment risk in favor of investment. This is the aggregate demand curve/supply equilibrium moving up and to the right: more goods at higher prices (growth). But they adjust at a higher quantity equilibrium, do they not?

Whether that's good or bad depends on the value of the act. As you say: Even if that were correct, you still have the choice of whether to take good or bad action. To provide the context necessary to avoid future mistakes. Do I believe the United States would attack Afghanistan if terrorists killed 3,000 Canadians? Honestly, no, I don't.

It doesn't change my view of his mistakes and corruption, but tactically/practically this visit was a diplomatic success.

This tells you something about the gold standard, but not about the mechanics of growth and inflation without the gold standard. Except, growth has actually accelerated! See... But if it caused growth, then it IS backed by capital, i.e. that growth. Basically, inflation tends to destroy profit margins because, as the inflatory mindset begins, debtors and workers start demanding more money that is progressively larger than the inflation rate. The inflationary mindset? Anyway, that doesn't follow. Increased demand for money should make its value higher, not lower. Again, that doesn't make sense. If prices are rising, money is worth less tomorrow than goods are. Inflation is incentive the buy the factory and not hold onto cash. A-ha! But what if the government repays in inflated currency? If the government manipulates the currency to that effect, it's a swindle. If it happens by market forces, it was a poor investment. Accordingly, if it was compulsory, it amounts to a tax. Which was your point there -- Okay. Explain how, or link to someone who does. The shift in the price function causing higher output, i.e. growth.

Asking them and keeping track IS quantifing and testing. You are interested in thier intentions, right? I'm aware of your point, but it is a point based on an inappropriately reductionist conception of the issue. You have a cake-- you ask Why the cake. Science can provide you an answer if you look at the environment of the cake and identify the actors who caused the cake. In short, there is no particular basis to confine science to examining only the cake.

Isn't that an extremely arrogant presumption?

You presume that science has to confine itself to investigating only the cake. Your question ... why the cake is there quite obviously implies data outside of the cake itself. Science could, presumably, ask the family in whose proximity the cake was found.

The difference is the promise to repay. You can't ignore that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall there being a net increase in welfare posited which made the trade-off worthwhile.

All you seem to be saying there is that inflation stops when there is an economic downturn. Two thoughts: First, this supports my contention that inflation is a product of growth. Second, it does not substantiate the causal relationship you posit between inflation and downturns. I don't know what you mean by 'the investment' collapsing. The value of the currency may collapse, but real capital accumulated during the period of growth would remain (though perhaps 'stranded').

I'm shocked to hear you compare Keynes to Hitler! You are devaluing the lives off all of Hitlers victims in a most shameful fashion. Keynes' ideas are essential building blocks of modern economics. They are not beyond criticism, but it sounds to me like you really want to criticize the use/mis-use of the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Shown? Where? When? I find that hard to believe since his seminal work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, was published in 1935, six years after the depression began. This kind of basic error greatly undermines the general credibility of you position.

He was a great 'head', too.

Are you 10 years old? Do you have any understanding of world politics? I'm afraid I don't see what understanding of politics you think I lack. To my thinking a country is safer from external threats if it has nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that? Are you in favor of unilateral disarmament by the United States?

I think we should preserve this vital resource until the sun goes out, then just ignite the moon.

AAAAAAAAHHH!!!

Do you really think the Mullahs of Iran are willing to see Iran destroyed? I think the world would protest such an outrageous threat against the innocent men, women and children resident in Mecca. I think it would also be disbelieved by most people. Hardly anyone in the world (yet) thinks the U.S. would commit such an atrocity.

If this were true we would see more units of currency, but each unit would still have the same purchasing power. But in fact, we have more units of currency, each with reduced purchasing power. Inflation is a by-product of increasing wealth.

Thanks for your reply. I disagree with you about the offer. I remember reading it at the time and thinking it was frankly absurd. Israel wanted to keep land it had annexed. It insisted that Palestine be prohibited from having military forces. It did not accomodate the Right of Return, or any equitable substitute. This to me fully explains why the deal was turned down. That doesn't alleviate the wrongness of the Occupation. Israel exists today and is a nation comprising a distinct people. Therefore, today eradicating Israel would be a crime against human rights. However, the historical 'claim' to Israel doesn't stand up. The states responsible for the diasporas of the Jewish people were Babylon and Rome. They don't exist anymore. The people living there hundreds of years later did not eject the Jews, they just lived there. I'm sorry, I don't understand. Was invading Afghanistan: -response to 9/11 by going after Al Queada and the Taliban; or -part of a Mid-East agenda; or -both; or -neither? But they didn't. Wasn't there a congressional investigation about that? There's a few problems with that. First, they had someone to negotiate with, they just couldn't reach an agreement. Second, their territory is safe. Israel has nuclear weapons and the support of the greatest power the world has ever known. They are not in strategic danger.

There seems to be a contradiction there. If Canada looks at a situation and decides that France is correct and the U.S. wrong, would it not be the behaviour of a lackey to nevertheless side with the U.S.? There are two aspects to that statement: (1) the impulse; and (2) the underlying facts which trigger the impulse. The first is understandable, even rational. Unfortunately, the second (i.e. the facts as presented in your paragraph), are not entirely correct, or not fully inclusive. When you say 'doing the hard and dirty work', you seem to presume that it is the right work or valuable work. I would suggest that there are SOME instances where U.S. foreign policy may be hard and may be dirty, but the work is not right or valuable. The example of the moment is Iraq, but history offers examples from Chile to Vietnam. (Also, from the point of view of Canada, we have been there in a lot of the cases we thought were right or valuable, and have given you a pass on a lot of cases where we thought you were wrong.) I also think it is a vast over-reaction to equate disagreement with 'poking a stick'. You can count on us when in need. (I make no representations for France). You cannot count on us to let you unnecessarily undermine international rules and shoot yourselves in the foot.

No, I meant an incident or period of deliberate inflation, or inflation as policy, such as the Weimar inflation, the John Law paper money scheme, the Great Depression, the Union greenback in the Civil War, and so forth. Inflation is not an "historical fact" in this sense, but a positive act, one that can be avoided. We can isolate these incidents of inflation-as-policy as opposed to inflation as an independent phenomenon (which, when it occurs as such, is not destructive). So the question becomes what is a level of inflation which is unproblematic ... and that undermines the (generic) criticism you made of Keynes.

By the same 'pragmatism', either the US or the USSR should have attacked the other because each perceived the other as extremist and bent on destroying them. I would not denying that there is a conundrum IF one state is willing to be destroyed, but I am suggesting that such a willingness doesn't really exist.

The same is true of your home fax machine.

What a bizarre thing to say. Inflation is a historical fact, so you must be saying that history to date is an economic disaster. Of course, that would be absurd.