Thursday March 28, 2024
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Jan-17-2009 16:41printcomments

Op Ed: WHY Economics
Is No Longer
'The Dismal Science'

"Assunptions" account for astounding aspirations.

Salem-News.com
The dismal science is a derogatory alternative name for economics devised by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century.

(EUGENE, Ore.) - One famous truism long enjoyed within what was once termed “the dismal science” is: “If all economists were laid end-to-end, they still would never reach a conclusion.”

Far too many crucial world-events have evented, with accurate predictions by those “non-conclusive” economists, for “dismal” to prevail any longer. They’ve called the turn and the totals; then the consequences, too.

They work with “how”, “what”, and “to whom” as key components for all they do. That may seem relentless but it is all too true. Rerredictive analysis, computer-produced, gives us answers-in-advance for many multiplexed situations and scenarios.

Forecasts for the future have proven, surprisingly, so precise as to amaze (sometimes). Other times they merely amuse (if only briefly!). That’s nearly always due to the unavoidable necessity for “assumption” to guide all they do. Their reverse-reading of the badly-checkered past produces preliminary insight into what will (probably) follow. They do this mostly with small-error diversion from the final fact --but “probable” is still their favorite word.

Their work requires massive manipulation of slippery numbers Any meaningful working- values depend on their professional judgment, on very complex situations. The inevitable simplicities are each expressed as “assumption: a hypothesis that is taken for granted.”

Mindful reading of human behavior --necessarily simplified for specific calculative purposes-- is part of their act. Example: “Every person rationally pursues self-interest, ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL!“ Sometimes that’s correct; other times emotion, special circumstance, and political propaganda take their toll on any totalization of probabilities.

No matter how skilled, participant professionals cannot operate “conclusively”. That’s because most of their work is undeniably devoted to ”forecasting”. They must “guesstimate” (read: professionally estimate) an exceptionally elusive future, necessarily nfounded on those slippery numbers, further lubricated by their own assumptions.

That’s why they work in terms of-the-average: “What will happen, rationally and reasonably, within a group, over a stated period of time” -- under stated (read “assumed”) conditions; or other attenuating circumstances.

If you ask an economist how to open a food-can, his response might well be: “Assume a can-opener.” IF then pressed “to reach a conclusion” he’ll rattle off a rigamarole of rational (or irrational) numbers. He’ll be enumerating the mathematical manipulations he will have in work mentally, preparing for inevitable computer input/output.

He may well “assume a new hand/hold direction,” “differing dimensions”, or “diffused operative approach” for his concept. His work may well lead you to a better can-opener, too --guiding size, shape, simple operation of “a newconcept c/o.

(This example taken from actual practice, in preparation for that new c.o. working atop the can.) Sometimes these mentors of metric uncertainty DO reach conclusions worth time and attention. ometimes what they produce only SEEMS to make sense, in peculiar circumstance, or by potent promotion for also-peculiar political profundity. As in “supplyside”, where “less is more”, curvily-contrived.

Whether they arrive there magically or via their professional skills is really immaterial. They manage multiple machinations in digitalized depth for computer-guided cogitation. Those magical moments of probability-process payoff shape process and both government and citizen final-action.

Therein lies considerable difficulty and some danger. What counts considerably today in overview of our complex future must proceed from the complex past. The only pragmatic way to arrive “out there in front” is probability/processing, computer-assisted.

That is best provided by skillful assumption-based enumeration, computer-compounded. (Probable) worth has been well and wildly proven in every area open to clarification by counting -- and some few that are not.

There exists deep, dark uncertainties, even and especially among the most accomplished professionals themselves. That’s built-in probability for participating in any such professional examination of realities, based --as it must be-- on key assumptions as a foundationforming tool.

HOW could it possibly be otherwise, given human characteristics demanded for close examination of event, issue, problem, and possible answers, all shaping our immeasurable future?

If immeasurable --as the future surely remains, even today-- what weird weapon-tool can any skilled profession apply in mirroring for us what may well show up, sooner or later ? As in so many other areas of modern life, it is computer-guided probability that presents the not-easy, never-comfortable answer.

The question then arises: How do we know what the mirror really shows us? Which image is right, and which a mirror-reflected “wrong-side-out” ?? That possible distortion may well initiate differences between Right and Left --right?

Now you see why economics is no longer “the dismal profession”, especially for its major participants. “Assumptions” reign regularly, right around the real answer. They shape and carve the composition, adding special-color where that can help to clarify.

To assume is to cogitate is to choose, on whatever grounds and by whatever characteristics. Now you see why the various “schools”, each and everyone with competing assumptions and comparatively slippery-numbers, lie in wait to compete.

Ambushes do occur, at academic headquarters and the profession’s key publications. One must assume various allegiances aid that human process, since editors are usually human, too. That’s “peer review” --professional criticism of colleague-work, polite most of the time.

The process unavoidably starts with “assumption” as the bottom-plate for all concepts controlling the structure. When peers probe they often find reality fairly and clearly recognized. That makes the project worth much more than computer-time, a true public service. When peers find themselves seeking more hardnumbers, then one can expect still further deeper digging to determine true detailed data.

The printed-page process report then becomes the bedrock for still further assumption-and-study...and so on, and sometimes on-and-on-and on... What thus emerges from this patently professional operation is sometimes confusing to the public --and even other patient professionals.

Usually that’s because the basic assumptions are detailed and distinct, but buried deep and dark --far from the “findings and conclusions” stating --clearly or otherwise-- the stuff so painfully produced. That’s why we outsiders, seeking guidance and direction, sometimes find ourselves also seeking further explanation and added clarity to illuminate for us where reality went, and why it happened-so.


What may well have occurred is the confusion of their major operating area with another closely-allied one: Policy preparation (read: “politics”) Economists must work with numbers: That’s the name of their game.

What can be enumerated furnishes their working materials --and must necessarily constitute their end-product, too.

When they allow themselves to be drawn into what those numbers “should” mean to the humans involved in appreciating and applying that product is where one game overlaps the other. That almost always results in confusion, often ending not in civil conversation but with confrontation.

We must assume that confrontation on what the numbers really mean will, in all probability, continue to color and confuse what economists offer. But pragmatic decision on what to do, when, and how...based on values far beyond mere numbers...must remain the province of those we freely elect. That’s true-probability, unavoidable via any kind of assumption one cares to make.

----------------------------------------------------------

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



JW January 28, 2009 12:33 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark for your update: "Economists against the Stimulus Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some (THREE) Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” — contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package. Of course, many economists don’t like to sign joint statements, so this is only a fraction of stimulus opponents in the profession. Greg Mankiw pointed to a few noted skeptics last week: In a TV interview last month, Vice President Joe Biden said the following: Every economist, as I’ve said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs. That statement is clearly false." http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/28/economists-against-the-stimulus/


JW January 28, 2009 10:23 am (Pacific time)

One million socialist voters now or in the past have had no serious impact on national elections, fortunately. The electoral college helps diminish these anti-U.S. Constitution people. I would invite anyone interested to read just the "rules" Saul Alinsky states in his book "Rules for Radicals." The title pretty well provides a strong hint as to what the reader has in store for them, along with why you don't see congress members on the floor saying swell things about this confused person. As far as the current pork-laden stimilus coming down the pike, in my opinion it is a huge mistake. I have noticed that there is a growing list of economists that are calling for it not to take place. I would remind readers that Japan did the same thing we may do (either 1996 or 1998) and all they did was double their national debt and interest rate on that debt. As far as debating an issue like this and told that the debate is over reminds me of similar attitudes. When Galileo was accused of hersey for saying earth revolved around the sun we know the flat-earther types would'nt even take a peek through his telescope. We now also see former UN scientists and climatoligists (over 650 now) who have stated that global warming is not happening. Please note that on a recent poll by ABC they found that concerns about global warming did not even make it to the top 25 concerns of those polled. As it is we already have data on what happened during the last stimulus handout last year, nothing. So before long we will know what will happen with this one. I saw that this stimulus program is getting heavier and heavier with pork, aka, currying future voters. I want our country to succeed and from the evidence I've seen cutting taxes is the one way we have evidence that it works. Time will tell. But when the politicans say it will be years before it works, well now that's pandering folks.


Henry Ruark January 27, 2009 10:59 am (Pacific time)

JW: FYI, re ongoing dialog and change in political foundations over decades, did you know that at one time, there were more than 1 MILLION Socialist-party voters in the U.S. ? History taught us discretion, but some never learn to use it and continue biased-view and political commitment even so. That's painful lesson-learned re any "public opinion" and/or dialog in public channels by those who work in them, and by those who must rely on what is to be learned from them, too. Nothing personal here, sir, that's simply how true free speech works when allowed to operatas in S-N channel...we can mutually share-and-learn from each other --and today we damned well better make that work !!


Henry Ruark January 27, 2009 10:42 am (Pacific time)

JW: Are you still so naive as to trust "members of congress" for such critical decisions ? After track record on much more essential actions ? Re Alinski, makes difference WHICH "members" you choose to cite, too. Even some true "conservatives" have been known to cite Alinkski concepts. Re yr retarded realization of realities reviewed here, and final acceptance of very different basis in experience and other essentials, that all reduces to "source crediblity" --ie. same old game played by pubescent young men re size and strength of source --"Mine is bigger than yours !!" Same for "Gotcha !"-game, too. Must leave to readership the fundamental choice of what background to seek for any and all "informed opinion"; that's essential in open, honest, democratic channel welcoming good faith dissent vs distort and pervert and "gotcha !". Your participation honestly affirmed on those unavoidable levels, sir. Meanwhile famed city-areas organizer Alinksi has nothing to fear from evaluation from the isolated and misinformed; historic fact affirms his greatness despite any carping from those unable to grasp what the times demanded and what some supplied. Even R.R., indolent idol of some even today, flirted with concepts and backed away only when it was to his obvious political advantage, per DUTCH ref. I supplied for you. Keynes-study has chapter after chapter on FDR failures involved in yrs re UCLA study, which was my point from shared reference for you. Did you seek either one of friendly references ? What ELSE on-point have you read lately ? LMA-demanded reading list here numbers more than 30 current-list books in past year. What's on your list, if you care to share ??


Henry Ruark January 27, 2009 10:20 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here;e "see with own eyes" excerpt from Krugman's current column,making strong point re "bad faith" attacks on what MUST be done now for current economic crisis: www.nytimes.com "It’s true that the normal response to recessions is interest-rate cuts from the Fed, not government spending. And that might be the best option right now, if it were available. But it isn’t, because we’re in a situation not seen since the 1930s: The interest rates the Fed controls already are effectively at zero. That’s why we’re talking about large-scale fiscal stimulus: It’s what’s left in the policy arsenal now that the Fed has shot its bolt. Anyone who cites old arguments against fiscal stimulus without mentioning that either doesn’t know much about the subject — and therefore has no business weighing in on the debate — or is being deliberately obtuse." -------You may recall Op Ed and Comment statements re "WHO the h... ELSE is left to act ?" This is Nobel Laureate economist making that point.


JW January 27, 2009 9:39 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark after reading your below two posts I can see that we come from different perspectives and no doubt different educational backgrounds coupled with far different experiences. Alinsky is an individual you no doubt admire and now I think I understand why you write as you do. Do you have any idea why members of congress do not hold up Alinsky as a positive force and echo his writings?


Henry Ruark January 27, 2009 8:59 am (Pacific time)

JW: You wrote:"...that has nothing to do with the formal study." Re PR-release, that is height of perversion--or writer of it is getting paid under false pretenses. WHY the hell DO a release, if NOT to distinguish and market the P/R-bit produced ? THAT is what institution pays for,sir. Either you distorting for pervert-purposes, or you so entirely out of touch, driven by determination to attack here, that your judgment and commonsense affected. THAT does NOT help credibility for critical judgment on ANY issue, event or past-fact. Study itself fine professional work, I'm sure; use to smear Keynesian actions taken in different era, different contour of globalization, differing human resources, even different war-costs, is open to controversy --which continues, as you now know, here and elsewhere. "Gotcha !" is fun to play, but doth not the commonweal aid, a damned bit...


Henry Ruark January 26, 2009 8:02 pm (Pacific time)

JW: Here is what I wrote re the UCLA study. I did NOT check the study itself, only press release, assuming it was honest and comprehensive. "FYI, I printed out UCLA, which was press release touting work by well-known economists. BUT study itself makes much of FDR failing to go far enough, with cover detail from Supreme Court decision on what FDR knew was radical, and so intended. SO work added to what was known but did NOT uncover new angle. To use it to denigrate FDR and New Deal is to distort for political purposes. History already clearly shows it took War II, with huge additional governmental expenditures, to kill Great Depression." Plentiful documentation for that last statement if you still perturbed;check it out. SO yours re reading the article has no bearing except to perpetuate what was most obviously a p/pander shot at Obama's opening policies. See p.229 in DUTCH for my ref. to R.R. early-touch with communism; we all know later he was leading anti-Red, making political hay thereby in era where that paid off. SO what's sense of further silly-stuff re small-point, except further distortion, attention-time here, et al, et al ? IF you have not read DUTCH, which seems obvious, better do so to guard your continuing use of Alinski and commie-ref. obviously 19th-Century and long ago become senseless.


JW January 26, 2009 10:48 am (Pacific time)

I also read the UCLA news release, but that has nothing to do with the formal study. I certainly would not make a comment on a study one way or another unless I could say I read it. As far as being able o understand some of these economic studies, how would I know unless I read it? I at least learned that much in school, along with the humility of saying "I don't know." Which some consider the beginning of wisdom. Some will never get that. I have read Alinsky and found him to be both a radical communist and an individual who has absolutely nothing in common with those who follow the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This individual is now where he should be.


Henry Ruark January 26, 2009 9:19 am (Pacific time)

Smitty: You want more documentation without cost of ID to editor for direct contact ? Try this one, classic book re life, career, work of Keynes: THE AGE OF KEYNES;Robert Leachman; Random House; 1996. No ISBN on my paperback; name alone will procure it for you. See esp. whole section re FDR use of Keyynes after reversal of his early policies,promises in first campaign. To deny Keynes' work with FDR is to deny/defy what created our Middle Class, brought on Soc/Security, minimum wage, great contribution of unionism and many other accomplishments including ONLY 4-term/run. UCLA study may be of finest, but still only further extends what's already historic record re FDR errors...he could not walk on water, but sure as hell did come close on wise, pragmatic policy. Which is why any denigration, factual or otherwise, for p/ppurpose then demands close probing as here. IF you do ID to Editor will send list of other points and booklist for sources you most obviously have not yet discovered. Best wishes for great New Obama Year !!


Henry Ruark January 25, 2009 8:13 pm (Pacific time)

Smitty: You wrote: "...ill-conceived" re Alinsky book, which tells us precisely where you stand re his historic work in Chicago. Re point of UCLA study, it is small addition to historic statement already re FDR failure per my previous note. Some of what he did, per that note, and now via UCLA extension, probably prolonged Depression. Even UCLA study, good as it surely is, has to operate on complex assumptions re its rationale and its newly available numbers. Do you deny that fact ?? What do you seek ? Should I gild it and post on high atop Mt. Rainier ? Can't reach quite that far. Mine re UCLA press release is accurate, and I stand on it as published. Do as you will, it's your nickel, and your point, for what it is worth, already openly, plainly acknowledged. What more do you want ? Change from that nickel ? Our time now better spent on real problems rather than more political pandering via small addition to historical matter already established. See refs. already cited on that fact.


Henry Ruark January 25, 2009 3:26 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" from article titled "Economics The Hard Way" worth your evaluation: (Final pgg; see link for full details.) www.opednews.com "Any system that fails to supply the most wealth into the most hands is a failed system. History proves it again and again, and that is a fact and not a theory. So as I dabble in human economics, I count not the empty houses, but the people made empty by these theories. Theories that fail by leaving out the most important component in economics, the wellbeing of the people. This singular failure is the root cause of most of the world’s misery, of war, rebellion and revolution. It has fed the guillotine, the gallows, and the pike on Tower Hill. That’s learning economics the hard way." ------------- The writer is a prominent historian with diverse publications to his credit, speaking from personal experience as well as economic history.


The Record January 25, 2009 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

Obama adviser: White males need not apply!! Robert Reich tells House panel stimulus package should emphasize 'social return' over worker skill. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewandpageId=86827 This is something that needs to be addressed to all of congress as to how monies are to be allocated. There are labor laws that Mr. Reich seems unfamiliar with by making his statements at above link.


Smitty January 25, 2009 11:56 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark are you familiar with Saul Alinsky? In his entertaining and ill-conceived book "Rules for Radicals", his number 13 rule went something like this..."Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." The UCLA study cannot be diminished using this tactic by knowledgeable and trained scholars who understand the study's conclusions. Regarding the above study, do you have a paricular issue? Possibly in it's hypothesis, methodology, etc. ? Could you site an example, and a reference page(s). If I cannot respond myself, I have many people who could. This could provide a valuable learning experience for the readers on this site. Of course it is my belief that they all will eventually see that this study is correct as far as showing the folly of the planned stimulus policy. Cutting taxes and capital gains will be the best way to stimulate the economy, and we don't need a world war to speed it along.


Henry Ruark January 24, 2009 4:19 pm (Pacific time)

KC: Not satisfied with b-racism, now we gotta contend with j-racism piled ontop too ? Yours cites statement well out of context, with long record of other accomplishments setting any such degenerating comments well at risk. Did you insert that parenthetical bit ? If NOT, send link to show actual publication with note re what in-print source, edition, date, and pages. Otherwise, sir, yours stands as nice try but no score. IF you can produce that record, then we can carry further re your racism references, since the entire racism-bias is a contrivance set into place centuries ago for economic reasons including fear and plain old hatred of anyone different. Might well ID self to editor for direct, then you can prove up whatever you intend to convey without further public shameface here, saving space for those who wish to comment on story content rather than race and personal bias.


KC January 24, 2009 11:38 am (Pacific time)

Robert Reich (Jewish) sure has a negative view of white gentiles. Want a link? He wants all stimulus-related future jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers."I have nothing against white male [read "gentile"] construction workers" he says! I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well." So that's great Bob, let's make sure the white people do not get a fair shake in getting jobs. Let's engage in an illegal quota system! I wonder if he feels that way about " Jewish ethnic nepotism" in Hollywood, the publishing business, the admitting personnel in medical schools, law schools, the ownership of the major television networks and on and on? This individual is an embarrassment to all Jews, he really is. He failed as a Sec. of Labor, now we no why.


Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 8:18 pm (Pacific time)

FYI: You are right...like holding water in your hands. But referring to ANY one poll, at ANY given time, in ANY political situation. ANY world-event tomorrow, with impacts on U.S. demanded action, can well swing ANY poll number FAR either UP or DOWN. ANYone working professionally with polling, including those making mints thereby, will now admit same-thing. SO let the water trickle through your fingers...and immerse hands six months, a year, two or three, from now for anything meaningful enough to report here. GO it, Kid ! Pile up polls and sit next to any pile, deep in its shadow, if it maketh thee comfortable...


Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 4:57 pm (Pacific time)

Smitt, FYI: Your comments appreciated and probably even accurate. But rule of nature on birth is that it takes 9 months, while some seem to demand instant gratification and THEN rapid birth from President just barely in-the-door at WH. Hold yr ....., guys; and meanwhile how about positives rather than negativities, adding to pressures for premature decision no matter which way it is made. Controversy to which you add your final-conclusion already in sight has been cooking ever since Middle Age deflation of royal myth on which negative side is based. That's accurate historical fact. Question re UCLA study has to do with assumptions-made vs its conclusions, probably accurate but sure as hell not first-out-of-box, per two major biographies cited. In any case, it is minor point used here simply to reinforce possibilities you cite, so worth passing note at most. Your participation appreciated since demonstrates still more the practical fact of negative attack-intent in making any action by Obama that much more difficult. Does that help our democracy to rebuild as his huge mandate, per overwhelming consensus and demonstrated actions since, demand ?? Again, repeat, if you wish further dialog ID selves to Editor for direct,saving space for others with major points. You've made your pass, now allow others same chance. IF you dislike Op Eds, spend your nickel elsewhere OR write your own, in depth, detail, decision and with documenting links other than college PR releases, dime/dozen on both sides of any issue. Did you ever work as professional to do same ? OR teach others how to tell the truth without killing off the goose laying your monthly egg ?


FYI January 23, 2009 11:13 am (Pacific time)

As per today's Rasmussen Poll Obama still has some area's he needs improvement in and his mandate may be like holding water in your hand if the economy does not improve: "Obama's Presidential Approval Index rating is +29. That’s just a single point below the highest rating earned by Obama to date. The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern. Data for the Approval Index is collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Today’s update is the first based entirely upon interviews conducted since Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. For more data, see Obama By the Numbers. Just twenty-one percent (21%) of Americans now say the country is heading in the right direction." Rasmussen has been one of America's most accurate pollsters


Smitty January 23, 2009 10:21 am (Pacific time)

The year 1837 began a far more difficult economic period than what we are currently in at the present. In a real estate bubble, people borrowed paper money to speculate in western land. According to John Steele Gordon's book "An Empire of Wealth," land sales by the federal government were $2.5 million in 1832 and $25 million in 1836. President Andrew Jackson determined to prick the bubble by accepting only gold or silver as payment and succeeded all too well. Banks failed. Wall Street crashed, the price of cotton fell by half and 90% of the country's factories closed. "The country suffered the longest economic depression in the nations history," Gordon writes. "It didn't reach bottom until February 1843, fully seventy-two months after it began. The current democratic bailout may start a process that will be even worse. The reason I say that is based on the UCLA study which has laid out in depth their findings and conclusions. One of my son's who recently received his MBA (he has also owned a successful business with over 70 employees for more than 11 years) has continued to update me on the latest research in this area of bailouts and from what I have observed is that those who ask for even a larger bailout have no historical data that supports their position, Krugman for example. In fact the historical record (two listed above) acknowledges just the opposite of what Krugman and those of similar misunderstanding propose.


Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 5:47 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Re-reading mine to Mike (old editorial habit) see I may seem to denigrate professor in S.D. No such intention; his use of K-quotes was for differing purpose, with every right so to do. His name and ref. was inadvertently included, in my hurry to leave for doctor-visit, and I send him best wishes and condolences due anyone in that very trying profession, as learned from painful experience. BUT fact is Mike-comment using professor's comment becomes twice-removed from what K really said...which supports common economic sense now re expansion of state powers for funding via deficits, simply allowing them same flexibility as national government. To take any other view in this crisis is simply to deny the only resort-level left: Action in crisis by government. I repeat: What the hell ELSE is there, NOW ? --and await any response from anyone who has other remedy to suggest. Time is long past to revert to 30's/40s950s -- we are in huge hole dug since Reagan began shovelwork by his falsity re "Government IS the problem".


Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 12:52 pm (Pacific time)

Mike et al: Finally DID work your Aberdeen link. Turns up newspaper in S. Dakota, column re student gaffes by professor who uses partial/text (thereby distorted) from Krugman piece to make poor point re student error. Thus we have professor in small state university making statement based on HIS reading of Krugman, then YOU adding to distortion by further-choice usage of part-of-part. That's unacceptable whether or not done intentionally since it surely doth kill original meaning in Krugman piece --which I also called up and re-read. His makes sense when so seen-and-checked, updated from oldstuff by Hayek et al, nearly 50 years ago. Thank you for participation, which surely proves up the prescience of Op Ed itself re "assumptions"; economist use them as tools to facilitate probing discussion,not to hide or guide misinformed dialog, as turned up here on check to "see with own eyes". That's why there are warring tribes among economists and their founding schools, as we report, and why peer review needs careful check, too. Keynes had it dead to rights when he cautioned us re the whole tribe driven only by pursuit for profits, which distinquishes current crop of neocons masquerading as true conservatives. I worked as newspaper editor for conservative owner famed for his stance: William Loeb, notorious for attacking every Dem. Presidential candidate in Manchester, NH publisher role later. He was major-mean/man, but had conscience, knew world and U.S., and was honest in his convictions, albeit badly MISinformed. Current crop NOT misinformed, simply malignant. Art Marmorstein, Aberdeen, is a professor of history at NSU. He can be reached by writing the American News at P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D. 57402, or by e-mail at americannews@aberdeennews.com. His column runs occasionally. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of Northern State University.


Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 8:27 am (Pacific time)

Friend Mike: DID check out both of your links re Krugman-comments. Both appear to be offshore, and both turn up "Not found" on repeated-tries via my FFox browser. ARE you "overseas" or isolated from us in the U.S. ? IF so, please repeat links since DO want to learn ANYthing worth effort, if you have any such, doubtful so far... Do NOT lookdownon participant from overseas, but we deserve to know from WHOM cometh any such citations, since ID of source is fundamental for any possible credibility, as yours surely needs.


Henry Ruark January 21, 2009 8:09 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Dunno if you can read at that level, but for solid documentation of more uptodate discussio on business cycle theory, see any Samuelson MACROECONOMICS after 12th edition; mine 13th, copyright '97, 40th birthday edition. Please note Samuelson ALSO from Chicago, ALSO Nobel winner, so hardly can be smeared as "hostile" --which is part of what we could have exchanged if you had come direct, rather than seeking, again, to distort and misinform. ANY serious student of econ will tell you one does NOT discuss discrete piece without relation to all others; that is basic principle for anyone serious to learn what is no longer "dismal", but chock full of clear, clean insights helpful for all --when NOT bent, tattered, torn, and disgustingly distorted to make minor political pander-point.


Henry Clay Ruark January 21, 2009 7:46 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: As usual, distortion takes the place of serious fact. Hayek's Nobel was awarded decades ago, in the midst of entirely differing economic climate, from which we've now learned a hell of a lot. It was highly controversial even then, more so now, as any check of economic history will show. Then, too, we now have failure of Friedman's Chicago Boys policies worldwide, built with help of Hayek at Chicago. If you do not know the history you cannot tell it straight' if you DO know, and bend it a bit, what does that make you ? Yours re 50 Governors shows plainy similar perversion since nearly all State Constitutions require balanced budget by law, something NOT possible to overlook for any Governor. Are you overseas or somewhere similarly isolated ? Most schoolkids know this by the 6th grade; check out curriculum files if you can. Thus on one hand you want same deal as in Hayek's time, in the other you fudge, overlook, ignore or worse simple law most persons should know. Yrs re Krugman here will never win a Nobel, nor convince any who wish the truth. Meanwhile you still avoid opportunity for straight dialog direct, simply by ID to Editor; WHY ? If mask slips, you in trouble since motivation then clear ? Will welcome you direct for civil dialog; otherwise fuggetaboutit --time/waster.


Mike January 21, 2009 12:52 pm (Pacific time)

Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in economics, is still having trouble with business cycle theory. His rude attitude toward what he calls "Hangover Theory", and clear contempt for anyone that pays attention to it, puts him in the awkward position of dissing the Nobel Academy, since the Academy awarded the Nobel Prize to Friedrich Hayek for business cycle theory. So the only solution one can come up with for Krugman is to turn in his Nobel Medal (and the award money, especially the money). Afterall, how can he possibly be associated with an institution that awards a Nobel Prize to a theory that he tells us is: ...a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire. He is saying nothing less than that the Nobel Academy is awarding medals for work on theories equal to nonsense. If he has any self respect, he will return the award, or does he have so little self respect that he needs the adulation from a group he believes is handing out the same award to theories that he believes are not worthy of study? http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/12/paul-krugman-give-back-your-nobel-prize.html Continuing: As per Krugman (more grievous error)--"No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the face of a severe recession...But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers - state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession...” To talk of Hoover as a spending slasher would be one of the most amusing of student bloopers - only it's not a student blooper at all. The above comments are from an article in a recent New York Times by Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman - the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics. So why the blooper? Krugman's article advocates a deficit-be-damned approach to our current economic problems. Rather than cutting back, state government should be allowed the same deficit spending latitude as the federal government. Should he get his way, the nation really will be reeling from 50 Hoovers (or 50 FDRs) - a blooper indeed. http://www.aberdeennews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090109/OPINION02/901090411/1015/COLUMNISTS


Mike January 21, 2009 10:50 am (Pacific time)

To Editor: I wrote a response to Henry Ruark, did it get dumped? It was germane and to the point, and provided a clear counterpoint to Henry. Would that be a problem?


Henry Ruark January 20, 2009 5:55 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Never let it be written that we do not document our own statements here. This one "see with own eyes" comment in Paul Krugman report in Rolling Stone magazine 1/14/09: (Excerpted; see original) "When the economy is deeply depressed, you have to put normal concerns about budget deficits aside. FDR never managed to do that. As a result, he was too cautious. The boost he gave the economy between 1933 and 1936 was enough to get unemployment down, but not back to pre-Depression levels. And in 1937 he let the budget worriers get to him: Even though the economy was still weak, he let himself be talked into slashing spending while raising taxes. This led to a severe recession.....It took the giant public works project known as World War II--a project that finally silenced the penny-pinchers--to bring the Depression to an end." --------There you have it re history on "extending the Depression",previously stated, as reported here, prior to UCLA report. Takes a special arrogance to challenge a Nobel Prize economist OR a certain kind of psychological characteristic, also as reported here.


Henry Ruark January 20, 2009 2:35 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Re "peer review", you will find that each tribe of economists has its favorite journal, sometimes published by colleagues at the major university for that tribe. "Chicago Boys", now notorious for rigid policies demanding painful actions in developing countries, foundation for IMC, World Bank, "Washington consensus" ever since Friedman, place certain tone and specific same-points in their outputs...as is true with other schools, for other tribes. Their fame began with work for S.American dictator, spread via early Reagan-Bush efforts. One must move beyond reliance on any one school or journal, and then confusion will still reign. That's nature of economics, dealing with very definite shortage-of-goods, always open to controversial judgments on HOW, WHAT and WHO GETS IT...as you surely know. If NOT, see any MACROECONOMICS edition by Samuelson, long the standard in both h.s. and college. Since that's flat fact, incontrovertible by either of us, reliance on your source alone surely open to solid examination, which is what has occurred here. Do you really believe press-lady at UCLA gonna dispute one of kings in the economic department ? "Been there, done that", and it just do not work that way, sir. You want detail, ID to Editor for proofs and publications. If so employed, you write honestly but with careful choice and tone, or you suddenly depart. Press release was honest, made points,for those who know how and what to read in such releases. You ever work in any of the areas involved in our dialog ? Surely does not seem so...You ever taught in college, esp. at grad level ? You ever done reports for any professional journal ? If so,and you comments had shown it, most of this would never have been called forth here, in defense of honest dialog in S-N ! Dialog is open, honest, and democratic when done in good faith. When distorted for political purposes, it not only fails democracy but is major damaging attack. See Op Ed up Wednesday...


Henry Ruark January 20, 2009 12:57 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: FYI, I printed out UCLA, which was press release touting work by wellknown economists. BUT study itself makes much of FDR failing to go far enough, with cover detail from Supreme Court decision on wht FDR knew was radical, and so intended. SO work added to what was known but did NOT uncover new angle. To use it to denigrate FDR and New Deal is to distort for political purposes. History already clearly shows it took War II, with huge additional governmental expenditures, to kill Great Depression. You wrote: "...just that government policies can have a negative impact on market forces as I have learned from both practical and academic experience." BUT you do not state that it works in reverse, too ! Very often govt., esp. now, is the last and only resort left after greed and overblown drive for profits causes precisely what we are now suffering: Collapse of pragmatic credit/fiscal work which rationalizes and regulates the market. When that fails, govt.MUST step in to remedy and repair. Who the hell else is left ? Points; We DID check UCLA link as we try to do with all-such. It is plain factual knowledge govt. MUST play role as above in ANY "mixed economy", which is all we can hope to get. Space permits only partial rundown on allathepossible examples on EITHER side, but for fourth time, ID to Editor and we can detail further dialog with links, and learn mutually. Morehere of samestuff is easy proof of intent to p/p, in its most destructive form. See upcoming Op Ed on THAT, Wed.!!


Mike January 20, 2009 11:33 am (Pacific time)

Please note that I did not say FDR [caused] the depression, I said that his "policies" prolonged the depression of the 1930/40's, which was acknowledged as per a UCLA Economics Department study that was posted on your website on another article. Here's the link: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx I also have the quote by a previous poster who provided that link (Smitty): "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies." I read this peer reviewed article and from my experience it stands up to the academic rigor that one expects to see in professional economic journals. I don't blame any single individual for our current economic downturn, just that government policies can have a negative impact on market forces as I have learned from both practical and academic experience.



Mike January 20, 2009 10:16 am (Pacific time)

I suggest anyone who would like to gain more practical insight on the economic engine in your local community (a micro-peek, so to speak), open up your phone book to the yellow pages and just look at all those small and medium-sized businesses. Our nation's economic engine is run by these smaller employers, not the giant corporations or the huge unions and their leadership. The big corporations have been dropping like flies, but the smaller ones are adapting. How many of these smaller businesses have economic academics providing guidance on how to run their business? Go call Joe the Plumber, or Eric the electrican, or any other business and ask them? If you want to know what these businesses really want and "need" to operate more profitably and keep their people working, they will tell you lower taxes, fees and less government intrusion. Instead they will get just the opposite along with the irresponsible who will get rewarded (with a rebate on taxes they did not pay) and the responsible will get something else. We need policy-makers that know what's going on from practical experience (that works for all cabinet heads), not from academics/observers who have done nothing more than play around with business theories or other hypotheticals in some classroom or klatching with others of similar inexperience over a couple fingers of single-malt. This new administration is most likely to lead us down the same path FDR did, and this was proven to have caused the depression of the 1930/40's to have lasted many years longer than if they had simply let market forces work things out. We are a capitalist not a socialist country, if you are not sure, then look at the Constitution. It's all there, along with why the founders also wanted less government. We are a "republic" not a democracy, and socialistic policies will not work, they never have and never will.

Editor: Once again Mike, you are making statements that are false and trying to make them appear to be part of an accurate historical record. You are not correct in that FDR "caused" the Great Depression. If you keep doing this, we will ban and reject your IP. What really irks me about this is that my father was raised during the Depression and I have heard first-hand accounts all of my life about the good FDR did for this country. You friend, are trying to rewrite history and it WON'T BE ALLOWED HERE because our mission at Salem-News.com is to educate and inform. This is your last warning. I have included factual information below for our readers proving that FDR didn't even take office until 1933. The Depression began in 1929. I am only leaving your comment in place to show our readers that any of your comments posted here should be taken with a grain of salt. Pal, you make it up as you go, that isn't what we allow here.

According to Wikipedia, "The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries. It was the largest and most important economic depression in modern history, and is used in the 21st century as an example of how far the world's economy can fall."

Regarding FDR, Wikipedia states, "Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), often referred to by his initials FDR, was the thirty-second President of the United States. He was a central figure of the 20th century during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war."


Henry Ruark January 19, 2009 8:43 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: You wrote: "The proof is irrefutable." Au contraire, sir ! Dialog space nowheres nearly large enough for details, but it is obvious. Your own words speak of reading only what one finds agreeable, of the same direction. For me, this is precisely what you then commit --again ! Your points re "let the market work its magic" (paraphrased from your words) shows inescapable servitude to one specific philosophy precisely while you preach diverse views valuated each for its own impacts. "Conservatives" never, ever agree with anyone dissenting --constitutionally they are unable to get through any other door. That's WHY they are "conservative" !! Do NOT mean to be even in part "quarrelsome"; that is just a psychological fact. Meanwhile, have you sampled any of the idea-menu laid out here in several places, as in Op Eds past and continuing ? I thought not. Final word: Your choice of documentation and sources to cite will prove up points here, and so will fact of Nobel et al awarded to some cited. FYI, Hayek also won Nobel...economic climate is as variable as allatherest of what we exchange here, but some is definitely better than others, with test being past history from Reagan era on, as will develop still further via Obama approach in next four years. For dialog beyond this, ID self to Editor and we can continue to learn from each other.


Mike January 19, 2009 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark one can pick out any writers (and all will have terrific resume's by the way) to support one's viewpoint. Your below list of author's also have economist's that offer just the oposite view. I try to keep informed and I attempt that by reading as many different viewpoints as I can. I have found many pundits and ideologists simply read those that support their viewpoints, which in effect make them misinformed. You agree? As I posted below, observing those businesses that are currently prospering in today's economic downturn provide a far superior insight into [possibly] developing economic solutions rather from someone whose primary experience is nothing more than academic. Would you agree? I realize Krugman won a Nobel, but like Nobel winner Al Gore, do they have actual working experience in what they pontificate? I would add that if businesses are so successful because of academia providing operational guidelines, then there is no proof to support that because otherwise we would not be in this mess. It is just the opposite, for it has been government intrusion by these "national" academic economists that have put in the policies that got us here right now. Let the market work this out and we will recover much quicker. As most know as per the UCLA study on FDR, it was the government stimulus policies that prolonged the depression. The proof is irrefutable.


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 7:51 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Stephen: I truly appreciate your words, big or small, since they obviously are honestly declared and come from your heart. Where we sometimes seem to be apart has more to do with head and what occurs within it, driven by widespread, reliable information from many sources. That's what reporters DO --seek out information and share it via what they write. Style means naught in long run, only correct information, checkable, "see with own eyes" and evaluated with YOUR mind. If we then change from whence we started, we both better off than otherwise. That's as democratic as it can get... Re what it means, that must be up to each person, sometimes seen same-way, often seen much differently, even in-reverse. That's the world-and-life; no opprobrium for either one. And that is also democratic,right? You are fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. When the day is done and the result is in, then we can claim to be correct or otherwise. Re Paul, admire him for much but do not agree with his own declared personal libertarian philosophy on many levels and values. If you do, fine for you. Best to you in New Year and new Century...see yours right out on the table and raise you with heavy stake in future for all of us.


stephen January 18, 2009 6:55 pm (Pacific time)

In closing.. I may not post well, I may let my emotions get the best of me once in awhile, I cant speak big words like Henry, nor be charming like obama..but I love my fellow man, I seek truth with all my heart, I spread that truth, even when afraid to do it, and I would never tell a fib. In my opinion, I am a better man than most in our government, including obama.


stephen January 18, 2009 6:50 pm (Pacific time)

Reading through the article and comments, very detailed and professional with big words. My simple mind only asks one question. How about honesty and integrity? The foundation of all economics, and the foundation of Ron Paul. Big words, big numbers, philosophies, long written articles mean nothing to me. The wise mans house was built upon a rock, and that rock is honesty and integrity. March 2008, I blogged liked crazy. Where will obama get the money for his promises come January 2009? Well, obama said this week he will not be able to fulfill his promises because of the economy. If lil ol me knew it, HE knew it, he lied to get elected. In sept 2008, I also blogged, why is obama strongly supporting the bailout? The banks will just keep the money, and legislation in the bailout says the banks dont have to say where they spend the money? Again, I was right. Gaza: obama says nothing under "one president at a time. Stimulus package: obama is all the sudden the president. As I mentioned, the foundation of economics is honesty and integrity, and nobody in congress has that except Ron Paul. The proof does not need big words, just what you see in front of your own eyes.


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 6:05 pm (Pacific time)

Mike et al: Re-reading mine re academic process for new developments, and realize should have made clear most such come at graduate level. Many college profs who really specializing in the teaching process work mostly below that level. The leadership for grad-school relies heavily on actual vets and top leaders right out of business experience, and that is where this process mostly is conducted. Very often interchange occurs both ways, profs early into business, back later well-worn and with great experience, passed on to students and the next generation of leaders. Thanks for your participation which made this sharing from experience (writing, reporting and some teaching) possible here. Have you ever had opportunity to teach at under- or grad-level ? Tough, demanding, but great experience...


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 5:03 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: You wrote: "the best experience is gained from doing rather than observing and making policy decisions based on those "removed" observations by academics alone." That assumes "removed"-status which is not true in reality application, and has not been true for decades. What actually occurs is first detailed study by an interested academician, to develop research plans, put into place via funding from foundations and/or business and/or the university; then field experience built from the original research plan. Then statistical accounting from that field experience, further tested by peer review in professional journals read by and responded to by people actually at work in those fields. Then further very rigorous trial-runs conducted under both academic and corporate surveillance in broader/wider conditions. These are proven procedures used for decades prior to any even tentative installation via government. The misleading concept of wild and radical ideas thrown out without vigorous, rigorous preparation and actual field experience via trial-run is just that: Misleading distortion commonplace from some sources. One major reason for this tough checkable, testable process NOW is "supply-side" Reaganomics, which did NOT undergo it --and from which university leaders in every part of the business world learned -- since before they became university leaders, in most cases, they were already top people in their chosen parts of the business world. The untested, naive, brash, radical "professor" is a myth and has been for 50 years, in the top echelons of academia. You can ask any university president, invariably someone with solid field experience and a proven record of broad success.


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 2:29 pm (Pacific time)

To all: With all due respect to the very large percent of honest, ethical practitioners in business, read the Keynes-quote I shared for true insight into many others. Need I name some in the Bush cabal ? It is matter of record that many of those who alrady have, will again, and are now seeking power at government level have far from shining record right out there where the dollars get rubbed out of the difficult soil of commerce...check out Cheney at Halliburton, et al, et al, if you wish support for the Keynes view of some-such, in his time. Most policy-shaping contacts now are made by lobbyists,most of them once-businessmen, and most also once in government, too. Again, see Keynes insights on this level. Experience is what one makes of it, based on ethical and other principles, often found abused or missing, esp. when corporate charters allow ONLY ONE mission: Profits. That's why CEO salaries are so huge, paid by percent/cut and stock bonus-value, then cashed in. Smaller, localized, personal proprietorships are exception since so much closer to the realities experienced right along with common folk, and under closer scrutiny via that more intimate contact.


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 2:17 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: You wrote:"The public, in my opinion, is best served when government minimizes it's interaction/intrusion in the market, for it is their very intrusion back in 1999 (Clinton, Rubin, etc.) that have gotten us into this economic downturn." Perhaps can be made to seem-so, but reality is that the trends and policies from which we suffer in this world credit crisis began with the radical overturns in the Reagan era. That's consensus now among by far the largest group of knowing persons, both economists and businessmen in practice, as well as many others. Have you read Rob't. Reich's SUPERCAPITALISM, and/or Naomi Klein's SHOCK DOCTRINE ? Or DUTCH,Reagan biog. by his own selected longtime colleague ? OR Kevin Phillips WEALTH and DEMOCRACY ? Don't mean to pile 'em up, but without these or similar you remain both uninformed and misinformed, with all due regard for your civil and detailed participation. Try any one or all of those named, then let cogitation run again over basic principles found in Krugman's DEPRESSION ECONOMICS, or any standard macroeconomics texts, esp. one by Samuelson. Many overlook fact of reality that what business does these days comes far faster, more furiously, and with much greater impact from academia than from any previous business-era experience --simply because the entire world/trend and climate for all enterprise is undergoing radical change, more rapidl than ever before. "Assumption" rules, and that is one major "reason-why": it is demanded to copy with these complexities.


Mike January 18, 2009 12:10 pm (Pacific time)

There are literally an infinite number of cause and effect variables that come into play in both micro and macro economics. For pragmatic purposes the more experience one has, generally the better they become in dealing with problems and developing solutions to those problems. Suffice, the best experience is gained from doing rather than observing and making policy decisions based on those "removed" observations by academics alone. Unfortunately we see many rise in government policy making power who make many decisions based on academic rather than actual business experience. The public, in my opinion, is best served when government minimizes it's interaction/intrusion in the market, for it is their very intrusion back in 1999 (Clinton, Rubin, etc.) that have gotten us into this economic downturn. Take the time and look at both the Bush economic team and the incoming Obama team, what is their actual comparative economic experience? What are their successes and failures? And also vitally important, what is their ethical background? If they want you to pay your taxes and fees, do they pay their fair share? Regardless of what many think about the science of economics, there is seemingly countless viewpoints on how to proceed within the academic community, but looking at those that are successful may provide better examples on how to overcome our current downturn, for they have shown via empirical observation how to succeed.


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 11:15 am (Pacific time)

To all: On due consideration, seems demanded to post here for your consideration a famous quote from Keynes, supporting both Op Ed and Brooks: "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard Keynes, British economist. ---------------- If that sounds like thumbnail description of "laissez-faire" be sure that was how Keynes intended its impact --proven precisely true over and over, ever since...


Henry Ruark January 18, 2009 8:00 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" from David Brooks, longtime favorite of conservative-side: www.nytimes.com 1/18/09 An Economy of Faith and Trust By DAVID BROOKS "Once there was just Newtonian physics and the world seemed neat and mechanical. Then quantum physics came along and revealed that deep down things are much weirder than they seem. Something similar is now happening with public policy. "Once, classical economics dominated policy thinking. The classical models presumed a certain sort of orderly human makeup. Inside each person, reason rides the passions the way a rider sits atop a horse. Sometimes people do stupid things, but generally the rider makes deliberative decisions, and the market rewards rational behavior. "Markets tend toward efficiency. People respond in pretty straightforward ways to incentives. The invisible hand forms a spontaneous, dynamic order. Economic behavior can be accurately predicted through elegant models. "This view explains a lot, but not the current financial crisis — how so many people could be so stupid, incompetent and self-destructive all at once. The crisis has delivered a blow to classical economics and taken a body of psychological work that was at the edge of public policy thought and brought it front and center. "In this new body of thought, you get a very different picture of human nature. Reason is not like a rider atop a horse. Instead, each person’s mind contains a panoply of instincts, strategies, intuitions, emotions, memories and habits, which vie for supremacy. An irregular, idiosyncratic and largely unconscious process determines which of these internal players gets to control behavior at any instant. Context — which stimulus triggers which response — matters a lot. "This mental chaos explains how people can respond so quickly and intuitively to so many different circumstances. But it also entails a decision-making process that is more complicated and messy than previously thought." ------------------- Every pundit has his favorite points; one here has been the processes described by Brooks. They are the driving reasons behind "assumptions" as basic working tool;and differences in economists' readings from realities. See previous Op Eds and some yet-to-come !! How could it be otherwise in the 21st Century?

[Return to Top]
©2024 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for January 16, 2009 | Articles for January 17, 2009 | Articles for January 18, 2009


The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Click here for all of William's articles and letters.

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.

Support
Salem-News.com: