Sunday, February 15, 2009
Last letter printed today
In the series of letters below, my response to Jim was printed today, Feb. 15, 2009. The word ever was not italicized.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Series of Letters to the Editor
This first one is below:
Letter contained false statement
In a recent letter (Feb. 8, Tribune-Star), Ed Gluck stated “Perhaps the worst secret learned is that education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing.” Wrong, Ed.
“Education professionals” have to disclose affiliations at virtually every step. Universities require blanket disclosure statements. Disclosure statements are required before one can present at meetings. Disclosure statements are required before one can publish in most journals.
The primary journal in my area is Endocrinology. Every paper published in the journal is accompanied by a disclosure statement. Researchers report consultant activities, lecture fees, stock options, patents, royalties, and other affiliations. In addition, researchers report all grant support, including support from the government, because they must demonstrate what was accomplished with the money.
Perhaps the worst secret learned is that some statements in letters to the editor have no basis in fact.
— Jim Hughes
Terre Haute
Finally, my response not printed yet:
I appreciate Jim Hughes responding to my letter printed February 8. Before answering, I will explain my letter in which I related three shocking discoveries.
First, ethanol in gasoline acts as if it has an energy content of zero. We have all seen alcohol on fire or a flambeyd food and know it must have some energy. Readers may question Consumer Reports on their results.
Secondly, I mentioned the test for HIV has a very high false positive rate. (Now, I do not even believe there is an HIV virus but we all know the test "they" say "they" perform is for the HIV antibodies. They test for twenty proteins and if three are positive, "they" have a positive HIV test. That's U.S., in some European countries the criterion is four positive proteins. Four positive proteins needed would, I guess, produce less false positives.) To many readers it may be shocking to hear of state legislators forcing many healthy persons to take possibly harmful treatment.
A third discovery was that the exalted positions of dairy and meat were found to be sacred cows (yes, pun intended). More vegetables in our diet seem to be called for. This is shocking for some.
Mr. Hughes has problems with my stating perhaps a fourth shocking fact. This is that "...education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing." I do not dispute the assertions by Mr. Hughes that universities and his journal require disclosure statements. One source in the food question, T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study, has found problems with research and disclosures. I believe Mr. Campbell is alive and retired.
If I implied education professionals don't ever have to disclose payment, I apologize.
I hope people understand why I wrote about these shocking facts.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Letter to Editor - Science
Finally, I have a new article. This is a letter to the editor I sent but has not been printed yet.Tribune-Star contributor, Saul Rosenthal, lent me a book critical of milk. It changed my mind on the "goodness" of dairy and meat products. Science backs this conclusion. Thanks Saul.
The Center for Disease Control, since 2006, wants to test the entire U.S. population for HIV. The false positive result for the HIV antibody tests (tests not approved by the FDA with the disclaimer, do not use results to diagnose AIDS) is very high. Healthy women in their third trimester and newborns will be mandated by state laws to take deadly drugs.
In 1990 I checked my Mechanical Engineer's Handbook for the energy contents of gasoline and ethanol. Ethanol has lower energy content. Testing my 1978 Aspen , my results gave over an eight percent advantage to gasoline. I asked my friend Scott to run the same test on his fleet of cars. Scott reported about a ten percent difference. Two years ago, Consumer Reports tested E-85 and the ethanol blend. They also reported about a ten percent disadvantage with the ethanol blend. (This would be an excellent project for children in elementary school - test mpg ethanol blend/mpg gasoline.)
Science needs to be questioned. The dairy and meat industries along with the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and Big Oil have proved they cannot be trusted. Perhaps the worst secret learned is that education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing.
Here is a response from Jim Hughes:
Letter contained false statement
In a recent letter (Feb. 8, Tribune-Star), Ed Gluck stated “Perhaps the worst secret learned is that education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing.” Wrong, Ed.
“Education professionals” have to disclose affiliations at virtually every step. Universities require blanket disclosure statements. Disclosure statements are required before one can present at meetings. Disclosure statements are required before one can publish in most journals.
The primary journal in my area is Endocrinology. Every paper published in the journal is accompanied by a disclosure statement. Researchers report consultant activities, lecture fees, stock options, patents, royalties, and other affiliations. In addition, researchers report all grant support, including support from the government, because they must demonstrate what was accomplished with the money.
Perhaps the worst secret learned is that some statements in letters to the editor have no basis in fact.
— Jim Hughes
Terre Haute
Finally, my response not printed yet:
I appreciate Jim Hughes responding to my letter printed February 8. Before answering, I will explain my letter in which I related three shocking discoveries.
First, ethanol in gasoline acts as if it has an energy content of zero. We have all seen alcohol on fire or a flambeyd food and know it must have some energy. Readers may question Consumer Reports on their results.
Secondly, I mentioned the test for HIV has a very high false positive rate. (Now, I do not even believe there is an HIV virus but we all know the test "they" say "they" perform is for the HIV antibodies. They test for twenty proteins and if three are positive, "they" have a positive HIV test. That's U.S., in some European countries the criterion is four positive proteins. Four positive proteins needed would, I guess, produce less false positives.) To many readers it may be shocking to hear of state legislators forcing many healthy persons to take possibly harmful treatment.
A third discovery was that the exalted positions of dairy and meat were found to be sacred cows (yes, pun intended). More vegetables in our diet seem to be called for. This is shocking for some.
Mr. Hughes has problems with my stating perhaps a fourth shocking fact. This is that "...education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing." I do not dispute the assertions by Mr. Hughes that universities and his journal require disclosure statements. One source in the food question, T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study, has found problems with research and disclosures. I believe Mr. Campbell is alive and retired.
If I implied education professionals don't ever have to disclose payment, I apologize.
I hope people understand why I wrote about these shocking facts.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Defense of libertarian newspaper guy
Here in Caps is my defense of Arthur Foulkes, a local newspaper guy who is accused of being a libertarian. Written in the Tribune-Star forum.
COMMENTS IN CAPS
Flashpoint: Foulkes’ libertarian perspective demands alternative view
In his recent opinion piece on the current state of the U.S. economy, Tribune-Star columnist Arthur Foulkes presents a limited and biased analysis. His extreme libertarian views obscure a balanced evaluation. Since most of us are affected by economic conditions, and since macroeconomics is mysterious to much of the public, a response to his essay is appropriate.
My purpose is to provide readers of the Tribune-Star a different perspective on the nation’s economy and the corrective policies under development.
Foulkes makes three essential points in his essay. First, the “spiral theory” of macroeconomics, on which the Obama and Federal Reserve policies are based, is fundamentally wrong. Second, economic recessions are a natural and necessary corrective tonic that serves to “wash away poor investments” … i.e., they destroy businesses that should never have been established in the first place. Third, macroeconomic expansions (“booms”) that are driven by either monetary or fiscal policies will inevitably lead to “a bust”, i.e. … We would all be better off if the government would just leave the economy alone and let it correct itself.
The “spiral theory” to which Foulkes refers was developed in the 1930s by J.M Keynes in his classic book, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”. A key concept in this theory is the spending multiplier, which works more or less as Foulkes described.
However, it is a gross distortion to speak of the multiplier effect as a “bottomless downward spiral.” No. Keynes’s essential idea was that declines in spending would be amplified and lead the economy to an equilibrium output below its potential, not a free-fall.
HE DID NOT SAY KEYNES WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPIRAL THEORY, THUGH THAT MAY WELL BE THE CASE.
Keynes also recognized that, with time, spending and output would recover, and production would be restored to the economy’s potential in the long run, even without any government intervention.
I BELIEVE FOULKES IS SAYING AS THE BAD INVESTMENTS ARE CORRECTED, ELIMINATED, THE ECONOMY WILL RECOVER.
The problem with waiting is that productive resources are wasted during the waiting period, which is characterized by high unemployment and low capacity utilization of installed plant and equipment.
THIS IS JUST MADE UP. FOULKES SAYS WE NEED REAL SAVINGS. THIS WOULD BE OPPOSED TO BORROWING FOR INVESTMENTS. SEE HIS EXAMPLE. SLEEPING MAY ALSO BE A WASTE OF RESOURCES BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME PROOF.
Foulkes completely ignores this inefficiency, which corrective macroeconomic policies can address. (Keynes also noted that in the long run we’re all dead.)
IGNORES SOMETHING THAT IS PURE FABRICATION? SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD CHOICE.
Such counter-cyclical macroeconomic policies have been followed since the 1930s. Foulkes’s libertarian philosophy would replace these with the laissez-faire approach that prevailed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A cursory look at business cycles over the past century shows clearly that their magnitude and frequency diminished after Keynesian macroeconomic policies were adopted. It seems odd to recommend that earlier approach as better.
IF ALL ELSE FAILS, LIE, LIE, LIE. THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND 1969 TO 1980'S RECESSION WERE THE TWO WORST ON RECORD. BANK FAILURES WERE COMMON. BEFORE THE FEDERAL RESERVE, BANK FAILURES WERE RARE. WHAT IS ODD IS THAT PEOPLE LIKE MR. LOTSPEICH DEFEND FAILURE.
Foulkes makes two more fallacious points about this theory. He writes that the “spiral theory” ignores that consumer goods must be produced. This is nonsense and simply not true. He also writes that the theory incorrectly assumes that systemic market failure initiates a downturn, when it is actually caused by a desirable recognition of poor investments.
There are two problems with this. First, the systemic market failure identified by Keynes was not the initiation of a recession, but rather the failure of a market system to maintain, or quickly return to, production at the economy’s potential. Any number of shocks to spending could initiate a downturn; they need not be market failures. Examples include reductions in exports, government spending and investment.
VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT THERE HE GOES AGAIN WITH MARKET POTENTIAL. REDUCTION IN EXPORTS IS A MARKET FAILURE TO SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN FREE MARKETS IF THE REDUCTIONS ARE DUE TO SOMETHING BEYOND THE FREE MARKET. GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND INVESTMENT IN THEMSELVES DON'T CREATE DOWNTURNS. 0 FOR 3 MR. LOTSPEICH.
Second, the recognition of investments as “poor” will not necessarily reduce aggregate spending and thus initiate a downturn. Poor investments are consequences of past spending. Future investment spending might be reduced as a result, but more likely it would simply be diverted to different kinds of projects. This is an appropriate correction that markets would promote, but it is not the cause of a downturn.
In short, the correction of investment mistakes that Foulkes asserts is the function of recessions can be accomplished without recessions, and it frequently is.
This is not to say that a recession has no role in sweeping away poor investment. Indeed the process of enterprise destruction is amplified in a recession. However, there will also be many businesses destroyed that are viable when the economy is operating at capacity. They are “poor investments” only during recessions, and their destruction reduces social prosperity. This collateral damage of downturns is selectively ignored by Foulkes.
I BELIEVE WE ARE TRYING TO COVER TOO MUCH HERE. IF TOO MUCH MONEY IS PUMPED INTO THE ECONOMY AND PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING BETTER, TOO MANY RESTAURANTS MAY BE BUILT. DURING THE RECESSION THESE RESTAURANTS MAY DISAPPEAR AS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" BUT FOULKES WAS CORRECT IN IGNORING THIS AS IT WOULD CONFUSE THE QUESTION.
Finally, it is simply not true that a recovery from recession that is engineered by the government must culminate in a new recession. This is an unsupported assertion. The U.S. has experienced extended periods of economic stability and growth following such recoveries.
THIS DEPRESSION WILL BE EXTENDED. THE GREAT DEPRESSION WAS EXTENDED WITH GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I CAN'T ARGUE THAT EXTENDED PERIODS OF ECONOMIC STABILITY AND GROWTH FOLLOWED SOME RECOVERIES. BUT OF COURSE THE RELATIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING (STEALING OR TAXING) WAS LESS.
Moreover, government spending for infrastructure (“roads and bridges”) that Foulkes suggests is unwise, usually provides substantial public returns for both households and businesses. While true that we should not build bridges to nowhere, this does not mean all government bridge construction should cease.
I BELIEVE HE USED THE WORD MASSIVE AS IN spend massively on roads and bridges. ALSO, not necessary DOES NOT = SUGGESTS IS UNWISE.
— Richard Lotspeich
Department of Economics
Indiana State University
MR. FOULKES IS A GREAT ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY. HE CERTAINLY HAS PROVOKED MUCH THOUGHT ABOUT ECONOMICS.
COMMENTS IN CAPS
Flashpoint: Foulkes’ libertarian perspective demands alternative view
In his recent opinion piece on the current state of the U.S. economy, Tribune-Star columnist Arthur Foulkes presents a limited and biased analysis. His extreme libertarian views obscure a balanced evaluation. Since most of us are affected by economic conditions, and since macroeconomics is mysterious to much of the public, a response to his essay is appropriate.
My purpose is to provide readers of the Tribune-Star a different perspective on the nation’s economy and the corrective policies under development.
Foulkes makes three essential points in his essay. First, the “spiral theory” of macroeconomics, on which the Obama and Federal Reserve policies are based, is fundamentally wrong. Second, economic recessions are a natural and necessary corrective tonic that serves to “wash away poor investments” … i.e., they destroy businesses that should never have been established in the first place. Third, macroeconomic expansions (“booms”) that are driven by either monetary or fiscal policies will inevitably lead to “a bust”, i.e. … We would all be better off if the government would just leave the economy alone and let it correct itself.
The “spiral theory” to which Foulkes refers was developed in the 1930s by J.M Keynes in his classic book, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”. A key concept in this theory is the spending multiplier, which works more or less as Foulkes described.
However, it is a gross distortion to speak of the multiplier effect as a “bottomless downward spiral.” No. Keynes’s essential idea was that declines in spending would be amplified and lead the economy to an equilibrium output below its potential, not a free-fall.
HE DID NOT SAY KEYNES WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPIRAL THEORY, THUGH THAT MAY WELL BE THE CASE.
Keynes also recognized that, with time, spending and output would recover, and production would be restored to the economy’s potential in the long run, even without any government intervention.
I BELIEVE FOULKES IS SAYING AS THE BAD INVESTMENTS ARE CORRECTED, ELIMINATED, THE ECONOMY WILL RECOVER.
The problem with waiting is that productive resources are wasted during the waiting period, which is characterized by high unemployment and low capacity utilization of installed plant and equipment.
THIS IS JUST MADE UP. FOULKES SAYS WE NEED REAL SAVINGS. THIS WOULD BE OPPOSED TO BORROWING FOR INVESTMENTS. SEE HIS EXAMPLE. SLEEPING MAY ALSO BE A WASTE OF RESOURCES BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME PROOF.
Foulkes completely ignores this inefficiency, which corrective macroeconomic policies can address. (Keynes also noted that in the long run we’re all dead.)
IGNORES SOMETHING THAT IS PURE FABRICATION? SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD CHOICE.
Such counter-cyclical macroeconomic policies have been followed since the 1930s. Foulkes’s libertarian philosophy would replace these with the laissez-faire approach that prevailed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A cursory look at business cycles over the past century shows clearly that their magnitude and frequency diminished after Keynesian macroeconomic policies were adopted. It seems odd to recommend that earlier approach as better.
IF ALL ELSE FAILS, LIE, LIE, LIE. THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND 1969 TO 1980'S RECESSION WERE THE TWO WORST ON RECORD. BANK FAILURES WERE COMMON. BEFORE THE FEDERAL RESERVE, BANK FAILURES WERE RARE. WHAT IS ODD IS THAT PEOPLE LIKE MR. LOTSPEICH DEFEND FAILURE.
Foulkes makes two more fallacious points about this theory. He writes that the “spiral theory” ignores that consumer goods must be produced. This is nonsense and simply not true. He also writes that the theory incorrectly assumes that systemic market failure initiates a downturn, when it is actually caused by a desirable recognition of poor investments.
There are two problems with this. First, the systemic market failure identified by Keynes was not the initiation of a recession, but rather the failure of a market system to maintain, or quickly return to, production at the economy’s potential. Any number of shocks to spending could initiate a downturn; they need not be market failures. Examples include reductions in exports, government spending and investment.
VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT THERE HE GOES AGAIN WITH MARKET POTENTIAL. REDUCTION IN EXPORTS IS A MARKET FAILURE TO SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN FREE MARKETS IF THE REDUCTIONS ARE DUE TO SOMETHING BEYOND THE FREE MARKET. GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND INVESTMENT IN THEMSELVES DON'T CREATE DOWNTURNS. 0 FOR 3 MR. LOTSPEICH.
Second, the recognition of investments as “poor” will not necessarily reduce aggregate spending and thus initiate a downturn. Poor investments are consequences of past spending. Future investment spending might be reduced as a result, but more likely it would simply be diverted to different kinds of projects. This is an appropriate correction that markets would promote, but it is not the cause of a downturn.
In short, the correction of investment mistakes that Foulkes asserts is the function of recessions can be accomplished without recessions, and it frequently is.
This is not to say that a recession has no role in sweeping away poor investment. Indeed the process of enterprise destruction is amplified in a recession. However, there will also be many businesses destroyed that are viable when the economy is operating at capacity. They are “poor investments” only during recessions, and their destruction reduces social prosperity. This collateral damage of downturns is selectively ignored by Foulkes.
I BELIEVE WE ARE TRYING TO COVER TOO MUCH HERE. IF TOO MUCH MONEY IS PUMPED INTO THE ECONOMY AND PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING BETTER, TOO MANY RESTAURANTS MAY BE BUILT. DURING THE RECESSION THESE RESTAURANTS MAY DISAPPEAR AS "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" BUT FOULKES WAS CORRECT IN IGNORING THIS AS IT WOULD CONFUSE THE QUESTION.
Finally, it is simply not true that a recovery from recession that is engineered by the government must culminate in a new recession. This is an unsupported assertion. The U.S. has experienced extended periods of economic stability and growth following such recoveries.
THIS DEPRESSION WILL BE EXTENDED. THE GREAT DEPRESSION WAS EXTENDED WITH GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I CAN'T ARGUE THAT EXTENDED PERIODS OF ECONOMIC STABILITY AND GROWTH FOLLOWED SOME RECOVERIES. BUT OF COURSE THE RELATIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING (STEALING OR TAXING) WAS LESS.
Moreover, government spending for infrastructure (“roads and bridges”) that Foulkes suggests is unwise, usually provides substantial public returns for both households and businesses. While true that we should not build bridges to nowhere, this does not mean all government bridge construction should cease.
I BELIEVE HE USED THE WORD MASSIVE AS IN spend massively on roads and bridges. ALSO, not necessary DOES NOT = SUGGESTS IS UNWISE.
— Richard Lotspeich
Department of Economics
Indiana State University
MR. FOULKES IS A GREAT ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY. HE CERTAINLY HAS PROVOKED MUCH THOUGHT ABOUT ECONOMICS.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Jacob Hornberger writes about Tom Dilorenzo talking about Hamilton's Curse and other thoughts and writings HERE. This is a blog so it may be a ways down if you arrive after 2/3/09.
I wrote a letter to the editor about this book myself. Here it is:
I wrote a letter to the editor about this book myself. Here it is:
Ed Gluck
235-0412
Terre Haute, IN
Dear Max,
During a Candidate's Forum in 2003, I mentioned that the Federalist Party did not believe in federalism but in nationalism. They believed in centralized government, big government, imperialism, and corporate welfare. I do not know if anyone understood what I was talking about although Professor Linda Maule seemed to know. (I believe Dr. Maule helped in my understanding of these facts.)
I believe my reason for mentioning this history was to label my two opponents as big government Federalists while I was a small government Jeffersonian. Now there is a new book, Hamilton's Curse by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, which explains the corrupt connection between the Federalists, Whigs, and Lincoln Republicans that brought us to the corrupt government of today.
Every voter should read Hamilton’s Curse and notice the silly or specious arguments of today which were used by Alexander Hamilton. DiLorenzo also advises how the U.S. can reverse this too big and too bad government.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Letter to Editor - Science
Finally, I have a new article. This is a letter to the editor I sent but has not been printed yet.
Tribune-Star contributor, Saul Rosenthal, lent me a book critical of milk. It changed my mind on the "goodness" of dairy and meat products. Science backs this conclusion. Thanks Saul.
The Center for Disease Control, since 2006, wants to test the entire U.S. population for HIV. The false positive result for the HIV antibody tests (tests not approved by the FDA with the disclaimer, do not use results to diagnose AIDS) is very high. Healthy women in their third trimester and newborns will be mandated by state laws to take deadly drugs.
In 1990 I checked my Mechanical Engineer's Handbook for the energy contents of gasoline and ethanol. Ethanol has lower energy content. Testing my 1978 Aspen , my results gave over an eight percent advantage to gasoline. I asked my friend Scott to run the same test on his fleet of cars. Scott reported about a ten percent difference. Two years ago, Consumer Reports tested E-85 and the ethanol blend. They also reported about a ten percent disadvantage with the ethanol blend. (This would be an excellent project for children in elementary school - test mpg ethanol blend/mpg gasoline.)
Science needs to be questioned. The dairy and meat industries along with the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and Big Oil have proved they cannot be trusted. Perhaps the worst secret learned is that education professionals do not have to disclose payment from companies whose products they are testing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
