Pardon, my harsh language, but I am just having a hard time wondering how this so-called 'economist' ever managed to become Reagan's main economic advisor?
Have any you ever read his articles? The guy is nothing but over the top hyperbole and fierce accusations of corporate conspiracies.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25066.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
Now, his analysis of war and foreign policy can very much be taken as reasonable (ignoring his 9/11 truthing), but I am amazed how he always manages to throw in trade with China and movement of international labour as a part of some evil international conspiracy.
He has never given a single clear piece of reasoning to show why he thinks offshoring is bad, but it's mostly doom and panic about it that he throws in there along with his foreign policy talks. Has he simply gone senile and lost his ability to formally state his arguments? Or is this the kind of joker who becomes an economic advisor to the US government? No wonder the Reagan government pushed deficits beyond reason.
He's been off his meds for years. You can read more of his antics on chroniclesmagazine.org . Also, there is an mp3 file in the media section of a talk he gave at the 2004 ACS. He went on about how the law of comparative advantage only applies to finished goods but does not apply to factors of production. ...huh? You can hear incredulity in the voices of the questioners.
Prateek Sanjay: Pardon, my harsh language, but I am just having a hard time wondering how this so-called 'economist' ever managed to become Reagan's main economic advisor? Have any you ever read his articles? The guy is nothing but over the top hyperbole and fierce accusations of corporate conspiracies. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25066.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm Now, his analysis of war and foreign policy can very much be taken as reasonable (ignoring his 9/11 truthing), but I am amazed how he always manages to throw in trade with China and movement of international labour as a part of some evil international conspiracy. He has never given a single clear piece of reasoning to show why he thinks offshoring is bad, but it's mostly doom and panic about it that he throws in there along with his foreign policy talks. Has he simply gone senile and lost his ability to formally state his arguments? Or is this the kind of joker who becomes an economic advisor to the US government? No wonder the Reagan government pushed deficits beyond reason.
Not to defend Mr Roberts views , but your point is not very clear- at least to myself.
You say:"his analysis of war and foreign policy can very much be taken as reasonable", and yet all three links you posted are to articles primarily concerned with 9/11 truth versus the official story[i.e government lies] - not much about foreign policy per se at all, aside from the fact that the "excuse" of a self-manufactured terrorist event [9/11 ] was what persuaded your average American numbskull to be persuaded that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was "awright" .
"(ignoring his 9/11 truthing)" .
As I just said, all 3 of your links primarily concern government lies about 9/11, which means the reader must ignore the links you posted[?]
disclaimer: i know I'm very biased about 9/11- just check out the quote in my signature line below for proof of that- but still, all that aside- I , for one, am missing the point you are trying to make here.[Maybe i'm just having a bad day]
regards, onebornfree
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
*opens chroniclesmagazine.org*
I like how the man uses "banksters" to refer to anybody who is in financial services.
If I remember correctly, a self-professed 'fascist' had come to visit our forum once, and he too loved using the word banksters. I think the crazy antics of such people are enough proof why regular readers of mises.org should consider distancing themselves from the Old Right, Far Right, or any kind of Right.
Unlike Roberts, Patrick Buchanan still is able to speak and write in a way that makes sense, and his ideas about lack of protectionism destroying American industry seem to be more out of ignorance of basic economics than having lost his mind.