Economists Do It With Models

Warning: “graphic” content…

Bookmark and Share
Keynes vs. Hayek, Now With More Boxing…

April 30th, 2011 · 37 Comments
Just For Fun · Macroeconomics

You may recall from earlier that I went down to New Jersey a couple of weekends ago to attend the taping of the second installment of the Keynes/Hayek rap video. (You can see some background and commentary on the first video here.) You probably don’t recall that I had a bit of a Twitter spat with John Papola, the director of the series of videos:

me: John Papola: “This is not an unbiased production. When Hayek speaks, you’re like ‘yes.’ When Keynes speaks, you’re like ‘no.'” Sigh.
John: I’m proud to be honest about my position instead of put forward some pretense of “objectivity” that is clearly impossible.
John: reserve judgment on the treatment of Keynes until you see the final video. On-set direction is not the same thing as editing.

Fair enough, and John’s not wrong. Most of the words are, in fact, accurate- the only thing that really caught my attention was the statement that Keynes didn’t care where government spending goes. I would like to think that reasonable Keynesians would agree that it’s strictly better to spend on useful things than on stupid things. That said, I am not sure what Keynes himself had to say on the matter. I also think it’s appropriate that I watched this immediately after going to a talk by Greg Mankiw about how there is a “case for humility” in macroeconomics, since there is still a lot that we don’t know about trying to regulate business cycles. He likened the economist/economy relationship to a doctor/patient relationship in which the doctor hasn’t seen enough patients like the current one in order to do a proper clinical trial. If the medicine that the doctor gives initially doesn’t work, is it because the doctor prescribed the wrong medicine or is it because the patient was sicker than the doctor realized and the dose wasn’t high enough? It’s a difficult problem, and it kind of makes me want to see Dr. House as an economist.

Anyway, without further ado, here’s the new video:

Yep, that’s my name in the credits. Did you see me? Yeah, me neither. 🙂 I’ll give you a hint- I’m in the crowd in the boxing scene, and I’m wearing the same dress as in the picture on my Facebook page. I had asked if I could be one of the congresspeople and was told that I could be an intern or a girlfriend. I guess that’s a compliment in a weird way, but I would like to reiterate that I am in fact old enough to be a member of congress.

I would also like to point out that, especially given that I saw what John had to work with in terms of number of extras and such, the video is very, very well done. The main actors (Billy and Adam) are super nice, and apparently they make the rap thing a habit. I think the best part was watching the boxing coach teaching Billy and Adam how to fake box, since, despite not being “real”, it looked completely exhausting. Oh, and I got to give out stickers:

I’m not sure how I feel about that combination of stickers, but I guess I’ll take it.

Tags: Just For Fun · Macroeconomics

37 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Russell Nelson // Apr 30, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    I’m sure that, had you been reading _Discover Your Inner Economist_, I would have recognized you in a moment.

  • 2 Dr. John Swenson Harvey // Apr 30, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Hmmm, well Mr. Papola certainly lived up to a portion of his earlier statement, namely: “I’m proud to be honest about my position instead of put forward some pretense of ‘objectivity’ that is clearly impossible.”

    The video did not need “objectivity” it needed to address the facts. (1) If we choose to allow societies to exist (pretty hard not to) then there will be macro effects (the Great Depression for example). (2) If we also accept the idea that peoples’ circumstances matter; meaning – for example – we don’t want to let children starve because they have either stupid or unproductive parents. Then (3) the idea soon emerges that governments (and other social institutions) have a role to play in avoiding bad economic outcomes.

    The conservative who is willing to give up many or all of the benefits of the social contract, and who does not care if those around him starve, is self consistent from a logical perspective; but I still would not want him or her for a neighbor.

    Liberals tend to want to do something if it addresses facts/positions 1 and 2 because they want to avoid them, as such they are willing to engage in government action to address such problems. Conservatives (extreme ones anyway, like a sixth of Congress at the moment — i.e., Randians) don’t want to do anything to avoid outcomes like number 2 because it would both mess up economic incentives and force them to help someone they feel is unworthy of help.

  • 3 Russell Nelson // Apr 30, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    John, you made a logical leap with no supporting evidence. You went straight from “people want to help” to “people should force unwilling people to help.” What evidence do you have that that is necessary for people to be able to help?

  • 4 John Papola // Apr 30, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    Thanks for coming to participate, Jodi and for following up with our little back and forth on twitter. Russ and I work super hard on giving “Keynes” strong arguments from the keynesian / interventionist camp and having him push “Hayek” with tough questions. As you saw, the filmmaking process is a high-intensity, out of sequence process where what appears to be happening on set does not necessarily correlate to on screen. With a crowd full of EconStories supporters, getting them pumped with a little cheerleading was as much a directing tactic as anything else.

    I’m sorry we didn’t get to incorporate you as we had expected. There was some confusion during extras registration and Lisa didn’t know you had arrived until after we had to lock in our decisions by shooting the first congresspeople shots (before the extras were brought in).

    I think mankiw is right about the need for humility in macro,which is why our Hayek in this video is the Hayek of dispersed knowledge and scientism, not the business cycle theorist. I think he gets the metaphor wrong. The cels in a body don’t have minds. Viruses aren’t complex emotive beings. Economists arent doctors.  I think the economy is more like a rainforest, which has evolved over time and always is, filled with purposeful beings who respond in unexpected and often unpredictable ways. The economy is organic, but it’s not a single corpus that can be treated for a disease. This metaphor is more car-like than I’d prefer. 

    All the best

  • 5 Punditus Maximus // Apr 30, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    The division between economic conservatives and liberals is pretty basic — liberals care about what has worked in the past, and conservatives care about what has worked in their heads.

    As a result, conservatives push us toward the social contract and standards of living of the ancient Greeks, and liberals push us toward the social contract and standards of a modern scientifically literate society.

  • 6 Chuck Dolci // Apr 30, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    These postings remind me of the apothegm “If the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.” Everyone is looking at this solely through the lense of economics (which ought not be surprising given the nature of the blog), but there are other considerations to this debate.

    When we talk of “free markets” we are talking about more than just economics. The free market is simply millions of individual decision-makers, engaged in peaceable, voluntary exchanges, in the pursuit of what they determine to be their best interests. Therefore “free market” implies personal freedom and liberty. I think Hayek was addressing that as much as economic considerations.

    Intervention in the market, such as has been done by governments in furtherance of Keynes’ theories, deny, or at least limit, personal freedom and liberty. It is based on the notion that people are incapable of making proper decisions in running their lives – the standard of “propriety” being set by some elite philosopher princes, and not by the people that have to live with the consequences of the decisions of the elites.

    I might also add that Dr. John makes the common mistake that anyone who does not agree with his particular (i.e. the “liberal”) method of saving the world must be seeking an opposite result and, therefore, can only be evil (i.e. “conservative”). Dr. John seems unable to allow that others may have an equal desire to save the world and its miserable inhabitants, but they just wish to pursue a different approach, having witnessed that many of the means used by “liberals” in the past have been abject failures.

    Econgirl has, on several occasions, remarked that people respond to incentives and disincentives. Rewarding people for being unproductive, subsidizing destructive behaviour by removing or transfering some of its costs, raising the costs of productive behaviour, may assuage the guilt of some, but they do very little to actually solve problems of society (if, in fact, they are “society’s” problems). They often times result in totally predictable, but unintended, consequences that have an opposite and damaging affect. But that does not matter to some, because all that really matters is that they feel good because their motives are noble and therefore they are on the side of the angels; because they care.

    Perhaps some economists ought to take a page from the code of ethics that doctors must adhere to – Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).

    ’nuff said.

    BTW, Jodi, you don’t want to be a congress person, They are, almost without exception, such frumpy, miserable creatures. It’s better to be one of the ringside “girlfriends”. Better class of people.

  • 7 Chris // May 1, 2011 at 12:25 am

    Jodi–

    Since reading his blog, I have been itching to hear your thoughts on Brad DeLong’s frankly biting critique post of this very video.

    Here is a link to the article if you haven’t seen it yet.

    http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/04/yet-more-misinformation-from-the-pointless-pain-caucus-1.html

    I don’t know what your thoughts on DeLong are considering he’s a heavily-invested Macro type.

  • 8 Chris // May 1, 2011 at 12:28 am

    I won’t get started on John’s post. He throws around abstract artistry; “The economy, is a rainforest.” Nice metaphor, there, Mr Hemingway! Now please read my Brad DeLong link because I think the man understands the economy better than you.

  • 9 John Papola // May 1, 2011 at 12:41 am

    Chris, it’s a little absurd to leap at 3 words (“your central plan”) in a YouTube rap video as if they are a proclamation that Keynes is a socialist. But then, our friend Brad is known for, um, hyperbole in dealing with people with whom he disagrees.

    Our “Keynes” is an amalgam of keynesian ideology, methodology and history. We are quite clearly not representing our rap video as a work of history.

    For the record, there is a long list of prominent Keynesians who expressed support in varying degress for central planning including J K Galbraith, Paul Samuelson, Abba Lerner and others. India had central planning without full “socialism”. Mr. Galbraith was quite supportive of it. Samuelson marveled even in 1985 about the Soviet growth rate in his textbooks.

    We’re totally within bounds in our lyrics. I stand by them. The lyrics… for our YouTube rap song. But if Brad DeLong wishes to treat it as such, well, that’s curious but I’ll accept the compliment. It’s cool to be taken so seriously. I’d thank him on his site, but he’d probably delete the comment (it wouldn’t be the first time).

  • 10 Chris // May 1, 2011 at 1:15 am

    Sorry if I hit a nerve. Still, more things wrong with your second post.

    First off, I do understand you were not trying to dutifully represent history in your rap. In fact had you done so, you would have surely mentioned the part where- for the decades when Keynesian economic prescriptions reigned over policy (late 30s to 60s and some early 70’s)- income gains were not only more equitable on the whole but more equally distributed amongst income quintiles. And since the major backpedaling and distance from Keynes in the early-mid 70s, income for all but the very top %’s and .1%’s have utterly stagnated, and cycles have only become increasingly volatile.

    However, as I said, I would not expect you to disseminate and represent such information even if you did wish to maintain some illusion of impartiality. It’s just that, what I pointed out seems to be yet another detail you “tweaked” (Jodi mentioned one in the post and other people across the blogosphere have raised others) to conform with the *political philosophy* you claim to openly espouse in the video.

    I also laugh when I see you broadly categorize “Keynesians” like you just did. Even you must be aware of the ridiculousness of that. Trying to homogenize all Keynesians is the same folly as trying to claim all Existentialists or all Christians have the same views. It’s not true. Some followers of Keynes were monetarists like Friedman (though he tried greatly distancing himself from that lineage the influence is obviously there) and some were more outside-the-box like Minsky. You brought up Mankiw; even he falls under your great big umbrella of “Keynesian,” and I doubt you’d say he agrees much at all with Minsky. So don’t even try to burn at the stake “Keynesians”-at-large for a few fringe statements made by what you consider to be his followers. Some Christians prefer the Pope to Canterbury; some existentialists prefer Kierkegaard or Camus to Sartre.

    Hayek was a sub-branch of Austrian thought, not the roots of the tradition as Keynes is to his own little tree. In this narrow sense the two are categorically distinct.

    I guess my roundabout issue is that, in light of your brazenness about your affiliation, this whole thing seems to be nothing more than you setting up a “Keynes” straw man to skewer.

    Since I hate stirring up trouble on Jodi’s space without being a bit congenial, I do greatly appreciate someone taking the steps towards Economics rap. I’m a big hip-hop fan myself, and even I have been known to spit some rhymes about the Federal Reserve and fiscal policy to some good old Rakim and Eric B. beats. So I appreciate the clever mix of music you bring in to stir up the monotony a bit.

  • 11 John Papola // May 1, 2011 at 7:34 am

    Do yourself a favor and visit our website, EconStories.tv and watch the 15 minute mini-documentary we made with Robert Skidelsky about Keynes so that you can see what kind of information we are “disseminating”. I edited it myself and so you can see which arguments I presented. Go to our site and see the additional content we link to for people to learn more. You don’t appear to be very informed about what we are actually doing.

    Also, I don’t recall saying anything about “all keynesians”. You said that. Talk about setting up a straw man.

    I only entered the comments to thank Jodi for coming to our shoot, not get into debates with people unwillinging to read and look before they slam other people as hacks. I stand by our work.

  • 12 John Papola // May 1, 2011 at 7:40 am

    Oops. I typed “all Keynesians” even though you wrote “keynesians”. Slip. Still, my point holds. Your wording criticism suggests I meant “all keynesians”. I was precise in comment so not to be making such a broad (and collectivist) claim.

  • 13 John Papola // May 1, 2011 at 7:47 am

    Our Skidelsky piece (with more to come, this was just the first one):

  • 14 Steven // May 1, 2011 at 10:55 am

    I’m pretty sure most of us want freedom and prosperity for all. If we can stop the name-calling and agree that the means by which we want to achieve these ends is the only way in which we differ, then we can have a real conversation.

    Economic liberals – the transaction costs of government (waste, reduction of economic liberty) are worth the benefits

    Economic conservatives – the transaction costs of government are not worth the benefits

  • 15 Punditus Maximus // May 1, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    The idea that both economic liberals and economic conservatives want liberty and prosperity for all is absurd. If that were so, then the years in which conservatives were in charge and the years in which liberals were in charge would have similar outcomes. In fact, this is obviously not so — economic growth is both much larger and far more equitably distributed in years where Democrats hold the Presidency than in years where Republicans hold the Presidency.

    Conservatives want to reinforce a social order in which they are in charge for no good reason. “Liberty” is a euphemism like “States’ Rights.” It’s something that sounds nice but is in reality just more apologia for people who inherited wealth getting opportunities to harm people who didn’t. That is a form of liberty, after all.

    Anyways, of course any work of art which puts Hayek and Keynes on an equal footing is inherently biased past the point of interest. Hayek was a nonsensical slop of meaningless drivel, while Keynes helped us comprehend one of the greatest economic failures of our time. Hayek is philosophy, not science. No prediction is ever made, and the little one can try to coax out of Hayek never bears fruit. Keynes was proven correct by both the collapse in 1937 and the long-term stability which his ideas inspired after WWII.

  • 16 Steven // May 1, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    I never said that outcomes are the same under conservative and liberal policies. Outcomes are a function of the means used to achieve those goals, and there is where cons and libs markedly differ. I said that the broad goals are the same.

    “In fact, this is obviously not so — economic growth is both much larger and far more equitably distributed in years where Democrats hold the Presidency than in years where Republicans hold the Presidency.”

    You attribute economic outcomes to one man?
    What’s your sample size?

  • 17 Chuck Dolci // May 2, 2011 at 2:30 am

    In regard to Punditus Maximus’ May 1 post –
    First: he makes the mistake assuming that conservative equals republican. Nixon was a Republican but hardly a conservative – he gave us wage and price controls and the EPA. Bush I was a Republican but hardly conservative; he gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act, higher taxes and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Bush II and the party in control of Congress for the first several years of his administration were Republicans but not conservatives. The Republican Congress spent like drunken Democrats and Bush gave us the prescription drug plan and TARP 1.
    Second: can you provide the rest of us with some factual basis to substantiate your claim that “Hayek was a nonsensical slop of meaningless drivel”?
    And the equally brilliant “Conservatives want to reinforce a social order in which they are in charge for no good reason.” Just what would you consider a good reason to be in charge? Being Democrat?

    Third: “economic growth is both much larger and far more equitably distributed in years where Democrats hold the Presidency” Well, now let’s see: the Roaring Twenties – Calvin Coolidge – Republican; the 1930s – FDR- Democrat; 1950s – Eisenhower, -Republican; latter part of the 1970s – Carter – Democrat; 1980s – Reagan – Republican.

    And if it is not too much trouble, could you please give us your definition of “equitable”. What is inequitable about allowing the person who creates wealth to keep and enjoy that wealth? – or are you one of those who believes that all wealth is stolen? I have a vague recollection that wealth was equally distributed in the Soviet Union and that everyone was equally poor and miserable. So is that your definition of equitable?

    And then Keynes helped us understand “the collapse in 1937 and the long-term stability which his ideas inspired after WWII”. Are you for real? The collapse in 1937? Are you talking about the resurgence of the depression after FDR pushed through Social Security, the Wagner Act, and other laws that imposed higher labor costs on businesses and allowed unions to engage in crippling strikes just as the economy was beginning to turn around? The long term stability after WWII was largely the result of the abandonment of Keynesian ideas by both Truman and Eisenhower, plus the fact that for much of that time the US was the only major economy in the world as Europe was still recovering from WWII.

    Finally: “Liberty” … sounds nice but is in reality just more apologia for people who inherited wealth getting opportunities to harm people who didn’t. ” Really? I didn’t inherit my wealth. In fact, of all the wealthy people I know not a single one inherited his/her wealth. What about Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Jerry Yang, the google and facebook guys, Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc.?
    Oh, no, wait. I forgot about the Kennedys, and John Kerry, Al Gore.
    Facts are such an annoying problem.

  • 18 Chris // May 2, 2011 at 4:51 am

    John, you’re putting words into my mouth. Judging from your response one would think I called you stupid, or insulted your mother. I haven’t made this personal in the least, I’ve definitely never said anyone was a hack. I told you that while I respect the clay of your artistic creation, I couldn’t defend it from a factual science-minded perspective.

    You missed my other point too, admittedly seeing words that I didn’t actually write. My *actual* point was that Keynes’ intellectual tradition is so large, that you cherry-picking a little blurb stuck in the corner of some page in the back of Samuelson’s ancient textbook does not imply Keynesian thought advocates central planning.
    Of course, that’s not something you were trying to say, no… just an FYI that you felt compelled to add “for the record.” Though you try skirting the direct implication, everyone knows what poison tree people associate the fruit of central planning from.

    I am also not “slamming” you; the blogger herself has voiced several times about the bias in the vid. I simply agree with her, and judging by your comments you seem to as well. You’ve made yourself public in this way, like it or not this invites a certain degree of intellectual scrutiny.

    Anyway, having seen your first video I knew your angle was going in. That said I didn’t feel the need to intimately familiarize myself with everything on your page in order to make a commentary on this specific video you made. If it makes you happy, though, sure; I’ll give your site a couple more hits.

    Sorry for wasting your time, I guess!

  • 19 Punditus Maximus // May 2, 2011 at 9:51 am

    “And the equally brilliant “Conservatives want to reinforce a social order in which they are in charge for no good reason.” Just what would you consider a good reason to be in charge? Being Democrat?”

    Your slip is showing. My point is that conservatives view the world in identity groups which should have a defined ordering. Liberals think that meritocracy is a good way to select leaders and productive workers. That’s why the first black President was a liberal and why the birthers are conservative. It’s why you think I want to put my category in charge.

    One of the only fun parts of debating a conservative is finding the points where they contradict themselves within two sentences.

    ” In fact, of all the wealthy people I know not a single one inherited his/her wealth…Oh, no, wait. I forgot about the Kennedys, and John Kerry, Al Gore.”

    The interesting question about this is how deeply the idea of dissembly has penetrated the author’s worldview. After all, he could easily have edited the paragraph once he realized that the initial statement was trivially false. He could have said something like, “The rich people I know who inherited their wealth are liberals,” which would still have been completely irrelevant. But instead he chose to make a point which was both factually false and irrelevant. You have to respect the conservative commitment.

    I’d thank Chuck Dolci for his ongoing support for my statement that conservative philosophy is a nonsensical mishmash of false statements centered around the pathetic rage of the privileged, but Mr. Dolci is hardly unique in that category. That interpretation is ubiquitous, from Hayek all the way on down. Another of the world’s actually valuable economists put it best:

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

  • 20 Punditus Maximus // May 2, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Once more, for the peanut gallery:

    Keynes vs. Hayek is a great model for the current fight within economics between those who would like to practice a social science and those who would like to provide moral cover for wealthy looters.

    Any work of art which does not portray Hayek as a lying demagogue is inherently biased to the point of falsehood, as Hayek’s work itself was. Hayek lied about Keynes, a lot. Any work which doesn’t include this fact is participating. So there’s not a lot to complain about, since the authors made clear their intention from the beginning.

  • 21 Chris // May 2, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Punditus, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • 22 jonathan // May 3, 2011 at 3:15 am

    @ Jodie
    Keynes said (I paraphrase) that it would be better if government spent money on productive investment, but in the absence of that they should put money at the bottom of coal mines since people will go down get it, and then spend.

  • 23 Amarsir // May 3, 2011 at 4:46 am

    What a thread! It’s like seeing 4chan’ers “herping” and “derping” at each other, only with bigger vocabularies. At no point in their education do people outgrow “anyone who disagrees with me just doesn’t care!”?

    @jonathan, bringing us dangerously back to the original post, is correct. You might summarize Keynes position on spending targest as “some things are better than others, but anything is better than nothing.”

  • 24 Punditus Maximus // May 3, 2011 at 9:07 am

    @Amarsir: it happens shortly before “I am superior to anyone who actually holds an opinion” comes to a close.

  • 25 Joe // May 4, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    John,

    I have to wonder if you put that “um” in reference to Brad DeLong because puts about 3 of them in every sentence and is next to impossible to listen to…

  • 26 Joe // May 4, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    *because HE puts

  • 27 Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two - Fires of Heaven Guild Message Board // May 4, 2011 at 9:52 pm

    […] the way – from a PhD student at Harvard who runs a blog and took part in the filming of the video: Keynes vs. Hayek, Now With More Boxing

  • 28 Timothy Cullen // May 7, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Conservative is not necessarily equal to libertarian or classical liberal, of which the Austrian school of economics is but one subset.

    Fiscal conservatives in general agree with libertarians in general on economic issues, but then there are the social cons and neo cons that have only limited and situational support for economic liberalism that make up the vast majority of the GOP and modern conservative movement.

    As for Dr John’s incredibly misinformed comments, one can have social safety net programs without trying to micromanage the economy; and Hayek himself was much more flexible in this area than many classical liberals. Even then, most libertarians and many “conservatives” support programs like school vouchers; as opposed to government funding and operation of virtually all K-12 education regardless of income.

    So if one is looking for the “road to intelligence” one could start by not generalizing about “conservatives” and could then proceed to distinguishing between a debate about the business cycle and a debate about how to address poverty.

  • 29 Punditus Maximus // May 7, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Nope. Conservative = libertarian = “classical liberal”. They all want one thing, to reinforce existing power structures. That’s why their recommended policies are exactly equivalent. Only the easily penetrated window dressing is different. Conservatives may want a sociopath in charge because Jesus said so, a libertarian may want it because sociopaths are awesome, and a “classical liberal” may want it because sociopaths are awesome,* but they all want the same thing.

    *I see what I did there.

  • 30 Timothy Cullen // May 8, 2011 at 1:10 am

    All those libertarians who criticize the military industrial complex, the war on drugs, marriage inequality, and trade barriers and other economic interventions that advantage some businesses versus others are just “reinforcing existing power structures”.

    Your usage of classical liberal in quotes demonstrates your ignorance of the historical fact that prior to the progressive era those called liberals had largely libertarian views, and the word liberal is still used in Europe to mean those who support economic and social freedom.

    You seem to be rather poorly informed, trolling and/or spouting Marxist drivel.

  • 31 Jono // May 10, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Wow, what a sweet debate. Gotta love’em both for trying so hard. We will get there if this keeps up.

  • 32 Punditus Maximus // May 15, 2011 at 11:00 am

    No libertarians do any of those things, Timothy. They pretend to, then they vote party-line Republican. Somehow, policies which are completely required by libertarian thought but which might advantage ordinary people — such as thorough prosecution of fraud — never get libertarian support.

    There are some lovely anarchists in the world. Interesting people, worth talking to. Libertarians, which are the same as “classical liberals” insofar as no one called themselves a “classical liberal” until “libertarian” became known for what it is, are just Republicans who like to pretend they aren’t.

    And the way that it’s easiest to tell is how both libertarians and Republicans lie in favor of the powerful. It’s the same thing, with different dressing.

  • 33 Punditus Maximus // May 15, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    You know, I shouldn’t be quite so dismissive. Harry Browne got 384,000 votes in 2000, and the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, (after Warrantless Wiretapping and the Iraq War) got 397,000. So, if you’re part of either Harry Browne’s base or one of the 13,000 people (0.1% of the electorate) who switched over, I have mischaracterized you. But if you are like the other vast majority of “libertarians” who stuck with the GOP through the Bush Presidency, keep on proving me right.

  • 34 Herman Krezer // May 31, 2012 at 12:37 am

    Find solutions: Should I seek a second opinion
    http://tinyurl.com/bnap557

  • 35 games workshop // Aug 3, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    Hi to every body, it’s my first pay a quick visit of this weblog; this blog carries awesome and in fact excellent stuff for visitors.

  • 36 tempo.co.id // Nov 26, 2014 at 2:19 am

    We are a bunch of volunteers and starting a brand new
    scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve performed a formidable job and our entire neighborhood will likely be thankful to you.

  • 37 Simpson Restraint Strap // Sep 24, 2015 at 9:10 am

    I was pretty pleased to discover this site. I need to tto thank you for your time for ths particularly fantastic
    read!! I definitgely liked everdy little bit of iit and I have you bookmarked to check out
    new things in your site.

    my web sote … Simpson Restraint Strap

Leave a Comment