Miklos: "didn't the immigration of tens of millions of Mexicans with low skills and education have an effect on impairing wage growth?" You would think so, and I'm sure it has had some impact. but average wages began to rise in about 1990 and continued to rise until 2001, a period of very high immigration.

Miklos: "didn't the immigration of tens of millions of Mexicans with low skills and education have an effect on impairing wage growth?" You would think so, and I'm sure it has had some impact. but average wages began to rise in about 1990 and continued to rise until 2001, a period of very high immigration.

So where it to find http://freewebtown.com/elijhbqy/tbe-mdse.html ?

Help to find in the Internet the http://freewebtown.com/elijhbqy/billy-thundercloud.html ! Write on e-mail.

I have found it http://freewebtown.com/elijhbqy/dryer-squeeking.html . You that to search are not able? :)

The Friends, who heard what your opinion on the about the http://freewebtown.com/kedwnytg/bob-kinnaman.html ?

Where it is possible to order the http://freewebtown.com/kedwnytg/derek-kilborn-sara.html in us?

On this site it is possible to find the http://freewebtown.com/pibmvqae/norwegin-elkhound-rescue.html . I have found it!

With a Flat Tax we would still need for all kinds of record keeping. We would also have thousands of pages of tax law to boot. We would still be subject to jail time if we did not pay. Just ask Wesley Snipes. So why keep a modified IRS tax system that will place you in jail? Remember the IRS is our friend as well as the Flat Tax that supports it.

Laurence Vance-style tax-reform critique: -Something other than the 3% flat tax is bad. -It'll get butchered in committe. -It's a tax, and taxes are bad. -It'll lead to worse taxes later because they'll want to make up the revenue. -Bob Murphy is bad. Hey, that's what he said about the FairTax, and I can't think of an argument you made against it, Bob, that wouldn't apply here. I just hope you get as much garbage flung at you as I did when I said, "Hey, the FairTax might be better than the existing regime." But I think expecting consistency like that is too much here.

Laurence Vance-style tax-reform critique: -Something other than the 3% flat tax is bad. -It'll get butchered in committe. -It's a tax, and taxes are bad. -It'll lead to worse taxes later because they'll want to make up the revenue. -Bob Murphy is bad. Hey, that's what he said about the FairTax, and I can't think of an argument you made against it, Bob, that wouldn't apply here. I just hope you get as much garbage flung at you as I did when I said, "Hey, the FairTax might be better than the existing regime." But I think expecting consistency like that is too much here.

If you don't even know what this site stands for, or the underlying theoretical reasoning behind the articles why post here? I'm not here to educate... if you want to see what it's about, look into its massive library of online resources.

Not American, so just guessing - didn't the immigration of tens of millions of Mexicans with low skills and education have an effect on impairing wage growth?

IMHO, Yeah, that one from Lydia got me too. Then I realized that what she is saying is that anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists at all, and that real anarchy means we must abolish private property as well. And that's total rubbish. I grant Lydia the possibility that anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism or some other anarcho- could be the model that a large number of people chose to pursue in a society without the state, but only anarcho-capitalism has a coherent basis of economic theory to support it. Refuting these other theories is ridiculously easy. Anarcho-Communism: tragedy of the commons, socialist calculation Anarcho-Syndicalism: Wants to abolish the state, while paradoxically blaming all problems on capitalism and business activity. It's proponents apparently never heard of entrepreneurs and see wealth-production as something that a mob is quite capable of coordinating. See Anarcho-Communism, above. Collectivist Anarchism: See Anarcho-Communism, above.

michael: "In summary, the theories glowingly described by Peter Bauer and others were certainly worth a try. I myself was very cautiously optimistic over NAFTA's possible success, back in 1995. But we tried them, and the miracle didn't happen. Now we need to develop a different model." You completely missed the point of my post. NAFTA and similar agreements were the opposite of what Bauer recommended. All of the "free trade agreements" we have signed have nothing to do with free trade. Only a cynic would call them free trade. Everyone familiar with them knows that they are managed trade, not free trade. But regardless of the stupid documents dictators sign, it doesn't change the fact that inside poor nations people have no property rights or any other aspect of capitalism. Michael: "This marks the third time you have repeated this factoid. It obviously has had a pronounced effect on you. Actually, you should see the trend in dynamic terms not static ones." But that's the point you refuse to get. I guess I'll keep repeating it until you understand its importance. There is no improvement in farming methods in poor nations. None whatsoever. And the reason is lack of the whole package of capitalism. Today, as I write, most of the farming in the world is done by women with short-handled hoes. They don't do it because of globalization; they've farmed that way for millenia. Globalization has neither helped no hurt them. Michael: "But I'm suprised you aren't more enthusiastic about microlending." Microlending helps a few people, but it can never overcome the vast, deep damage that states cause through their price controls and general theft.

Joshua I think that it is a sad fact that most of the energy problems in the US are directly caused by government policy alone. Even John McCain is now realizing that nuclear power can replace the need for oil - we can use the energy to convert coal into diesel fuel. The problems are psychological rather than technological - nuclear phobia. Even if we extrapolate the worst nuclear catastrophe, we come in way short with the loss of life caused in WWI.

First of all, this is the first time I have even been on this site. I am not familiar at all with the theory you stated or if it even exists. Even so, basic observation of past and present events seem to bear out my comments although I am open to listening to any reasonable debate of my comments and these ideas in general. So, please don't take my comments or even questions that I posed in the wrong way or attitude. If you, Inquisitor, or anyone else can make a case against my observations, I welcome your knowledge of the subject. That does not mean that I will agree with you but I will consider what you say. But, you have to admit Inquisitor that your last two comments did not really provide any alternative answer to combat what I have stated. In closing, I will say that I probably should not have started my first post with the statement, "some people need to get a clue, so please accept my apology for this unnecessary and unfriendly statement. I look forward to reading some of your comments especially if they specifically address some of my comments, questions, or observations. Have a great day!

I'm ready for the flat tax utopia.....Let's roll..........To do nothing but complain for the next 30 years will put us in the same category as the tree huggers and our (30 year old) present energy issues......of course your mpg may vary.......

http://blog.mises.org/archives/008047.asp#comment-273909 Blaming speculators never goes out of fashion...

Austrian Business Cycle Theory. I'll say no more.