Archive for February, 2012
America’s Addiction: Sugar Sugar–Pure White and Deadly–Fructose Is Poison–Are You A Sugar Addict?–Videos
The Archies – Sugar Sugar (’69)
Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.
You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.
Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.
You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.
I just can’t believe the loveliness of loving you.
(I just can’t believe it’s true).
I just can’t believe the wonder of this feeling too.
(I just can’t believe it’s true).
Sugar, Oh, Honey Honey.
You are my candy girl, and you got me wanting you.
Honey, Oh, Sugar, Sugar.
You are my candy girl and you got me wanting you.
When I kissed you girl, I knew how sweet a kiss could be.
(I know how sweet a kiss can be)
Like the summer sunshine pour your sweetness over me.
(Pour your sweetness over me).
Oh pour little sugar on me honey (sugar)
Pour little sugar on me baby (honey honey)
When you make love so sweet (Yeah Yeah Yeah.)
Pour little sugar on me (oh yeah)
Pour little sugar on me honey
Pour little sugar on me baby I’m gonna make love so sweet (hey hey hey)
Pour little sugar on me honey.
Ah sugar. Oh honey, honey.
You are my candy, girl, and you got me wanting you.
Oh honey (honey, honey, sugar, sugar)
Sugar, sugar You are my candy girl.
source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Robert “Sugar: Bitter Truth” Lustig on ABCNews
Big Sugar
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/big-sugar/
Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 1 of 6 – Documentary
Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 2 of 6 – Documentary
Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 3 of 6 – Documentary
Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 4 of 6 – Documentary
Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 5 of 6 – Documentary
Before Lustig’s Bitter Truth – The Sugar Trap – 1986 – 6 of 6 – Documentary
The Politics of Obesity – Freedomain Radio Interviews Dr. Robert H. Lustig
Sugar: The Bitter Truth- March 24, 2011
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]
Sugar: The Bitter Truth (The SHORT Version)
Are You a Sugar Addict?
DEATH BY SUGAR by Jorge Cruise
The Sugar Epidemic: Policy versus Politics
Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 1 of 3)
Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 2 of 3)
Sugar Dangers – Dr. Richard Johnson Lecture (Part 3 of 3)
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 1 of 5)
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 2 of 5)
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 3 of 5)
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 4 of 5)
Dr. Mercola Interviews Dr. Richard Johnson on Fructose (Part 5 of 5)
Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #1
Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON Reason #2
Dr. Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #3
Mark’s Minute – High Fructose Corn Syrup is POISON: Reason #4
SWEET SUICIDE: OR HOW SUGAR RUINS YOUR HEALTH
Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Truth, Still Not Sexy, HFCS
How much sugar does the average american consume?
The Great Sugar Shaft
Sugar Daddy: Taubes tells all
Larry Graham, Chairman of the Coalition for Sugar Reform, Discusses Need to Reform the Sugar Program
Fran Smith, Board Member & Adjunct Fellow at CEI, on the Economic Impact of the Sugar Program
The Case Against the Sugar Program on CNBC Squawk Box
Sugar
“…Sugar is a class of edible crystalline carbohydrates, mainly sucrose, lactose, and fructose,[1] characterized by a sweet flavor.
Sucrose in its refined form primarily comes from sugar cane and sugar beet. It and the other sugars are present in natural and refined forms in many foods, and the refined forms are also added to many food preparations.
The world produced about 168 million tonnes of sugar in 2011.[2] The world consumed an average of 24 kilograms of sugar for every human being of all ages, equivalent to over 260 food calories per day per human being.[3]
In food, “sugars” refer to all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols,[4] while in its singular form, “sugar” normally refers to sucrose. The other sugars are usually known by more specific names — glucose, fructose or fruit sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc.
Sugar production and trade has influenced human history in many ways. In modern times, sugar influenced the formation of colonies, perpetuation of slavery, transition to indentured labor, migration and abuse of people, wars between 19th century sugar trade controlling nations, ethnic composition and political structure of the new world.[5][6]
Ancient times and Middle Ages
Sugar has been produced in the Indian subcontinent[7] since ancient times. It was not plentiful or cheap in early times—honey was more often used for sweetening in most parts of the world.
Amongst the ancient manuscripts of China, dated to be from the eight century BC, one of the earliest historical mention of sugar cane is included along with the fact that their knowledge of sugar cane was derived from India.[8] It appears that in about 500 BC, residents of present-day India began making sugar syrup and cooling it in large flat bowls to make crystals that were easier to store and transport. In the local Indian language, these crystals were called khanda (खण्ड), which is the source of the word candy.[9]
Originally, people chewed sugarcane raw to extract its sweetness. Sugarcane was a native of tropical South Asia and Southeast Asia.[10] Different species likely originated in different locations with Saccharum barberi originating in India and S. edule and S. officinarum coming from New Guinea.[10][11]
Sugar remained relatively unimportant until the Indians discovered methods of turning sugarcane juice into granulated crystals that were easier to store and to transport.[12] Crystallized sugar was discovered by the time of the Imperial Guptas, around 5th century AD.[12] Indian sailors, consumers of clarified butter and sugar, carried sugar by various trade routes.[12] Traveling Buddhist monks brought sugar crystallization methods to China.[13] During the reign of Harsha (r. 606–647) in North India, Indian envoys in Tang China taught sugarcane cultivation methods after Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 626–649) made his interest in sugar known, and China soon established its first sugarcane cultivation in the seventh century.[14] Chinese documents confirm at least two missions to India, initiated in 647 AD, for obtaining technology for sugar-refining.[15] In South Asia, the Middle East and China, sugar became a staple of cooking and desserts.
The triumphant progress of Alexander the Great was halted on the banks of river Indus by the refusal of his troops to go further east. They saw people in the Indian subcontinent growing sugarcane and making granulated, salt-like sweet powder, locally called साखर, pronounced as saccharum (ζάκχαρι). On their return journey, the Macedonian soldiers carried the “honey bearing reeds.” Sugarcane remained a limited crop for over a millennium, sugar a rare commodity, and traders of sugar wealthy. Venice, at the height of its financial power, was the chief sugar-distributing center of Europe.[8]
Crusaders brought sugar home with them to Europe after their campaigns in the Holy Land, where they encountered caravans carrying “sweet salt”. Early in the 12th century, Venice acquired some villages near Tyre and set up estates to produce sugar for export to Europe, where it supplemented honey as the only other available sweetener.[16] Crusade chronicler William of Tyre, writing in the late 12th century, described sugar as “very necessary for the use and health of mankind”.[17]
Modern history
In August 1492, Christopher Columbus stopped at La Gomera in the Canary Islands, for wine and water, intending to stay only four days. He became romantically involved with the Governor of the island, Beatriz de Bobadilla y Ossorio, and stayed a month. When he finally sailed she gave him cuttings of sugarcane, which became the first to reach the New World.
Sugar was a luxury in Europe prior to 18th century. It became widely popular in 18th century, then graduated to becoming a necessity in the 19th century. This evolution of taste and demand for sugar as an essential food ingredient unleashed major economic and social changes.[5] It drove, in part, colonization of tropical islands and nations where labor-intensive sugarcane plantations and sugar manufacturing could thrive. The demand for cheap and docile labor for harsh inhumane work, in part, first drove slave trade from Africa (in particular West Africa), followed by indentured labor trade from South Asia (in particular India).[6][18][19] Millions of slave and indentured laborers were brought into the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Islands, East Africa, Natal, north and eastern parts of South America, and southeast Asia. The modern ethnic mix of many nations, settled in last two centuries, has been influenced by sugar.[20][21][22]
Sugar also led to some industrialization of former colonies. For example, Lieutenant J. Paterson, of the Bengal establishment, persuaded British government that sugar cane could be cultivated in British India with many advantages, and at less expense than in the West Indies. As a result, a number of sugar factories were established in Bihar in British India.[23]
More recently it is manufactured in very large quantities in many countries, largely from sugarcane and sugar beet. In processed foods it has increasingly been supplanted by corn syrup.
Etymology
The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity. The English word “sugar”[24] originates from the Arabic word سكر sukkar, itself from the Persian shakar,[25] itself derived from Sanskrit शर्करा sharkara.[26] It most probably came to England by way of Italian merchants. The contemporary Italian word is zucchero, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese words, azúcar and açúcar respectively, have kept a trace of the Arabic definite article. The Old French word is zuchre – contemporary French sucre. The earliest Greek word attested is σάκχαρις (sákkʰaris).[27][28] A satisfactory pedigree explaining the spread of the word has yet to be done. Note that the English word jaggery (meaning “coarse brown Indian sugar”) has similar ultimate etymological origins (presumably in Sanskrit).
Production
The five largest producers of sugar in 2010 were Brazil, India, European Union, China and Thailand. The largest exporters in 2010 were Brazil, Thailand, Australia and India; while the largest importers were EU-27, United States and Indonesia. Currently, Brazil is the highest per capita consumer of sugar, followed by Australia, Thailand and EU-27.[29][30]
Consumption
The per capita consumption of refined sugar in America has varied between 27 to 46 kilograms in the last 40 years. In 2008, American per capita total consumption of sugar and sweeteners – exclusive of artificial sweeteners – equaled 61.9 kilograms per year (136.2 pounds).[31][32]
Sugar is an important component of human food balance. According to FAO, about 24 kilograms of sugar – equivalent to over 260 food calories per day – was, on average, consumed annually per human being of all ages in the world in 1999. Even with rising human population, sugar consumption is expected to increase to 25.1 kilograms per human being by 2015.[3]
Health effects
Some studies involving the health impact of sugars are effectively inconclusive. The WHO and FAO meta studies have shown directly contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms [33] and since most studies do not use a population who are not consuming any “free sugars” at all, the baseline is effectively flawed (or as the report puts it, the studies are “limited”). Hence there are articles such as Consumer Reports on Health that said in 2008, “Some of the supposed dietary dangers of sugar have been overblown. Many studies have debunked the idea that it causes hyperactivity, for example.”[34] though the article does continue to discuss other health impacts of sugar. Other articles and studies refer to the increasing evidence supporting the links to hyperactivity.[35] The WHO FAO meta-study suggests that such results are expected when some studies do not effectively segregate or control for free sugars as opposed to sugars still in their natural form (entirely unrefined) while others do.
Blood glucose levels
Sugar, because of its simpler chemical structure, may raise blood glucose levels more quickly than starch. This finding suggests that this basic differentiation between starch and sugar is insufficient reason to segregate these two substances for controlling blood glucose levels in diabetics, the idea behind carbohydrate counting.[36] A more effective distinction could use that suggested by multiple meta-studies between free sugars and naturally-occurring sugars which do suggest different impacts on health.[33][37]
Obesity and diabetes
Studies appear to conflict with some suggesting eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may increase the risk of diabetes,[38][39][39][40][41][42][42][43] while others show links between refined sugar (free sugar) consumption and the onset of diabetes, and negative correlation with the consumption of fiber[44][45][46][47] including a 2010 meta-analysis of eleven studies involving 310,819 participants and 15,043 cases of type 2 diabetes[48] that found that “SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) may increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes not only through obesity but also by increasing dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance, β-cell dysfunction, and inflammation”. As an overview to consumption related to chronic disease and obesity, the World Health Organization’s independent meta-studies specifically distinguish free sugars (“all monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juices”) from sugars naturally present in food. The reports prior to 2000 set the limits for free sugars at a maximum of 10% of carbohydrate intake, measured by energy, rather than mass, and since 2002 [33] have aimed for a level across the entire population at less than 10%. The consultation committee recognized that this goal is “controversial. However, the Consultation considered that the studies showing no effect of free sugars on excess weight have limitations.” (p. 57).
Cardiovascular disease
A number of studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysregulation. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk.[49] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet.[50]
Switching saturated fatty acids for carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically significant positive association with the risk of myocardial infarction.[51]
Other studies have found links between high fat and high glycemic index carbohydrates accelerates the development of cardiac pathology and pump dysfunction in hypertension despite no signs of diabetes and only a modest level of obesity, suggesting that the link between obesity and coronary heart disease should be shifted towards macronutrients and the high glycemic load typical of the “junk-food” diet.[52]
The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults.[53]
Studies are suggesting the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant that the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.[54][55]
A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) consumption can substantially increase the risk for heart- and vascular diseases. According to a new Swedish study from Lund University and Malmö University College of 4301 persons, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood fat with a high level of small and medium LDL and reduced HDL blood fat. However the amount of fat intake didn’t affect the blood fats. As a side note, moderate quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to the good HDL blood fat.[56]
Alzheimer disease
It is suggested that Alzheimer Disease is linked with the western diet, characterised by excessive dietary intake of sugar, refined carbohydrates (with a high glycaemic index) and animal products (with a high content of saturated fats) and decreased intake of unrefined seeds. There are also prevention hypotheses that address the diet issue with mono-supplements of specific vitamins or drugs that do not show appreciable results.[57]
Dietary pattern analysis, which considers overall eating patterns comparing those with Alzheimer’s disease as compared to healthy controls using factor analysis, gives a major eating pattern for those with Alzheimer’s characterised by a high intake of meat, butter, high-fat dairy products, eggs and refined sugar, while the other major eating pattern for those without Alzheimer’s was characterised by a high intake of grains and vegetables.[58]
One group of experimenters compared a normal rodent diet (19% protein, 5% fat and 60% complex carbohydrate) with free water access against the same diet but with free access to a 10% sucrose solution. Their data underscore the potential role of dietary sugar in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease and suggest that controlling the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages may be an effective way to curtail the risk of developing Alzheimer disease.[59]
Macular degeneration
There are links between free sugar consumption and macular degeneration in older age.[60]
Tooth decay
In regard to contributions to tooth decay, the role of free sugars is also recommended to be below an absolute maximum of 10% of energy intake, with a minimum of zero. There is “convincing evidence from human intervention studies, epidemiological studies, animal studies and experimental studies, for an association between the amount and frequency of free sugars intake and dental caries” while other sugars (complex carbohydrate) consumption is normally associated with a lower rate of dental caries.[37] Lower rates of tooth decay have been seen in individuals with hereditary fructose intolerance.[61]
Terminology
Popular
The term sugar usually refers to sucrose, which is also called “table sugar” or “saccharose.” Sucrose is a white crystalline disaccharide. It is often obtained from sugar cane or sugar beet.[62] Sucrose is the most popular of the various sugars for flavoring, as well as properties (such as mouthfeel, preservation, and texture) of beverages and food.
Chemical
“Sugar” can also be used to refer to water-soluble crystalline carbohydrates with varying sweetness. Sugars include monosaccharides (e.g., glucose, fructose, galactose), disaccharides (e.g., sucrose, lactose, maltose), trisaccharides, and oligosaccharides,[63] in contrast to complex carbohydrates such as polysaccharides. Corn syrup, dextrose, crystalline fructose, and maltose, for example, are used in manufacturing and preparing food.
Baking weight/mass volume relationship
The Domino Sugar Company has established the following volume to weight conversions:
- Brown sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 195 g = 6.88 oz
- Granular sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 200 g = 7.06 oz
- Powdered sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 120 g = 4.23 oz
Bulk density[64]
- Dextrose sugar 0.62 g/mL
- Granulated sugar 0.70 g/mL
- Powdered sugar 0.56 g/mL
- Beet sugar 0.80 g/mL
Purity standards
The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis sets standards for the measurement of the purity of refined sugar, known as ICUMSA numbers; lower numbers indicate a higher level of purity in the refined sugar.[65]
Chemistry
Scientifically, sugar loosely refers to a number of carbohydrates, such as monosaccharides, disaccharides, or oligosaccharides. Monosaccharides are also called “simple sugars,” the most important being glucose. Almost all sugars have the formula CnH2nOn (n is between 3 and 7). Glucose has the molecular formula C6H12O6. The names of typical sugars end with “-ose,” as in “glucose”, “dextrose”, and “fructose”. Sometimes such words may also refer to any types of carbohydrates soluble in water. The acyclic mono- and disaccharides contain either aldehyde groups or ketone groups. These carbon-oxygen double bonds (C=O) are the reactive centers. All saccharides with more than one ring in their structure result from two or more monosaccharides joined by glycosidic bonds with the resultant loss of a molecule of water (H2O) per bond.
Monosaccharides in a closed-chain form can form glycosidic bonds with other monosaccharides, creating disaccharides (such as sucrose) and polysaccharides (such as starch). Enzymes must hydrolyze or otherwise break these glycosidic bonds before such compounds become metabolized. After digestion and absorption the principal monosaccharides present in the blood and internal tissues include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Many pentoses and hexoses can form ring structures. In these closed-chain forms, the aldehyde or ketone group remains non-free, so many of the reactions typical of these groups cannot occur. Glucose in solution exists mostly in the ring form at equilibrium, with less than 0.1% of the molecules in the open-chain form.
Natural polymers of sugars
Biopolymers of sugars are common in nature. Through photosynthesis plants produce glucose, which has the formula C6H12O6, and convert it for storage as an energy reserve in the form of other carbohydrates such as starch, or (as in cane and beet) as sucrose (table sugar). Sucrose has the chemical formula C12H22O11. Starch, consisting of two different polymers of glucose, is a readily degradable chemical energy stored by cells, convertible to other types of energy.
Cellulose is a polymer of glucose used by plants as structural component.
DNA and RNA are built up of the sugars ribose and deoxyribose. The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, and has the formula C5H10O4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar
High-fructose corn syrup
“…High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—also called glucose-fructose syrup[1][2] in the UK, glucose/fructose[3] in Canada, and high-fructose maize syrup in other countries—comprises any of a group of corn syrups that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert some of its glucose into fructose to produce a desired sweetness. In the United States, consumer foods and products typically use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. It has become very common in processed foods and beverages in the U.S., including breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments.[4]
According to the USDA, HFCS consists of 24% water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5][6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[7]
In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions[8] , and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.[9][10] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest “it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose”, but welcome further independent research on the subject.[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[13] diabetes,[14] and metabolic syndrome,[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[dubious – discuss] HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[15]
Use as a replacement for sugar
HFCS replaces sugar in various processed foods in the United States.[16][17] The main reasons for this switch are:
- Per relative sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.[18]
- High-fructose corn syrup HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose; HFCS 42 is less sweet than sucrose.
- HFCS is cheaper in the United States as a result of a combination of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs and quotas.[19] Since the mid 1990s, the United States federal government has subsidized corn growers by $40 billion.[20][21]
- HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.[22]
Comparison to other sweeteners
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) | |
---|---|
Energy | 1,176 kJ (281 kcal) |
Carbohydrates | 76 g |
– Dietary fiber | 0 g |
Fat | 0 g |
Protein | 0 g |
Water | 24 g |
Riboflavin (vit. B2) | 0.019 mg (2%) |
Niacin (vit. B3) | 0 mg (0%) |
Pantothenic acid (B5) | 0.011 mg (0%) |
Vitamin B6 | 0.024 mg (2%) |
Folate (vit. B9) | 0 μg (0%) |
Vitamin C | 0 mg (0%) |
Calcium | 6 mg (1%) |
Iron | 0.42 mg (3%) |
Magnesium | 2 mg (1%) |
Phosphorus | 4 mg (1%) |
Potassium | 0 mg (0%) |
Sodium | 2 mg (0%) |
Zinc | 0.22 mg (2%) |
Shown is for 100 g, roughly 5.25 tbsp. Percentages are relative to US recommendations for adults. Source: USDA Nutrient Database |
Cane and beet sugar
Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. The fact that sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules complicates the comparison between cane sugar, beet sugar and HFCS. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C12H22O11) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C6H12O6) plus a molecule of fructose (also C6H12O6 — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment by a process called inversion.[23] Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.[24]
Fructose is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract by a different mechanism than that for glucose. Glucose stimulates insulin release from the isolated pancreas, but fructose does not. Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Once inside the liver cell, fructose can enter the pathways that provide glycerol, the backbone for triacylglycerol. The growing dietary amount of fructose that is derived from sucrose or HFCS has raised questions about how children and adults respond to fructose alone or when it is accompanied by glucose.[25]
Honey
Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds. Honey typically has a fructose/glucose ratio similar to HFCS 55, as well as containing some sucrose and other sugars. Like HFCS, honey contains water and has approximately 3 kcal per gram. Because of its similar sugar profile and lower price, HFCS has been used illegally to “stretch” honey. As a result, checks for adulteration of honey no longer test for higher-than-normal levels of sucrose, which HFCS does not contain, but instead test for small quantities of proteins that can be used to differentiate between HFCS and honey. Consumers should be aware, however, that some honey available in supermarkets contain HFCS or utilized HFCS in its production. Consumer awareness through label-reading is important for those aiming to avoid high-fructose corn syrup. [26]
Production
HFCS was first introduced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957. They were, however, unsuccessful in making it viable for mass production.[27] The industrial production process and creation was made by Dr. Y. Takasaki at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan in 1965–1970. Dr. Y. Takasaki is known to many as the creator of HFCS. HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985.
High-fructose corn syrup is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes that change some of the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 42% fructose and is HFCS 42. Some of the 42% fructose is then purified to 90% fructose, HFCS 90. To make HFCS 55, the HFCS 90 is mixed with HFCS 42 in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS 55. The enzyme process that changes the 100% glucose corn syrup into HFCS 42 is as follows:
- Cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called oligosaccharides.
- Glucoamylase – which is produced by Aspergillus, species of mold, in a fermentation vat — breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.
- Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50–52% glucose with some other sugars mixed in.
While inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry and used only once, the more costly xylose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it, allowing it to be used repeatedly until it loses its activity. This 42–43% fructose glucose mixture is then subjected to a liquid chromatography step, where the fructose is enriched to about 90%. The 90% fructose is then back-blended with 42% fructose to achieve a 55% fructose final product. Most manufacturers use carbon adsorption for impurity removal. Numerous filtration, ion-exchange and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process.
The units of measurement for sucrose is degrees Brix (symbol °Bx). Brix is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved sucrose to water in a liquid. A 25 °Bx solution has 25 grams of sucrose per 100 grams of solution (25% w/w). Or, to put it another way, there are 25 grams of sucrose and 75 grams of water in the 100 grams of solution. The Brix measurement was introduced by Antoine Brix.
A more universal measurement of sugars, including HFCS, is called dry solids. Dry solids is defined as the mass ratio of dry sugars to the total weight of the sugar solution. Since Brix is based on the refractive index of light against a sucrose molecule it is not accurate when measuring other sugars such as glucose, maltose, and fructose.
When an infrared Brix sensor is used, it measures the vibrational frequency of the sucrose molecules, giving a Brix degrees measurement. This will not be the same measurement as Brix degrees using a density or refractive index measurement, because it will specifically measure dissolved sugar concentration instead of all dissolved solids. When a refractometer is used, it is correct to report the result as “refractometric dried substance” (RDS). One might speak of a liquid as being 20 °Bx RDS. This is a measure of percent by weight of total dried solids and, although not technically the same as Brix degrees determined through an infrared method, renders an accurate measurement of sucrose content, since the majority of dried solids are in fact sucrose.
Recently, an isotopic method for quantifying sweeteners derived from corn and sugar cane was developed which permits measurement of corn syrup- and cane sugar-derived sweeteners in humans, thus allowing dietary assessment of the intake of these substances relative to total intake.[28]
Sweetener consumption patterns
Historical
Before the mass production of fructose since 1957[citation needed], human beings had little dietary exposure to fructose. Fructose was limited to only a few items such as honey, dates, raisins, grapes and apples. The staples of most early diets, meats and most vegetables, contain no fructose.[29]
United States
US sweetener consumption, 1966-2009, in dry pounds. It is apparent from this graph that overall sweetener consumption, and in particular glucose-fructose mixtures, has increased since the introduction of HFCS. Thus, the amount of fructose consumed in the United States has increased since the early 1980s. This would be true whether the added sweetener was HFCS, table sugar, or any other glucose-fructose mixture.[30]
A system of sugar tariffs and sugar quotas imposed in 1977 in the United States significantly increased the cost of imported sugar and U.S. producers sought cheaper sources. High-fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical because the domestic U.S. prices of sugar are twice the global price[31] and the price of corn is kept low through government subsidies paid to growers.[32][33]
HFCS became an attractive substitute, and is preferred over cane sugar among the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers. Soft drink makers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi use sugar in other nations, but switched to HFCS in the U.S. and Canada in 1984.[34] Large corporations, such as Archer Daniels Midland, lobby for the continuation of government corn subsidies.[35]
Other countries, including Mexico typically use sugar in soft drinks. Some Americans seek out Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries, because they prefer the taste compared to Coke made with HFCS.[36][37] Kosher for Passover Coca-Cola sold in the U.S. around the Jewish holiday also uses sucrose rather than HFCS and is also highly sought after by people who prefer the original taste.[38]
The average American consumed approximately 37.8 lb (17.1 kg) of HFCS in 2008, versus 46.7 lb (21.2 kg) of sucrose.[39] In countries where HFCS is not used or rarely used, sucrose consumption per person may be higher than in the USA; sucrose consumption per person from various locations is shown below (2002):[40]
- USA: 32.4 kg (71 lb)
- EU: 40.1 kg (88 lb)
- Brazil: 59.7 kg (132 lb)
- Australia: 56.2 kg (124 lb)
Of course, in terms of total sugars consumed, the figures from countries where HFCS is not used should be compared to the sum of the sucrose and HFCS figures from countries where HFCS consumption is significant.
European Union
In the European Union (EU), HFCS, known as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup, is subject to a production quota. In 2005, this quota was set at 303,000 tons; in comparison, the EU produced an average of 18.6 million tons of sugar annually between 1999 and 2001.[41] Wide scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in the EU.
Japan
In Japan, HFCS consumption accounts for one quarter of total sweetener consumption.[42]
Health effects
Health concerns have been raised about high fructose corn syrup, which allege contribution to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. A peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by John S White who is a Consultant in sweeteners, HFCS and sucrose for the Food and Beverage Industry and also has a professional association with the Corn Refiners Association, rejects the HFCS-obesity hypothesis and finds that “[a]lthough examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same.”[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Ron Paul Powercast–February 25, 2012–12 Hour Webcast Noon To Midnight Saturday–The Revolution Gets Energized–Videos
Get Ready for the Ron Paul Powercast!
Jim Rogers – none of the candidates have clue except Ron Paul
In addition to bringing together dozens of limited government champions, Revolution PAC, backer of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, will premiere a brand new ad addressing Social Security during its historic “Ron Paul Powercast” Saturday.
The 12-hour webcast, preceding Tuesday’s Michigan and Arizona primaries, runs from noon to midnight February 25 in conjunction with a 24-hour, $1 million fundraiser to support the committee’s Super Tuesday ad campaign, GOTV efforts and election integrity initiatives. The public may participate by logging onto http://www.revolutionpac.com.
“We’re seeing Ron Paul on the strong ascent right now,” explains Revolution PAC Chair Gary Franchi. “He’s drawing thousands at campaign stops, dominating general election polls and amassing a leading number of convention delegates. Our Powercast will serve to prepare and boost the Paul grassroots for the critical work that lies ahead in moving Dr. Paul into the winner’s circle come August.”
On the Powercast guest lineup include former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer; “The Creature from Jekyll Island” author G. Edward Griffin; New York Times bestselling author and economist Tom Woods; award-winning author and American Conservative magazine contributor Bill Kauffman; former congressional candidate John Dennis; author, activist and radio host Adam Kokesh; constitutional law attorney Dr. Edwin Vieira; New York Times bestselling author and radio host Charles Goyette; Tenth Amendment Center Deputy Director Bryce Shonka; Dr. Murray Sabrin; Oath Keepers President Stewart Rhodes; Sheriff Richard Mack; author and activist Tom Mullen; New York Times bestselling author and historian Kevin Gutzman; homeopath and radio host Robert Scott Bell; former Ron Paul Political Director Penny Freeman; Free & Equal founder Christina Tobin; Freedom’s Phoenix founder Ernest Hancock; Liberty Candidates founder Gigi Bowman; America’s Future Foundation’s Richard Lorenc; Institute for Truth in Accounting founder and CEO Sheila Weinberg; radio personality Greg Bishop; author and former Illinois congressional candidate Allan Stevo; former NY State Assembly candidate Danny Panzella; and singer/songwriter Jordan Page.
“In between our fantastic guest spots throughout the day, we’ll present valuable information about how the grassroots can mobilize for victory in their states,” continues Franchi. “One tool to facilitate that work is RevPAC’s proprietary mobile application launched this week, PollWatcher 1.0. Tune in to learn more about joining the ranks of our poll-watching army.”
Revolution PAC’s groundbreaking alternative election broadcasts kicked off January 21 for the South Carolina Primary in the wake of the super committee’s call for a nationwide boycott of cable/network outlets, which have exhibited consistent reporting bias against Rep. Paul. Live broadcasts for the Florida Primary and Nevada Caucuses followed, each drawing as many as 20,000 viewers.
Revolution PAC is supporting U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination and his consistent, constitutional message with targeted TV advertising, direct mail campaigns, vote-watching initiatives and innovative Web promotions complemented by billboards and radio ads in key primary states. Unlimited donations by individuals, businesses and organizations are being accepted by Revolution PAC to support that effort.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush 1980 Republican Party Ticket–Fast Forward–Ron Paul/Mitt Romney 2012 Republican Party Ticket?–Videos
Jim Rogers: “Only Ron Paul Understands What’s Going On.”
The Paul-Romney Alliance Infowars Nightly News
Ron Paul on The GOP Ticket? (2/15/2012)
Ron Paul Strategist: Ron Paul Has More Delegates Than Mitt Romney.. (2/15/2012)
Rick Santorum Slammed by Mitt Romney, Ron Paul in Final GOP Debate on CNN
Ron Paul (LIKE A BOSS): BODY SLAMS MITT ROMNEY
Cato’s Christopher A. Preble on Military Spending in the 112th Congress (1/19/11)
Is there a strategic alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney? Paul responds.
Ron Paul Ad – Consistent
Would Mitt Romney Change His Views to Become Ron Paul’s VP?
Paul Calls Santorum ‘Fake’: Paul-Romney Alliance?
More BETRAYAL of the People – *NEW Ron Paul Ad
Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum a Conservative?
Ronald Reagan was a libertarian conservative that united the Republican Party in 1980 by selecting a moderate progressive George H.W. Bush as his running mate.
Craig Shirley’s New Book “Rendezvous with Destiny” – highlights from the 1980 campaign Pt1 of 2
Craig Shirley’s New Book “Rendezvous with Destiny” – highlights from the 1980 campaign Pt2 of 2
The results were two landslide victories for the Republican Party in 1980 and 1984 and the election of Bush in 1988.
Rumors are flying there is an alliance between Paul and Romney fueled by talk show host Mark Levin, a confirmed Paul hater.
Mark Levin – Ron Paul Is Measuring What Conservatism Is When He Is Not A Conservative
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism
Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
The Neocon Agenda
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
SA@TAC – Mark Levin’s Constitution
“…Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and bestselling author Mark Levin’s argument that the Constitution does not require the President to consult Congress concerning foreign interventions resembles the Left’s argument concerning the constitutionality of Democrats’ domestic interventions. …”
Levin was one of several so-called “conservative” talk show hosts that tried to smear Paul as a racist last December using a hit piece published in progressive The New Republic on the so-called racist Ron Paul newsletters several years ago.
Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters – An In Depth and Honest Look–James Kirchick–Gay Neoconservative!–The Hit Man Behind The Smear Attack On Ron Paul–Blacks, Jews, and Libertarians For Ron Paul Respond–Videos
The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul
Why would Reagan and Bush join forces in 1980?
Simple. To defeat the Democratic Party lead by progressive Jimmy Carter
Why would Paul and Romney join forces in 2012?
Simple. To defeat the Democratic Party lead by progressive Barack Obama.
According to Levin the alleged Paul and Romney alliance is to defeat the “conservative” candidates–Santorum and Gingrich.
Well, excuse me Mark, but libertarian conservatives, such as Ron Paul, supported conservative candidates including Goldwater and Reagan.
However, libertarian conservatives will never vote for a Presidential candidate that is a big government progressive neoconservative such as Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul
Ron Paul: Counterfeit Conservatives
Yes, Levin, I know who Murray Rothbard is and I have read several of his books.
Ludwig von Mises thought very highly of Rothbard’ s work.
Rothbard in turn thought very highly of Paul.
Rothbard on Ron Paul
If von Mises and Rothbard were alive today, I am sure both would endorse Ron Paul for President and oppose the big government interventionists–Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
I can think of two presidents that would also endorse Ron Paul.
SA@TAC – Constitutional Conservatives?
I will support and vote for Ron Paul for president.
I will never vote for a progressive neoconservative for President including Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
Ron Paul: Santorum Is a Fake
However, I would vote for a Paul/Romney ticket, if that is what it takes to get Ron Paul elected President.
There is no perfect candidate.
There is no perfect ticket.
Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Remember Kennedy/Johnson in 1960 and Reagan/Bush in 1980, both tickets won.
Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”
LBJ and Unity: Kennedy vs. Johnson
A Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano ticket is the first choice of many Paul supporters.
Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President
Judge Andrew Napolitano Fired for Ron Paul VP?!?
Making Sense of the Conservative Movement
What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?
Movie Magic Crippled Conservatives
The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement
Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives
The Rockefeller family had bankrolled liberal protestantism in America since the turn of the 20th century. In the 70s, Jimmy Carter was the Rockefeller’s man. But with the recession of 1980, and his liberal policies of other issues, Carter lost his foot-hold of popularity among conservatives. At a unique turning point for Carter’s re-election race, Ronald Reagan appeared at a conservatives convention when other candidates did not. At the convention, Reagan took the lead, and conservatives supported Reagan all the way through two terms, to the astonishment of Washington D.C.
Are you a libertarian?
Hello. I am a Libertarian
Walter Williams on Government Intervention and Individual Freedom
Background Articles and Videos
Insider Says Talk of Paul-Romney Alliance is “Establishment Trick”
Lew Rockwell: Rhetoric is a political ruse to make Ron Paul appear as a sell out
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, February 24, 2012
“…Former Ron Paul staffer Lew Rockwell says that talk of an alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is an “establishment trick” to smear Paul by making him appear as a sell out.
Rockwell, who served as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and remains close to Paul and several campaign insiders, told the Alex Jones Show that rhetoric about a potential partnership wherein Ron Paul would be granted a VP slot was merely a political ruse to “make Ron Paul supporters like Romney”.
The controversy received fresh impetus earlier this week when Rick Santorum and his campaign manager claimed Paul and Romney were in cahoots to shoot down Santorum’s candidacy. The talking point has subsequently been pushed by the mainstream media, including a Washington Post article today that speculates on whether the alliance is genuine.
Rockwell said that although Romney may be a pleasant person, his political positions are anathema to Ron Paul given the fact that he is a globalist, a big government advocate and a warmonger.
“Just because he looks good in a suit doesn’t mean that he’s not one of the top creeps, otherwise he wouldn’t be supported by the Republican establishment and by the establishment in general, so no we don’t want anything to do with him except to oppose him,” said Rockwell. …”
http://www.infowars.com/insider-says-talk-of-paul-romney-alliance-is-establishment-trick/
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 1 of 4
Ron Paul and William F. Buckley discussing a Constitutional Republic and the necessary evils of government. In 1988, Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 2 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 3 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 4 of 4
Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Libertarian Credo”
Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian?
Don Boudreaux: Why I Am A Libertarian
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
The Remnant Is For The Libertarian Conservative Ron Paul–Albert Jay Nock–Isaiah’s Job–Our Enemy, The State–Videos
Classical Liberalism–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Aristotle–Politics–Videos
Aristotle Politics
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/aristotle/Politics.pdf
1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy?
Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)
Professor Smith discusses the nature and scope of “political philosophy.” The oldest of the social sciences, the study of political philosophy must begin with the works of Plato and Aristotle, and examine in depth the fundamental concepts and categories of the study of politics. The questions “which regimes are best?” and “what constitutes good citizenship?” are posed and discussed in the context of Plato’s Apology.
00:00 – Chapter 1. What Is Political Philosophy?
12:16 – Chapter 2. What Is a Regime?
22:19 – Chapter 3. Who Is a Statesman? What Is a Statesman?
27:22 – Chapter 4. What Is the Best Regime?
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2006
7. The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law: Aristotle’s Politics, I, III
Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)
The lecture begins with an introduction of Aristotle’s life and works which constitute thematic treatises on virtually every topic, from biology to ethics to politics. Emphasis is placed on the Politics, in which Aristotle expounds his view on the naturalness of the city and his claim that man is a political animal by nature.
00:00 – Chapter 1. Aristotle: Plato’s Adopted Son
12:45 – Chapter 2. Man Is, by Nature, the Political Animal
30:15 – Chapter 3. The Naturalness of Slavery
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2006.
8. The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law: Aristotle’s Politics, IV
Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)
The lecture discusses Aristotle’s comparative politics with a special emphasis on the idea of the regime, as expressed in books III through VI in Politics. A regime, in the context of this major work, refers to both the formal enumeration of rights and duties within a community as well as to the distinctive customs, manners, moral dispositions and sentiments of that community. Aristotle asserts that it is precisely the regime that gives a people and a city their identity.
00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Aristotle’s Comparative Politics and the Idea of the Regime
01:45 – Chapter 2. What Is a Regime?
13:58 – Chapter 3. What Are the Structures and Institutions of the Regime?
20:30 – Chapter 4. The Democratic Regime
34:35 – Chapter 5. Law, Conflict and the Regime
43:07 – Chapter 6. The Aristotelian Standard of Natural Right or Natural Justice
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2006.
9. The Mixed Regime and the Rule of Law: Aristotle’s Politics, VII
Introduction to Political Philosophy (PLSC 114)
This final lecture on Aristotle focuses on controlling conflict between factions. Polity as a mixture of the principles of oligarchy and democracy, is the regime that, according to Aristotle, can most successfully control factions and avoid dominance by either extreme. Professor Smith asserts that the idea of the polity anticipates Madison’s call for a government in which powers are separated and kept in check and balance, avoiding therefore the extremes of both tyranny and civil war.
00:00 – Chapter 1. Polity: The Regime that Most Successfully Controls for Faction
07:30 – Chapter 2. The Importance of Property and Commerce for a Flourishing Republic
12:28 – Chapter 3. The Aristocratic Republic: A Model for the Best Regime
26:50 – Chapter 4. What Is Aristotle’s Political Science?
35:21 – Chapter 5. Who Is a Statesman?
37:54 – Chapter 6. The Method of Aristotle’s Political Science
Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses
This course was recorded in Fall 2006.
Background Articles and Videos
Aristotle’s Politics
Aristotle’s Politics (Greek Πολιτικά) is a work of political philosophy. The end of the Nicomachean Ethics declared that the inquiry into ethics necessarily follows into politics, and the two works are frequently considered to be parts of a larger treatise, or perhaps connected lectures, dealing with the “philosophy of human affairs.” The title of the Politics literally means “the things concerning the polis.”
Composition
The literary character of the Politics is subject to some dispute, growing out of the textual difficulties that attended the loss of Aristotle’s works. Book III ends with a sentence that is repeated almost verbatim at the start of Book VII, while the intervening Books IV-VI seem to have a very different flavor from the rest; Book IV seems to refer several times back to the discussion of the best regime contained in Books VII-VIII.[1] Some editors have therefore inserted Books VII-VIII after Book III. At the same time, however, references to the “discourses on politics” that occur in the Nicomachean Ethics suggest that the treatise as a whole ought to conclude with the discussion of education that occurs in Book VIII of the Politics, although it is not certain that Aristotle is referring to the Politics here.[2]
Werner Jaeger suggested that the Politics actually represents the conflation of two, distinct treatises.[3] The first (Books I-III, VII-VIII) would represent a less mature work from when Aristotle had not yet fully broken from Plato, and consequently show a greater emphasis on the best regime. The second (Books IV-VI) would be more empirically minded, and thus belong to a later stage of development.
Carnes Lord has argued against the sufficiency of this view, however, noting the numerous cross-references between Jaeger’s supposedly separate works and questioning the difference in tone that Jaeger saw between them. For example, Book IV explicitly notes the utility of examining actual regimes (Jaeger’s “empirical” focus) in determining the best regime (Jaeger’s “Platonic” focus). Instead, Lord suggests that the Politics is indeed a finished treatise, and that Books VII and VIII do belong in between Books III and IV; he attributes their current ordering to a merely mechanical transcription error.[4]
Overview
Book I
In the first book, Aristotle discusses the city (polis) or “political community” (koinōnia politikē) as opposed to other types of communities and partnerships such as the household and village. He begins with the relationship between the city and man (I. 1–2), and then specifically discusses the household (I. 3–13).[5] He takes issue with the view that political rule, kingly rule, rule over slaves, and rule over a household or village are only different in terms of size. He then examines in what way the city may be said to be natural.
Aristotle discusses the parts of the household, which includes slaves, leading to a discussion of whether slavery can ever be just and better for the person enslaved or is always unjust and bad. He distinguishes between those who are slaves because the law says they are and those who are slaves by nature, saying the inquiry hinges on whether there are any such natural slaves. Only someone as different from other people as the body is from the soul or beasts are from human beings would be a slave by nature, Aristotle concludes, all others being slaves solely by law or convention. Some scholars have therefore concluded that the qualifications for natural slavery preclude the existence of such a being.[6]
Aristotle then moves to the question of property in general, arguing that the acquisition of property does not form a part of household management (oikonomike) and criticizing those who take it too seriously. It is necessary, but that does not make it a part of household management any more than it makes medicine a part of household management just because health is necessary. He criticizes income based upon trade and says that those who become avaricious do so because they forget that money merely symbolizes wealth without being wealth.
Book I concludes with Aristotle’s assertion that the proper object of household rule is the virtuous character of one’s wife and children, not the management of slaves or the acquisition of property. Rule over the slaves is despotic, rule over children kingly, and rule over one’s wife political (except there is no rotation in office). Aristotle questions whether it is sensible to speak of the “virtue” of a slave and whether the “virtues” of a wife and children are the same as those of a man before saying that because the city must be concerned that its women and children be virtuous, the virtues that the father should instill are dependent upon the regime and so the discussion must turn to what has been said about the best regime.
Book II
Book II examines various views concerning the best regime.[7] It opens with an analysis of the regime presented in Plato’s Republic (2. 1–5) before moving to that presented in Plato’s Laws (2. 6). Aristotle then discusses the systems presented by two other philosophers, Phaleas of Chalcedon (2. 7) and Hippodamus of Miletus (2. 8).
After addressing regimes invented by theorists, Aristotle moves to the examination of three regimes that are commonly held to be well managed. These are the Spartan (2. 9), Cretan (2. 10), and Carthaginian (2. 11). The book concludes with some observations on regimes and legislators.
Book III
- Who is a citizen?
“He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purpose of life. But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say two or three or more grandparents.”
- Classification of constitution.
- Just distribution of political power.
- Types of monarchies:-
-
- Monarchy: exercised over voluntary subjects, but limited to certain functions; the king was a general and a judge, and had control of religion.
- Absolute: government of one for the absolute good
- Barbarian: legal and hereditary+ willing subjects
- Dictator: installed by foreign power elective dictatorship + willing subjects (elective tyranny)
-
Book IV
- Tasks of political theory
- Why are there many types of constitutions?
- Types of democracies
- Types of oligarchies
- Polity as the optimal constitution
- Government offices
Book V
- Constitutional change
- Revolutions in different types of constitutions and ways to preserve constitutions
- Instability of tyrannies
Book VI
- Democratic constitutions
- Oligarchic constitutions
Book VII
- Best state and best life
- Ideal state. Its population, territory, position etc.
- Citizens of the ideal state
- Marriage and children
Book VIII
- Education in the ideal state
Aristotle’s classification
After studying a number of real and theoretical city-state’s constitutions, Aristotle classified them according to various criteria. On one side stand the true (or good) constitutions, which are considered such because they aim for the common good, and on the other side the perverted (or deviant) ones, considered such because they aim for the well being of only a part of the city. The constitutions are then sorted according to the “number” of those who participate to the magistracies: one, a few, or many. Aristotle’s sixfold classification is slightly different from the one found in The Statesman by Plato. The diagram above illustrates Aristotle’s classification.
Notes
Further reading
- Barker, Sir Ernest (1906). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. London: Methuen.
- Davis, Michael (1996). The Politics of Philosophy: A Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Goodman, Lenn E.; Talisse, Robert B. (2007). Aristotle’s Politics Today. Albany: State University of New York Press.
- Keyt, David; Miller, Fred D. (1991). A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics. Cambridge: Blackwell.
- Kraut, ed., Richard; Skultety, Steven (2005). Aristotle’s Politics: Critical Essays. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Simpson, Peter L. (1998). A Philosophical Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
- Nichols, Mary P. (1992). Citizens and Statesmen: A Study of Aristotle’s Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Lord, Carnes (1982). Education and Culture in the Political Thought of Aristotle. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Miller, Fred D. (1995). Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Mayhew, Robert (1997). Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Translations
- Barker, Sir Ernest (1995). The Politics of Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199538737.
- Jowett, Benjamin (1984). Jonathan Barnes. ed. Politics. The Complete Works of Aristotle. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691016511.
- Lord, Carnes (1984). The Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226026695.
- Reeve, C. D. C. (1998). Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 9780872203884.
- Simpson, Peter L. P. (1997). The Politics of Aristotle: Translation, Analysis, and Notes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807823279.
- Sinclair, T. A. (1981). The Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. ISBN 9780140444216.
External links
- Aristotle’s Political Theory entry by Fred Miller in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Aristotle’s Politics on In Our Time at the BBC. (listen now)
- Versions
- Politics full text by Project Gutenberg
- English translation at Perseus Digital Library translation by Harris Rackham
- Australian copy trans. by Benjamin Jowett
- HTML trans. by Benjamin Jowett
- PDF at McMaster trans. by Benjamin Jowett
- Politics public domain audiobook from LibriVox(Benjamin Jowett translator)
Ron Paul Highlights Republican Presidential Debate–22 February 2012–Mesa, Arizona–Videos
Ron Paul Highlights in 2/22/2012 Presidential Debate
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Republican Presidential Debate–February 22, 2012–Mesa, Arizona–CNN–Videos
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (1/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (2/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (3/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (4/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (5/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (6/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (7/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (8/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (9/10)
Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Mesa Arizona February 22, 2012 (1010)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Classical Liberalism–Videos
What is classical liberalism?
Dr. Nigel Ashford explains the 10 core principles of the classical liberal & libertarian view of society and the proper role of government:
1) Liberty as the primary political value
2) Individualism
3) Skepticism about power
4) Rule of Law
5) Civil Society
6) Spontaneous Order
7) Free Markets
8) Toleration
9) Peace
10) Limited Government
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 2: Milton Friedman and the Chicago School
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 3: Public Choice
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 4: The Austrian School
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 5: Natural Rights
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 6: Anarcho-Capitalism
Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 7: Conclusion: What’s Your View?
Milton Friedman on Tides of Political Thought in Modern History
Ten Principles of Classical Liberalism
The History of Classical Liberalism
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 1
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 2
Political Philosophy and Classical Liberalism Roundtable 11-11-11
Classical liberalism
“…Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]
Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.[4] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism, and progress.
There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[5]
Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism “neo-classical liberalism,” which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[6]
The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[7] Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase “neo-classical liberalism”, leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[8] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[9][10][11]
Core principles
According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic”.[12] Being egoistic, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert. Therefore, the only motivation for labor was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.[13]
Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.[14]
Adopting Thomas Malthus’s population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[15]
Government, as explained by Adam Smith, had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide. Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement. Public works included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[16]
Overview
Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. According to Alan Ryan, the ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy, where law is made by majority vote by citizens, “for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law.”[17] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a “common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole…and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party….”[18]
According to Anthony Quinton, classical liberals believe that “an unfettered market” is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they “are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government.”[19] Anarcho-capitalist Walter Block claims, however, that, while Adam Smith was an advocate of economic freedom, he also allowed for government to intervene in many areas.[20]
Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”[21] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[22] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are “hostile to the welfare state.”[17] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in “equality before the law”.[23] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[24]
Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the “British tradition” and the “French tradition”. Hayek saw the British philosophers David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and the unlimited powers of reason and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Constant and Tocqueville as belonging to the “British tradition” and the British Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the “French tradition”.[25] Hayek also rejected the label “laissez faire” as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume, Smith and Burke.
History
Classical liberalism in the United Kingdom developed from Whiggery and radicalism, and represented a new political ideology. Whiggery had become a dominant ideology following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and was associated with the defence of Parliament, upholding the rule of law and defending landed property. The origins of rights were seen as being in an ancient constitution, which had existed from time immemorial. These rights, which some Whigs considered to include freedom of the press and freedom of speech, were justified by custom rather than by natural rights. They believed that the power of the executive had to be constrained. While they supported limited suffrage, they saw voting as a privilege, rather than as a right. However there was no consistency in Whig ideology, and diverse writers including John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were all influential among Whigs, although none of them was universally accepted.[26]
British radicals, from the 1790s to the 1820s, concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Richard Price and Joseph Priestly adapted the language of Locke to the ideology of radicalism.[26] The radicals saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[27]
There was greater unity to classical liberalism ideology than there had been with Whiggery. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. They believed that required a free economy with minimal government interference. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed both aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to the development of a class of yeoman farmers. Some elements of Whiggery opposed this new thinking, and were uncomfortable with the commercial nature of classical liberalism. These elements became associated with conservatism.[28]
A meeting of the Anti-Corn Law League in Exeter Hall in 1846
Classical liberalism was the dominant political theory of the United Kingdom from the early 19th century until the First World War. Its notable victories were the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, the Reform Act of 1832, and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The Anti-Corn Law League brought together a coalition of liberal and radical groups in support of free trade under the leadership of Richard Cobden and John Bright, who opposed militarism and public expenditure. Their policies of low public expenditure and low taxation were adopted by William Ewart Gladstone when he became chancellor of the exchequer and later prime minister. Classical liberalism was often associated with religious dissent and nonconformism.[29]
Although classical liberals aspired to a minimum of state activity, they accepted the principle of government intervention in the economy from the early 19th century with passage of the Factory Acts. From around 1840 to 1860, laissez-faire advocates of the Manchester School and writers in The Economist were confident that their early victories would lead to a period of expanding economic and personal liberty and world peace but would face reversals as government intervention and activity continued to expand from the 1850s. Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, although advocates of laissez-faire, non-intervention in foreign affairs, and individual liberty, believed that social institutions could be rationally redesigned through the principles of Utilitarianism. The Conservative prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, rejected classical liberalism altogether and advocated Tory Democracy. By the 1870s, Herbert Spencer and other classical liberals concluded that historical development was turning against them.[30] By the First World War, the Liberal Party had largely abandoned classical liberal principles.[31]
The changing economic and social conditions of the 19th led to a division between neo-classical and social liberals who, while agreeing on the importance of individual liberty, differed on the role of the state. Neo-classical liberals, who called themselves “true liberals”, saw Locke’s Second Treatise as the best guide, and emphasized “limited government”, while social liberals supported government regulation and the welfare state. Herbert Spencer in the United Kingdom and William Graham Sumner were the leading neo-classical liberal theorists of the 19th century.[32] Neo-classical liberalism has continued into the contemporary era, with writers such as Robert Nozick.[33]
In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary interests. In a nation of farmers, especially farmers whose workers were slaves, little attention was paid to the economic aspects of liberalism. But, as America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America’s first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a “hands off” attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, “You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold.” Despite the common recurrence of depressions, classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[34] The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state,” and “there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]
Intellectual sources
John Locke
John Locke
Central to classical liberal ideology was their interpretation of John Locke’s Second treatise of government and “A letter concerning toleration”, which had been written as a defence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although these writings were considered too radical at the time for the United Kingdom’s new rulers, they later came to be cited by Whigs, radicals and supporters of the American Revolution. However, much of later liberal thought was absent in Locke’s writings or scarcely mentioned, and his writings have been subject to various interpretations. There is little mention, for example, of constitutionalism, the separation of powers, and limited government.[36]
James L. Richardson identified five central themes in Locke’s writing: individualism, consent, the concepts of the rule of law and government as trustee, the significance of property, and religious toleration. Although Locke did not develop a theory of natural rights, he envisioned individuals in the state of nature as being free and equal. The individual, rather than the community or institutions, was the point of reference. Locke believed that individuals had given consent to government and therefore authority derived from the people rather than from above. This belief would influence later revolutionary movements.[37]
As a trustee, Government was expected to serve the interests of the people, not the rulers, and rulers were expected to follow the laws enacted by legislatures. Locke also held that the main purpose of men uniting into commonwealths and governments was for the preservation of their property. Despite the ambiguity of Locke’s definition of property, which limited property to “as much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of”, this principle held great appeal to individuals possessed of great wealth.[38]
Locke held that the individual had the right to follow his own religious beliefs and that the state should not impose a religion against Dissenters. But there were limitations. No tolerance should be shown for atheists, who were seen as amoral, or to Catholics, who were seen as owing allegiance to the Pope over their own national government.[39]
Adam Smith
Adam Smith
Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of classical liberal economics, at least until the publication of J. S. Mill’s Principles in 1848.[40] Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and the distribution of wealth, and the policies the state should follow in order to maximize wealth.[41]
Smith saw self-interest, rather than altruism, as the motivation for the production of goods and services. An “invisible hand” directed the tradesman to work toward the public good. This provided a moral justification for the accumulation of wealth, which had previously been viewed as sinful.[41] He assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by Ricardo and Malthus into the “Iron Law of Wages”.[42] His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialization in production.[43] He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies, and employers’ organisations and trade unions.[44] Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income.[45]
Smith’s economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act, that had restricted the mobility of labour, in 1834, and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.[46]
Say, Malthus and Ricardo
In addition to Adam Smith’s legacy, Say’s law, Malthus theories of population and Ricardo’s iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. The pessimistic nature of these theories led to Carlyle calling economics the dismal science and it provided a basis of criticism of capitalism by its opponents.[47]
Jean Baptiste Say was a French economist who introduced Adam Smith’s economic theories into France and whose commentaries on Smith were read in both France and the United Kingdom.[46] Say challenged Smith’s labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasized the criterical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. His most important contribution to economic thinking was “Say’s law”, which was interpreted by classical economists that there could be no overproduction in a market, and that there would always be a balance between supply and demand.[48] This general belief influenced government policies until the 1930s. Following this law, since the economic cycle was seen as self-correcting, government did not intervene during periods of economic hardship because it was seen as futile.[49]
Thomas Malthus wrote two books, An essay on the principle of population, published in 1798, and Principles of political economy, published in 1820. The second book which was a rebuttal of Say’s law had little influence on contemporary economists.[50] His first book however became a major influence on classical liberalism. In that book, Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production, because population grew geometrically, while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were in fact responsible for their own problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[51]
David Ricardo, who was an admirer of Adam Smith, covered many of the same topics but while Smith drew conclusions from broadly empirical observations, Ricardo used induction, drawing conclusions by reasoning from basic assumptions.[52] While Ricardo accepted Smith’s labour theory of value, he acknowledged that utility could influence the price of some rare items. Rents on agricultural land were seen as the production that was surplus to the subsistence required by the tenants. Wages were seen as the amount required for workers’ subsistence and to maintain current population levels.[53] According to his Iron Law of Wages, wages could never rise beyond subsistence levels. Ricardo explained profits as a return on capital, which itself was the product of labour. But a conclusion many drew from his theory was that profit was a surplus appropriated by capitalists to which they were not entitled.[54]
[edit] Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism provided the political justification for implementation of economic liberalism by British governments, which was to dominate economic policy from the 1830s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform and John Stuart Mill’s later writings on the subject foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a justification for laissez-faire.[55]
The central concept of utilitarianism, which was developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that that public policy should seek to provide “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[47]
Political economy
Classical liberals saw utility as the foundation for public policies. This broke both with conservative “tradition” and Lockean “natural rights”, which were seen as irrational. Utility, which emphasizes the happiness of individuals, became the central ethical value of all liberalism.[56] Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it became primarily a justification for laissez-faire economics. However, classical liberals rejected Adam Smith’s belief that the “invisible hand” would lead to general benefits and embraced Thomas Malthus’ view that population expansion would prevent any general benefit and David Ricardo’s view of the inevitability of class conflict. Laissez-faire was seen as the only possible economic approach, and any government intervention was seen as useless. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on “scientific or economic principals” while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.[57]
Commitment to laissez-faire, however, was not uniform. Some economists advocated state support of public works and education. Classical liberals were also divided on free trade. Ricardo, for example, expressed doubt that the removal of grain tariffs advocated by Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League would have any general benefits. Most classical liberals also supported legislation to regulate the number of hours that children were allowed to work and usually did not oppose factory reform legislation.[57]
Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau.[57] The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticized Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water, and granting of patents and copyrights. A rigid belief in laissez-faire also guided government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. It was expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.[58]
Free trade and world peace
Several liberals, including Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations could lead to world peace, a view recognized by such modern American political scientists as Dahl, Doyle, Russet, and O’Neil. Dr. Gartzke, of Columbia University states, “Scholars like Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Richard Cobden, Norman Angell, and Richard Rosecrance have long speculated that free markets have the potential to free states from the looming prospect of recurrent warfare.”[59] American political scientists John R. Oneal and Bruce M. Russett, well known for their work on the democratic peace theory, state:
The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically and to abolish royal charters, monopolies, and the protectionist policies of mercantilism so as to encourage entrepreneurship and increase productive efficiency. They also expected democracy and laissez-faire economics to diminish the frequency of war.[60]
Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations that, as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial societies, the spoils of war would rise but that the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialized nations.[61]
…the honours, the fame, the emoluments of war, belong not to [the middle and industrial classes]; the battle-plain is the harvest field of the aristocracy, watered with the blood of the people…Whilst our trade rested upon our foreign dependencies, as was the case in the middle of the last century…force and violence, were necessary to command our customers for our manufacturers…But war, although the greatest of consumers, not only produces nothing in return, but, by abstracting labour from productive employment and interrupting the course of trade, it impedes, in a variety of indirect ways, the creation of wealth; and, should hostilities be continued for a series of years, each successive war-loan will be felt in our commercial and manufacturing districts with an augmented pressure. Richard Cobden[62]
When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. – Frédéric Bastiat[63]
By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war…the spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers…that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace…and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose – Immanuel Kant, the Perpetual Peace.
Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the welfare of the state and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, summing up British imperialism, which he believed was the result of the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden, and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.
Relationship to modern liberalism
Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarizes this viewpoint, which
reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes… The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy… When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth-century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end… [M]odern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism.[64]
According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, “between 1877 and 1937…from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism”.[65]
Hobhouse, in Liberalism (1911), attributed this purported shift, which included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and the collective right to equality in dealings, to an increased desire for what Hobhouse called “just consent”.[66] F. A. Hayek wrote that Hobhouse’s book would have been more accurately titled Socialism, and Hobhouse himself called his beliefs “liberal socialism”.[67]
Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes this supposed shift in liberal philosophy to the 19th century expansion of the franchise to include the working class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.[68]
Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power. Others such as Michael Johnston and Noam Chomsky assert that classical liberalism as such can no longer exist in a modern day context as its principles were only relevant at the time its founding thinkers conceptualized them; and that classical liberalism has grown into two divergent philosophies since the beginning of the twentieth century: social liberalism and market liberalism.[69] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Republican War Party’s War Mongers–The Global Dominators: Neoconservatives and Progressive Imperialists–Beat The Drums of War With Iran–Videos
The War Propaganda Corporate Media Steers The World Toward Disaster (21/02/2012)
TYT Use “MOX News” Clip To Point Out MSM Beating Drums Of War With Iran
Bolton: Obama administration “delusional”, “misguided” on Iran
Ron Paul on Iran War Propaganda
Reality Check: Is Iran Really Plotting Attacks On U.S. Soil?
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
The Neoconservative Media by the Southern Avenger
John Bolton on Israel considering military strike on Iran nukes
Threat of Iran Gaining Nuclear Weapons
Israel preparing to attack Iran this Spring!
Israel Will Attack Iran Soon
Deadly Spark: What can trigger US-Iran war?
U.S. Media War Hawks Hypes War with Iran RT News (Jan 18, 2012)
‘US intervention in Iran will drag China & Russia into war’
Pat Buchanan: 300 nukes in Israel yet Iran a threat?
EPIC Ron Paul Tea Party vs. the War Parties
Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer
Top US General: “Iran a Rational Actor”, but is US One?
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 1 of 5 ]
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 2 of 5 ]
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 3 of 5 ]
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 4 of 5 ]
The War Party. Zionism and American NeoCon foreign policy. Part 5 of 5 ]
The Neocon Agenda
Neoconservative Agenda Ron Paul
1) Permanent wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia)
2) Preemptive war (Drone attacks/Murder Iranian nuclear scientists)
3) Advance the welfare state (Is there any doubt?)
4) Powerful government Elite should control government (Crony Capitalism)
5) Despise libertarians and constitutionalists (Call the kooks, paranoid, etc.)
6) Attack civil liberties (Patriot act, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA)
7) Unconditional support for Israel (Is there any doubt)
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer
IAEA Fuels Bomb Iran Talk
Iran: IAEA study as pretext for war
Paul Craig Roberts: Neo-Cons want war with Iran just like Iraq
IRAN WAR: U.S. and Iran on a collision course?
Does the Heritage Foundation want America at war?
James Bamford–A Pretext for War–Nuclear Weapon Programs in Iran and Israel–War Mongers Beating The Iran War Drums–American People Ask: Are The Neoconservatives Nuts?–Yes–Videos
DIGITAL AGE – Did Bush Have a Massive Disinfo. Plan? – James Bamford
James Bamford discusses the evidence he has uncovered as to what he believes are the orgins of the Iraq war. Bamford, a well-known intelligence expert, is a critic of the war. He is the author of “A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies.” He says Douglas Feith and others at DOD, dusted off a plan they had prepared for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to invade Iraq. Further, the group initiated a disinformation plan to the American public. James Goodale, former Vice Chairman of The New York Times, hosts.
Israel and America will Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program Within Month’s
Beating Iran War Drum
Panetta: Israel May Strike Iran by Spring
Ex-CIA Officer Worst-case Iran scenario is WWIII
Iran Update (with John Bolton Commentary) 2.3.12
Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer
John Mearsheimer on Iran, USA and Ahmadinejad
India worried over Israel-Iran battle on its soil
Iran or Israel ( War – Conflict ) – Who should India ally with ?
IAEA Fuels Bomb Iran Talk
Iran: IAEA study as pretext for war
Paul Craig Roberts: Neo-Cons want war with Iran just like Iraq
IRAN WAR: U.S. and Iran on a collision course?
Does the Heritage Foundation want America at war?
Pepe Escobar: Iran would be an excellent new field for predatory capitalism
Bogeyman? – ‘Iran has attacked NO-ONE in 100 years’
Professor John Mearsheimer on Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 1/3
Professor John Mearsheimer on Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 2/3
Professor John Mearsheimer on Israeli Nuclear Weapons Arsenal 3/3
BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)1of5
BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)2of5
BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)3of5
BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)4of5
BBC – Evidence Israel’s nuclear weapons(Banned Censored)5of5
Background Articles and Videos
more on the NSA spying on Americans-1/5
more on the NSA spying on Americans-2/5
more on the NSA spying on Americans-3/5
more on the NSA spying on Americans-4/5
more on the NSA spying on Americans-5/5
James Bamford
V. James Bamford (born September 15, 1946) is an American bestselling author and journalist who writes about United States intelligence agencies, most notably the National Security Agency.[1]
Biography
He was born on September 15, 1946 and raised in Natick, Massachusetts. He spent three years in the United States Navy as an intelligence analyst during the Vietnam War, and used the GI Bill to earn his law degree from Suffolk University Law School in Boston, Massachusetts.[2]
James Bamford is an expert on the highly secretive National Security Agency. His recent book, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to The Eavesdropping on America, on which NOVA’s “The Spy Factory” was based became a New York Times best-seller and was named by The Washington Post as one of “The Best Books of 2008.” It is third in a trilogy by Bamford on the NSA, following The Puzzle Palace (1982) and Body of Secrets (2002), also a New York Times bestseller. Bamford has also taught at the University of California, Berkeley as a distinguished visiting professor and has written for the New York Times Magazine, the Atlantic, Harpers, and many other publications. In 2006, he won the National Magazine Award for Reporting for his piece “The Man Who Sold The War,” published in Rolling Stone. A native of Massachusetts, Bamford served as an intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, and he later used the GI Bill to earn his law degree from Suffolk University Law School in Boston. His first book, The Puzzle Palace (1982), was the first book published about the National Security Agency (NSA). The book was researched through extensive use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).[3] As a super-secret agency, NSA was quite concerned about their unveiling to the world and accordingly, the government reclassified certain documents in an effort to stop publication.[4][5] He published Body of Secrets (also about the NSA, 2001), and A Pretext for War (2004). Bamford lectures nationally and was a distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He also spent nearly a decade as the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight. In 2006, he received the National Magazine Award for Reporting, the top prize in magazine writing. Most recently, he published his new book The Shadow Factory, once again about the NSA, but about its involvement in the 9/11 investigations and intelligence failures. The PBS show “The Spy Factory” was based on this book.[6]
Bamford was a consultant for the defense of NSA whistleblower Thomas Andrews Drake.[7]
Books
- Bamford, James (1982). The Puzzle Palace: a Report on America’s Most Secret Agency. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0140067485.
- Bamford, James (2001). The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America’s Most Secret Intelligence Organization. Viking Pr. ISBN 0140231161.
- Bamford, James (April 30, 2002). Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Anchor. ISBN 0385499086.
- Bamford, James (May 10, 2005). A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. Anchor. ISBN 140003034X.
- Bamford, James (September 16, 2008). The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. Doubleday. ISBN 0385521324.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXnBRkkGH8
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Keith Richards–Life–Videos
Keith Richards and Friends – Wild Horses, live 2004
Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 1/6
Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 2/6
Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 3/6
Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 4/6
Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 5/6
Keith Richards – Life (Documentary Movie) 6/6
KEITH RICHARDS – LIVE from the NYPL, in conversation with Anthony DeCurtis
The Rolling Stones with Brian Jones -The Last Time
Angie – The Rolling Stones
Background Articles and Videos
ROLLING STONES Denmark 1965
DENMARK 1965,the rolling stones (2)
ROLLING STONES Sweden 1965
NORWAY 1965,the rolling stones
Keith Richards interview and Mick Jagger 1968
Brian Jones Dies
Keith Richards – Complete TV interview 1974 (Old Grey Whistle Test)
Rolling Stones – Munich interviews 1975
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Abba–Videos
Adele–Videos
The Animals–Videos
Joan Baez–Videos
The Beach Boys–Videos
The Beatles–Videos
Bee Gees–Videos
The Byrds–Videos
Mariah Carey–Videos
Johnny Cash–Videos
Eva Cassidy–Videos
Ray Charles–Videos
Joe Cocker–Videos
Nat King Cole–Videos
Judy Collins–Videos
Perry Como–Videos
Sam Cooke–Videos
Doris Day–Videos
Sandy Denny–Videos
John Denver–Videos
Celine Dion–Videos
The Doors–Videos
Bob Dylan–Videos
Eagles–Video
Marianne Faithfull–Videos
Roberta Flack–Videos
Aretha Franklin–Videos
Marvin Gaye-Videos
Whitney Houston–Videos
Janis Ian–Videos
Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos
Elton John–Videos
Janis Joplan–Videos
The Kinks–Videos
Led Zeppelin–Videos
Little Richard–Videos
The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos
The Mamas and Papas–Videos
Barry Manilow–Videos
Johnny Mathis–Videos
Don McLean–Videos
Bette Midler–Videos
Joni Mitchell–Videos
Olivia Newton-John–Videos
Roy Orbison–Videos
The Platters–Videos
Elvis Presley–Videos
Queen–Videos
Otis Redding–Videos
Lionel Richie–Videos
The Righteous Brothers–Videos
The Rolling Stones–Videos
Linda Ronstadt–Videos
Sam & Dave–Videos
Neil Sedaka–Videos
Bob Seger–Videos
Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos
Carly Simon–Videos
Simon & Garfunkel–Videos
Frank Sinatra–Videos
Dusty Springfield–Videos
Bruce Springsteen–Videos
Rod Stewart–Videos
Barbra Streisand–Videos
Songs
Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos
Donna Summer–Videos
Switchfoot–Videos
James Taylor–Videos
Tina Turner–Videos
Shania Twain–Videos
Village People–Videos
Hayley Westenra–Videos
Steve Winwood–Videos
Stevie Wonder–Videos
Tammy Wynette–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos
John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
“Israel Lobby” authors Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer
Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, John J. Mearsheimer, and Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Stephen M. Walt, discuss their book, THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.
AIPAC: Inside America’s Israel lobby
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Part 1
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Part 2
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Part 3
Power Of The Israel Lobby In America – Mark Webber and Jeff Rense
John mearsheimer pt. 1 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 2 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 3 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 4 of 6
John mearsheimer pt.5 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 6 of 6
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
John J. Mearsheimer–Imperial by Design–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )John J. Mearsheimer–Imperial by Design–Videos
Imperial by Design – John Mearsheimer
Professor Mearsheimer will discuss his article by the same name from the January/February 2011 Issue of The National Interest. In the article, he considers the decline of US foreign policy from end of the Cold War to the “world of trouble” now: two protracted wars, nuclear stalemates in Iran and North Korea, and the inability to bring about a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
John Mearsheimer on the Death of U.S. Grand Strategy
John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt – The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy
9/11 attack – A conspiracy of bad US government policies and half truths
Lying in International Politics with John Mearsheimer
Conversations with History: John Mearsheimer
“Israel Lobby” authors Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer
Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, John J. Mearsheimer, and Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Stephen M. Walt, discuss their book, THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.
John mearsheimer pt. 1 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 2 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 3 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 4 of 6
John mearsheimer pt.5 of 6
John mearsheimer pt. 6 of 6
Dr John Mearsheimer (1/2)
Dr John Mearsheimer (2/2)
Background Articles and Videos
What is Grand Strategy?
Joseph Nye on Soft Power
Joseph Nye on Soft Power (1 of 2)
Joseph Nye on Soft Power (2 of 2)
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt–The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy–Videos
The Power of Nightmares: Progressive Neoconservatives vs. Radical Islamists–Videos
Marco Rubio Neoconservative Posterboy Defends Mitt Romney–Big Government Progressive Neoconservatives-Coming Soon–Wars In Iran, Syria, Pakistan–American Greatness By Empire Building–Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace In An Era of Righteousness!–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Corruption of Maine Republican Party Establishment Leadership By Mitt Romney–The Flip-Flopper Flips Off Maine’s Voters–Videos
UPDATED February 19, 2012
Ron Paul Wins 2 more Counties Maine behind 117 votes ∞ Washington & Hancock County
Ron Paul Wins Washington County, Maine Caucus w/ 53%!!
Clear Evidence Republican Party Committing Voter Fraud!
Reality Check – GOP Maine Voter Fraud – 02/14/2012
Maine Republicans Urged to Reconsider Mitt Romney’s Win
Ron Paul Campaign Questions Romney’s Maine Victory
Fox Focus Group Loves Ron Paul But Loves Being Lied to With War Propaganda More
Ron Paul on Fox 2/13/12
Ron Paul – Three of a Kind
Ron Paul Ad – He Served
Ron Paul Ad – Secure
Ron Paul Ad – Plan
Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”
Romney is a progressive neoconservative phoney Republican –the pick of the Republican establishment leadership in Washington. D.C.
More and more libertarian conservatives and traditional conservatives will not vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries and the general election.
Should Romney be the Republican nominee, I for one will not vote for him.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Veterans For Ron Paul 2012 March On The White House On President’s Day Feb. 20–Videos
“The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George…Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security.”
~Ron Paul
UPDATED February 20, 2012
The Ron Paul Renaissance
Ron Paul: Our Momentum Is Picking Up
Veterans for Ron Paul March on The White House
Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops
Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 MARCH TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Ron Paul Veterans March on the White House Feb. 20, 2012
Veterans For Ron Paul (March On The White House) Feb. 20th ,2012
RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS! (Veterans march on the White House)
RON PAUL (choice of the troops) MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE
Journey to D.C. for Military March on The White House – Snowville, Utah – 02/15/12
Veterans Match for Ron Paul- He is their LEADER
For Liberty Re-cut – Ron Paul 2012 Handout DVD HD
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Show Freedom Watch On Fox Business Channel Cancelled–Will He Return Soon On Another Fox Vehicle?–Videos
Ron Paul leaks his choice for VP 2012 (unedited original footage)
Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President
Ron Paul speaks about Judge Napolitano
You ‘re Fired Libertarian – Leaning Judge Andrew
Aurevoir My Friends: Judge Napolitano Signs Off on His Last Episode of Freedom Watch © FoxBusiness
“Judge Napolitano’s Final Word on the Last Episode of Freedom Watch. FOX news did not “fire” the Judge… they just cancelled his show. According to Fox News press release, the Judge will be appearing again on Fox but Freedom Watch is done for.rather ironic a show about freedom got shut down. Although its sad to watch this end, one had to wonder how long it was going to last or how it even got on Fox News in the first place. Liberals have CurrenTV, perhaps its time to consider a new alternative…”
– Gerald Celente –
Judge Andrew Napolitano Shows You How to Get ‘Fired’ From Fox Bizz in Under 5 min.
Judge Napolitano Endorses Ron Paul; Slaughters Romney and Santorum – Fox Business
Donald Rumsfeld grilled by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Freedom Watch
Judge Napolitano Fired after this Broadcast ∞ Israel & Saudi more Dangerous Enemies than Iran
4-8-11 Freedom Watch: The End of ‘Glenn Beck’
What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano
FOX Business Network Adds Encore Presentations of Marquee Business Programming
“…NEW YORK, Feb 09, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) — FOX Business Network (FBN) will debut a new primetime schedule featuring encore presentations of the channel’s top post-market programs, announced Kevin Magee, Executive Vice President of the network. Starting February 20th at 8 PM/ET, viewers will find additional airings of The Willis Report (5PM & 8PM/ET), Cavuto (6PM & 9PM/ET) and Lou Dobbs Tonight (7PM & 10PM/ET). The new lineup will replace FreedomWatch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, Power & Money with David Asman and Follow the Money with Eric Bolling.
In addition, FBN is developing a new 5PM/ET program hosted by Melissa Francis who joined the network from CNBC earlier this year. The show will debut in the second quarter, at which point The Willis Report will move to 8PM/ET, enabling FBN to be the only business network providing viewers with uninterrupted live coverage of financial news from 5AM/ET to 9PM/ET.
In making the announcement Magee said, “Neil Cavuto, Lou Dobbs and Gerri Willis are the most trusted names in business news and this new lineup affords FOX Business viewers additional access to their no-nonsense take on the day’s financial events. We look forward to Judge Napolitano, David and Eric continuing to make significant contributions to both FOX Business and FOX News. In addition to daily branded segments, each of them will be showcased throughout future programming on both networks.” …”
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1778796/pg1
“…Dear Friends–
Many of you are not happy with the cancellation of FreedomWatch, and you have sent emails to my Fox colleagues expressing that unhappiness. In television, shows are cancelled all the time. Two of my former shows have been cancelled, and after each cancellation, Fox has rewarded me with more and better work. This cancellation–along with others that accompanied it–was the result of a business judgment here, and is completely unrelated to the FreedomWatch message. It would make a world of a difference for all of us, if you would KINDLY STOP SENDING EMAILS TO FOX.
I am well. Your values are strong. I will continue to articulate those values here at Fox. But the emails many of you are sending are unfairly interfering with my work and that of my colleagues here. The emails even violate our values because they interfere with the use of private property. I have accepted the cancellation decision with good cheer and a sense of gearing up for the future. You should as well.
As a favor to me, and as I have asked this past weekend, PLEASE STOP SENDING EMAILS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT FOX ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF FreedomWatch; and please stop NOW.
All the best, apn. …”
http://www.facebook.com/notes/judge-andrew-napolitano/to-my-friends/10150614290418416
More Ways To Protest the FOX Cancellation of ‘Freedom Watch’
“…FOX plans to cancel the greatest program of its sort in the history of television, “Freedom Watch,” starring the heroic Judge Andrew Napolitano. Here are more people to write in protest:
Kevin Magee (Fox Executive VP) made the decision to cancel the show. Write him at Kevin.Magee@foxnews.com.
Write Fox CEO Roger Ailes’s assistant, Gena Dellaquila, at Gdellaquila@newscorp.com.
And if you have not already done so, protest this outrageous act to the public/media relations department at:
Irena Briganti, Senior Vice President
Media Relations
Phone: 212-301-3608
Fax: 212-819-0816
E-Mail: irena.briganti@foxnews.com
We are being heard. I am told that the Fox higher-ups are “stunned” at the public response.
UPDATE from a friend:
With respect, I suggest that complaints directed to Fox’s advertisers might also have great effect. …”
What to Do About the Cancellation of Freedom Watch
“…On my Facebook page yesterday I noted that Freedom Watch, hosted by the great Judge Andrew Napolitano, had been cancelled by the FOX Business Network. I posted a petition that’s going around to have the show reinstated, and there’s now a Facebook group calling for just that. I recommend both signing the petition and joining the group. The Judge has stuck his neck out for us so many times; the least we can do for him is a petition signature. …”
“…The whole thing is bizarre. Ratings for the show were good, compared to other programs on the network, so that wasn’t the issue. And the Judge wasn’t doing or saying anything they couldn’t have expected him to say. He was going after the libertarian demographic that has no home on any cable news network. So after having good ratings and grabbing precisely the demographic the network wanted him to, they cancel him? Not adding up. …”
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/what-to-do-about-the-cancellation-of-freedom-watch/
First, the Judge was not fired.
Second, the show Freedom Watch was canceled.
Third, please honor the Judge’s request on Facebook to stop sending e-mails to his associates at Fox.
I suspect that Fox and Roger Ailes have big plans for the Judge.
Fox would be well advised to quickly find the Judge another one hour time slot for a news show on the Fox News Channel.
The Judge was simply on the wrong channel, Fox Business Channel, instead of the Fox News Channel.
If this is not done quickly, the libertarian and traditional conservatives in their audience will slowly but surely desert Fox.
However, the timing appears very suspect, namely just before the Republican primaries and caucuses in late February and early March with Super Tuesday.
The longer Fox has Napolitano off the air with no regularly scheduled show, the more likely libertarian and traditional conservatives will just stay home on election day.
Roger Ailes are you listening?
Rupert Murdoch are you listening?
Viewers want to know.
Background Articles and Videos
Interview with Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel
Murdoch of Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda
Andrew Napolitano
“…Andrew Paolo Napolitano (born June 6, 1950) is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel. Napolitano started on the channel in 1998, and currently serves as the network’s senior judicial analyst, commenting on legal news and trials. …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Freedom Watch
“…Freedom Watch was a television show hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Fox Business network. The show aired from 2009 to 2012, focusing mainly on libertarian-conservative issues and perspectives.
History
Freedom Watch was created in February 2009 as an online show and originally webcast once a week. In September 2009, the show began webcasting three or four times a week. Frequent guests of the online show included Congressman Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Peter Schiff.
In May 2010, it was announced that the show would be televised on the Fox Business Network.[1] The first televised episode, dubbed the “Tea Party Summit”, aired on June 12, 2010 at 10 am, featuring Congressman Ron Paul, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, then U.S. Senate Republican candidate, now U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey.[2][3]
On Monday, November 15, 2010, Freedom Watch began to air new episodes every weeknight at 8:00pm ET.[4] Initially described as “the top-rated show on Fox Business”, its ratings apparently began to slip in 2011[5].
In February 2012, Fox Business announced that while Napolitano would remain a contributor, Freedom Watch (along with two other shows) was cancelled, in preference for a new lineup that simply re-runs popular episodes of other Fox Business shows each day. The final episode will air on Monday, February 13th, 2012.
Format
Judge Napolitano followed a pattern on the show:
Each episode started with a short description of a liberty-oriented issue, laid out specifically as a segue into the phrase
…upheld [or undermined, or needs to learn] these principles:
- That government is best which governs least.
- The people are entitled to a government that stays within the confines of the constitution.
- The constitution was written to keep the government off the people’s backs.
Napolitano would then have guests with whom he discussed various issues of the day.
Coming back from one segment each episode, he would itemize some violations or victories of freedom, which he called the Freedom Files.
The second to last segment, each episode, was a round table with a group of people of various political inclinations, anointed his Freedom Fighters.
Each show was then summed up with a monologue given by Napolitano, describing how the principles of liberty and justice applied to the issues at hand, called The Plain Truth. …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Watch
Glenn Beck TV Program
“…Glenn Beck is a United States cable news show hosted by Glenn Beck that aired weekdays on Fox News Channel. The program, originally on CNN Headline News (now HLN), premiered on FNC on January 19, 2009 and aired weekdays at 5:00 PM EST.[1] On April 6, 2011, Fox News and Mercury Radio Arts, Beck’s production company, released a joint news statement saying that Beck would “transition off of his daily program” on Fox News later in the year.[2] The program’s final episode aired on June 30, 2011.[3][4…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck_(TV_program)
Declining Ratings Could Put Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox News Future In Jeopardy
Adele–Videos
Updated October 3, 2015
“Mum loves me being famous! She is so excited and proud, as she had me so young and couldn’t support me, so I am living her dream, it’s sweeter for both of us. It’s her 40th birthday soon and I’m going to buy her 40 presents.”
She amazed us again….
Adele – Someone Like You
Adele – Turning Tables
Adele- Don’t You Remember
Adele – Someone Like You (Live in Her Home)
Adele – Make You Feel My Love (Live on Letterman)
ADELE – ‘Make You Feel My Love’
Adele – One And Only
Adele – Rumour Has It
ADELE – ‘Cold Shoulder’
Adele – Crazy For You
ADELE – ‘Hometown Glory’
Adele – He won’t go (with lyrics)
Adele – First Love
Adele – Set Fire To The Rain (Live from the Tabernacle, London, 24 January 2011)
Adele – Set Fire To The Rain
Adele – I Can’t Make You Love Me
Adele – Rolling in the Deep
Adele – Chasing Pavements
Adele Skyfall Live Performance Oscar 2013
The 54th Annual GRAMMY Awards Adele wins the best pop solo performance for “Someone Like You.”
Adele – Make You Feel My Love [Official Video]
Adele Live Lounge Special
Adele Smoth Radio complete!!!
Adele full concert 2015
Adele – Live At iTunes Festival London 2011 [Full Concert]
Adele live @ The Tabernacle complete!
Adele North American Tour 2008
‘My life is full of drama and I won’t have time to worry about something as petty as what I look like. I don’t like going to the gym.
‘I like eating fine foods and drinking nice wine. Even if I had a really good figure, I don’t think I’d get my t**s and a** out for no one.
‘I love seeing Lady Gaga’s boobs and bum. I love seeing Katy Perry’s boobs and bum. Love it. But that’s not what my music is about. I don’t make music for eyes, I make music for ears.’
Background Articles and Videos
Adele Interview
Adele Live in London with Matt Lauer (Aired June 3rd, 2012) [HQ]
Grammy Awards 2013 Adele accepts Best Pop Solo Performance YouTube
Adele – Swiss Music Awards 2012 : Best Hit International & Best Album Pop Rock International
Adele 21 – Track By Track Interview
Adele — Exclusive WSJ Interview
Adele – Ushi the (complete) interview
Adele – Interview (The Jonathan Ross Show – 3rd September 2011)
ADELE – Live At The Royal Albert Hall DVD (Trailer)
Adele & Amy Winehouse performing @ The BRIT Awards (2008)
Adele (singer)
“…Adele Laurie Blue Adkins[2] (born 5 May 1988), better known mononymously as Adele, is an English recording artist and songwriter. Adele was offered a recording contract from XL Recordings after a friend posted her demonstration on Myspace in 2006. The next year she received the Brit Awards “Critics’ Choice” and won the BBC Sound of 2008. Her debut album, 19 was released in 2008 to much commercial and critical success in the UK. 19 was certified four times platinum in the UK.[3] Her career in the US was boosted by a Saturday Night Live appearance in late 2008. At the 2009 Grammy Awards, Adele received the awards for Best New Artist and Best Female Pop Vocal Performance.[4][5] She has also won a total of 8 Grammy Awards and 1 Brit Award.
Adele released her second album, 21 in early 2011.[6][7] The album was well received critically and surpassed the success of her debut commercially.[8] 21 has been certified 14 times platinum in the UK;[3] in the US the album held the top position longer than any other album since 1993.[9][10] The success of 21 earned Adele numerous mentions in the Guinness Book Of World Records. The album won the Grammy for Album of the Year. She is the first artist to sell more than 3 million copies of an album in a year in the UK.[11] With her two albums and the first two singles from 21, “Rolling in the Deep” and “Someone Like You”, Adele became the first living artist to achieve the feat of two top five hits in both the UK Official Singles Chart and the Official Albums Chart simultaneously since the Beatles in 1964.[12][13] With her third release from the album, “Set Fire to the Rain”, becoming her third number one single in the US, Adele became the first artist in history to lead the Billboard 200 concurrently with three Billboard Hot 100 number ones.[14] 21 is the longest running number one album by a female solo artist on the UK Albums Chart[15] and is tied for the longest cumulative stay at number one by a female solo artist as well.[11] In 2011, Billboard named Adele artist of the year.[16]
Adele Website
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Abba–Videos
Adele–Videos
The Animals–Videos
Joan Baez–Videos
The Beach Boys–Videos
The Beatles–Videos
Bee Gees–Videos
The Byrds–Videos
Mariah Carey–Videos
Johnny Cash–Videos
Eva Cassidy–Videos
Ray Charles–Videos
Joe Cocker–Videos
Nat King Cole–Videos
Judy Collins–Videos
Perry Como–Videos
Sam Cooke–Videos
Doris Day–Videos
Sandy Denny–Videos
John Denver–Videos
Celine Dion–Videos
The Doors–Videos
Bob Dylan–Videos
Eagles–Video
Marianne Faithfull–Videos
Roberta Flack–Videos
Aretha Franklin–Videos
Marvin Gaye-Videos
Whitney Houston–Videos
Janis Ian–Videos
Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos
Elton John–Videos
Janis Joplan–Videos
The Kinks–Videos
Led Zeppelin–Videos
Little Richard–Videos
The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos
The Mamas and Papas–Videos
Barry Manilow–Videos
Johnny Mathis–Videos
Don McLean–Videos
Bette Midler–Videos
Joni Mitchell–Videos
Olivia Newton-John–Videos
Roy Orbison–Videos
The Platters–Videos
Elvis Presley–Videos
Queen–Videos
Otis Redding–Videos
Lionel Richie–Videos
The Righteous Brothers–Videos
The Rolling Stones–Videos
Linda Ronstadt–Videos
Sam & Dave–Videos
Neil Sedaka–Videos
Bob Seger–Videos
Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos
Carly Simon–Videos
Simon & Garfunkel–Videos
Frank Sinatra–Videos
Dusty Springfield–Videos
Bruce Springsteen–Videos
Rod Stewart–Videos
Barbra Streisand–Videos
Songs
Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos
Donna Summer–Videos
Switchfoot–Videos
James Taylor–Videos
Tina Turner–Videos
Shania Twain–Videos
Village People–Videos
Hayley Westenra–Videos
Steve Winwood–Videos
Stevie Wonder–Videos
Tammy Wynette–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Whitney Houston–Videos
Whitney Houston – I Will Always Love You Official Music Video
Whitney Houston – Where Do Broken Hearts Go (Medley)
where do broken hearts go by whitney houston with lyrics
Whitney Houston sings at New Hope Baptist Church in Newark, NJ.
Whitney Houston – Memories (1982)
Merv Griffin Show- Whitney Houston and Cissy Houston sings Sweet Baby/You Send Me/Aint No Way 1983
Whitney Houston 1985 Opening Act for Luther Vandross
Whitney Houston – Saving all my love for you – Peters Popshow – 1985
Whitney Houston – Saving all my love for you – Peters Popshow – 1985
Whitney Houston – I Wanna Dance With Somebody (Who Loves Me)
Whitney Houston – All At Once (1987)
Whitney Houston – Saving All My Love – HQ Live
Whitney Houston – All The Man That I Need
Whitney Houston – Saving All My love For You (Live French Show)
Whitney Houston One Moment In Time(Grammy Awards Live)
Whitney Houston – I Will Always Love You
Whitney Houston – Saving All My Love For You
Whitney Houston – How Will I Know
Whitney Houston – So Emotional
Whitney Houston – I’m Every Woman
Whitney Houston – It’s Not Right But It’s Okay
Whitney Houston – Exhale
Whitney Houston – All The Man That I Need
Whitney Houston – I Look To You
Whitney Houston – Run To You
Whitney Houston – I Wanna Dance With Somebody
Whitney Houston – Greatest Love Of All
Whitney Houston – I Have Nothing
Whitney Houston – Didn’t We Almost Have It All
Baclground Articles and Videos
Whitney Houston’s Death: 2012 Grammy Awards to Pay Tribute to Her Career
Whitney Houston – This is My Life – Part 1
Whitney Houston – This is My Life – Part 2
Whitney Houston – This Is My Life – Part 3
Whitney Houston Rolling Stone Interview 1986
Whitney Houston MTV Interview (1988)
Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1990)
Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1992) Part 1
Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1992) Part 2
Whitney Houston on The Arsenio Hall Show (1992) Part 3
Whitney Houston – Barbara Walters Special 1993 – Part 1
Whitney Houston – Barbara Walters Special 1993 – Part 2
…
Whitney Houston interview by Diane Sawyer
Whitney Houston UK Interview 1996 Rare
Whitney Houston Interview
Whitney Houston
“…Whitney Elizabeth Houston (August 9, 1963 – February 11, 2012) was an American recording artist, actress, producer, and model. In 2009, the Guinness World Records cited her as the most-awarded female act of all time.[1] Her awards include two Emmy Awards, six Grammy Awards, 30 Billboard Music Awards, and 22 American Music Awards, among a total of 415 career awards in her lifetime. Houston was also one of the world’s best-selling music artists, having sold over 170 million albums, singles and videos worldwide.[2][3] Inspired by prominent soul singers in her family, including her mother Cissy Houston, cousins Dionne Warwick and Dee Dee Warwick, and her godmother Aretha Franklin, Houston began singing with her New Jersey church’s junior gospel choir at age 11.[4] After she began performing alongside her mother in night clubs in the New York City area, she was discovered by Arista Records label head Clive Davis. Houston released seven studio albums and three movie soundtrack albums, all of which have diamond, multi-platinum, platinum or gold certification.
Houston is the only artist to chart seven consecutive No. 1 Billboard Hot 100 hits (“Saving All My Love for You”, “How Will I Know”, “Greatest Love of All”, “I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me)”, “Didn’t We Almost Have It All”, “So Emotional” and “Where Do Broken Hearts Go”). She is the second artist behind Elton John and the only female artist to have two number-one Billboard 200 Album awards (formerly “Top Pop Album”) on the Billboard magazine year-end charts. Houston’s 1985 debut album Whitney Houston became the best-selling debut album by a female act at the time of its release. The album was named Rolling Stone‘s best album of 1986, and was ranked at number 254 on Rolling Stone‘s list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[5] Her second studio album Whitney (1987) became the first album by a female artist to debut at number one on the Billboard 200 albums chart.[5] Houston’s crossover appeal on the popular music charts as well as her prominence on MTV, starting with her video for “How Will I Know”,[6] influenced several African-American female artists to follow in her footsteps.[7][8]
Houston’s first acting role was as the star of the feature film The Bodyguard (1992). The film’s original soundtrack won the 1994 Grammy Award for Album of the Year. Its lead single “I Will Always Love You”, became the best-selling single by a female artist in music history. With the album, Houston became the first act (solo or group, male or female) to sell more than a million copies of an album within a single week period.[5] The album makes her the only female act in the top 10 list of the best-selling albums of all time, at number four. Houston continued to star in movies and contribute to their soundtracks, including the films Waiting to Exhale (1995) and The Preacher’s Wife (1996). The Preacher’s Wife soundtrack became the best-selling gospel album in history.[9] Three years after the release of her fourth studio album My Love Is Your Love (1998), she renewed her recording contract with Arista Records.[9] She released her fifth studio album Just Whitney in 2002, and the Christmas-themed One Wish: The Holiday Album in 2003. In 2009, Houston released her seventh studio album I Look to You. …”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WH1Ma50QUk&feature=related
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Abba–Videos
Adele–Videos
The Animals–Videos
Joan Baez–Videos
The Beach Boys–Videos
The Beatles–Videos
Bee Gees–Videos
The Byrds–Videos
Mariah Carey–Videos
Johnny Cash–Videos
Eva Cassidy–Videos
Ray Charles–Videos
Joe Cocker–Videos
Nat King Cole–Videos
Judy Collins–Videos
Perry Como–Videos
Sam Cooke–Videos
Doris Day–Videos
Sandy Denny–Videos
John Denver–Videos
Celine Dion–Videos
The Doors–Videos
Bob Dylan–Videos
Eagles–Video
Marianne Faithfull–Videos
Roberta Flack–Videos
Aretha Franklin–Videos
Marvin Gaye-Videos
Janis Ian–Videos
Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos
Elton John–Videos
Janis Joplan–Videos
The Kinks–Videos
Led Zeppelin–Videos
Little Richard–Videos
The Lovin’ Spoonful–Videos
The Mamas and Papas–Videos
Barry Manilow–Videos
Johnny Mathis–Videos
Don McLean–Videos
Bette Midler–Videos
Joni Mitchell–Videos
Olivia Newton-John–Videos
Roy Orbison–Videos
The Platters–Videos
Elvis Presley–Videos
Queen–Videos
Otis Redding–Videos
Lionel Richie–Videos
The Righteous Brothers–Videos
The Rolling Stones–Videos
Linda Ronstadt–Videos
Sam & Dave–Videos
Neil Sedaka–Videos
Bob Seger–Videos
Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos
Carly Simon–Videos
Simon & Garfunkel–Videos
Frank Sinatra–Videos
Dusty Springfield–Videos
Bruce Springsteen–Videos
Rod Stewart–Videos
Barbra Streisand–Videos
Songs
Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos
Donna Summer–Videos
Switchfoot–Videos
James Taylor–Videos
Tina Turner–Videos
Shania Twain–Videos
Village People–Videos
Hayley Westenra–Videos
Steve Winwood–Videos
Stevie Wonder–Videos
Tammy Wynette–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Hal Varian–On Innovation and On Computer Mediated Transactions–Videos
Hal Varian 1/6
Hal Varian 2/6
Hal Varian 3/6
Hal Varian 4/6
Hal Varian 5/6
Hal Varian 6/6
Hal Varian on computer mediated transactions
Hal Varian on Nash equilibria and bidding in Google Auctions
Hal R. Varian (Google) – The Economics of Internet Search
Hal Varian
“…Hal Ronald Varian (born March 18, 1947, in Wooster, Ohio) is an economist specializing in microeconomics and information economics. He is the Chief Economist at Google and he holds the title of emeritus professor at the University of California, Berkeley where he was founding dean of the School of Information.[1] He has written two bestselling textbooks Intermediate Microeconomics, an undergraduate microeconomics text, and Microeconomic Analysis, an advanced text. Together with Carl Shapiro, he co-authored Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy and The Economics of Information Technology: An Introduction.
He joined Google in 2002 as a consultant, and has worked on the design of advertising auctions, econometrics, finance, corporate strategy and public policy.
He received his B.S. from MIT in economics in 1969 and both his M.A. (mathematics) and Ph.D. (economics) from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973. He has taught at MIT, Stanford University, the University of Oxford, the University of Michigan, and other universities around the world. He has two honorary doctorates, from the University of Oulu, Finland in 2002, and a Dr. h. c. from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, awarded in 2006.
Hal R. Varian
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )John Kay–On Economics–Videos
John Kay: Consistency and Rigor (1/5)
In part one of this INET interview, John Kay suggests that consistency and rigor have become the requirements of modern economics. However, these requirements have forced economists to use only deductive reasoning to remain the pretense of being “scientific.” These simplifying assumptions and resulting models are not themselves a bad thing, but when they replace human judgment, then the result is, in fact, unscientific, in the real sense of the word.
John Kay: Polishing the Head of the Same Pin (2/5)
John Kay: A Call for Eclecticism (3/5)
John Kay: People, Not Iron Ore: The Limits of Math in Economics (4/5)
John Kay: Should Economists Be Statesmen? (5/5)
Why Become An Economist?
The Map is Not the Territory: An Essay on the State of Economics
John Kay
“…This pragmatic thinking, employing many tools, is a better means of understanding economic phenomena than ‘the combined assumptions of maximising behaviour, market equilibrium, and stable preferences, used relentlessly and consistently’ – and to the exclusion of any other ‘ad hoc’ approach. More eclectic analysis would require not just deductive logic but also an understanding of processes of belief formation, anthropology, psychology and organisational behaviour, and meticulous observation of what people, businesses, and governments actually do. You could learn nothing about how these things influence prices if you started with the proposition that deviations from a specific theory of price determination are ‘too small to matter’ because all that is knowable is already known and therefore ‘in the price’. And that is why today’s students do, in fact, learn nothing about these things, except perhaps from extra-curricular reading.
What Lucas means when he asserts that deviations are ‘too small to matter’ is that attempts to construct general models of deviations from the efficient market hypothesis – by specifying mechanical trading rules or by writing equations to identify bubbles in asset prices – have not met with much success. But this is to miss the point: the expert billiard player plays a nearly perfect game,[18] but it is the imperfections of play between experts that determine the result. There is a – trivial – sense in which the deviations from efficient markets are too small to matter – and a more important sense in which these deviations are the principal thing that matters.
The claim that most profit opportunities in business or in securities markets have been taken is justified. But it is the search for the profit opportunities that have not been taken that drives business forward, the belief that profit opportunities that have not been arbitraged away still exist that explains why there is so much trade in securities. Far from being ‘too small to matter’, these deviations from efficient market assumptions, not necessarily large, are the dynamic of the capitalist economy.
Such anomalies are idiosyncratic and cannot, by their very nature, be derived as logical deductions from an axiomatic system. The distinguishing characteristic of Henry Ford or Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett or George Soros, is that their behaviour cannot be predicted from any prespecified model. If the behaviour of these individuals could be predicted in this way, they would not have been either innovative or rich. But the consequences are plainly not ‘too small to matter’.
The preposterous claim that deviations from market efficiency were not only irrelevant to the recent crisis but could never be relevant is the product of an environment in which deduction has driven out induction and ideology has taken over from observation. The belief that models are not just useful tools but also are capable of yielding comprehensive and universal descriptions of the world has blinded its proponents to realities that have been staring them in the face. That blindness was an element in our present crisis, and conditions our still ineffectual responses. Economists – in government agencies as well as universities – were obsessively playing Grand Theft Auto while the world around them was falling apart. …”
http://ineteconomics.org/blog/inet/john-kay-map-not-territory-essay-state-economics
Economics: Rituals of rigour
John Kay
“…The reputation of economists, never high, has been a casualty of the global crisis. Ever since the world’s financial system teetered on the abyss following the collapse of Lehman Brothers three years ago next month, critics from Queen Elizabeth II downwards have posed one uncomfortable yet highly pertinent question: are economists of any use at all?
Some of this criticism is misconceived. Specific predictions of economic growth or levels of the stock market – gross domestic product will rise by 1.8 per cent; the FTSE 100 index will stand at 6,500 by year-end – assert knowledge that those making such predictions cannot have. Economic systems are typically dynamic and non-linear. This means that outcomes are likely to be very sensitive to small changes in the parameters that determine their evolution. These systems are also reflexive, in the sense that beliefs about what will happen influence what does happen.
If you ask why economists persist in making predictions despite these difficulties, the answer is that few do. Yet that still leaves a vocal minority who have responded cynically to the insatiable public demand for forecasts. Mostly they are employed in the financial sector – for their entertainment value rather than their advice.
Economists often make unrealistic assumptions but so do physicists, and for good reasons. Physicists will describe motion on frictionless plains or gravity in a world without air resistance. Not because anyone believes that the world is frictionless and airless, but because it is too difficult to study everything at once. A simplifying model eliminates confounding factors and focuses on a particular issue of interest. This is as legitimate a method in economics as in physics.
Since there are easy responses to these common criticisms of bad predictions and unrealistic assumptions, attacks on the profession are ignored by professional academic economists, who complain that the critics do not understand what economists really do. But if the critics did understand what economists really do, public criticism might be more severe yet. …”
http://www.johnkay.com/2011/08/26/economics-rituals-of-rigour
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff–This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly–A Decade of Debt–Videos
“…Synopsis
Throughout history, rich and poor countries alike have been lending, borrowing, crashing–and recovering–their way through an extraordinary range of financial crises. Each time, the experts have chimed, “this time is different”–claiming that the old rules of valuation no longer apply and that the new situation bears little similarity to past disasters. With this breakthrough study, leading economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff definitively prove them wrong. Covering sixty-six countries across five continents, This Time Is Differentpresents a comprehensive look at the varieties of financial crises, and guides us through eight astonishing centuries of government defaults, banking panics, and inflationary spikes–from medieval currency debasements to today’s subprime catastrophe. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, leading economists whose work has been influential in the policy debate concerning the current financial crisis, provocatively argue that financial combustions are universal rites of passage for emerging and established market nations. The authors draw important lessons from history to show us how much–or how little–we have learned.
Using clear, sharp analysis and comprehensive data, Reinhart and Rogoff document that financial fallouts occur in clusters and strike with surprisingly consistent frequency, duration, and ferocity. They examine the patterns of currency crashes, high and hyperinflation, and government defaults on international and domestic debts–as well as the cycles in housing and equity prices, capital flows, unemployment, and government revenues around these crises. While countries do weather their financial storms, Reinhart and Rogoff prove that short memories make it all too easy for crises to recur.
An important book that will affect policy discussions for a long time to come, This Time Is Different exposes centuries of financial missteps. …”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/This-Time-Is-Different/Carmen-M-Reinhart/e/9780691142166
What’s Wrong With the Recovery?
Interview with Kenneth Rogoff on “This time is different”
Carmen Reinhart & Kenneth Rogoff: Coming Out of the Crisis
Carmen Reinhart on A Decade of Debt
Q & A: Carmen M. Reinhart on A Decade of Debt
Fall 2010 Marc Sumerlin Lecture Series Featuring Prof. Carmen Reinhart
Why the Financial Crisis & What is the Way Out
Ken Rogoff – Debts, Deficits and Global Financial Stability
Carmen Reinhart: Serial Default Syndrome
Kenneth Rogoff: Economic Reappraisal
Background Articles and Videos
John Kay: A Call for Eclecticism (3/5)
Keynesian Kenneth Rogoff about “benefits of inflation” 2008.12.15
Currency Wars (Video)
Kenneth Rogoff At Bretton Woods, United States Speaks to Shaili Chopra
The Future of the Global Economy and Financial System Plenary Session Recording, Part 9
Agenda Summer 2010: The Limits of Economics
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
George Lakoff–Videos
How Democrats & Progressives Can Win: George Lakoff
George Lakoff, how conservatives train leaders
George Lakoff: Moral Politics
Bringing Progressive Politics Back To The People
The Left, the Right, and the Family View of Government
How Dems Are Failing to Sell Health Care Reform – George Lakoff
George Lakoff on the role of government
CA Progressive Game Plan, by Prof. George Lakoff, CAL Berkely
George Lakoff pt1 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
George Lakoff pt2 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
George Lakoff pt3 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
George Lakoff p4 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
George Lakoff pt5 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
George Lakoff pt6 of 6 – Frameworks, Empathy and Sustainability
George Lakoff “The Brain and Its Politics”
How to Make Friends and Manipulate Irrational Voters
Authors@Google: George Lakoff
Authors@Google: George Lakoff
Part One: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
Part Two: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
Part Three: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
Part Four: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
Part Five: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
Part Six: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
Part Seven: George Lakoff speaking at McNally Robinson
George Lakoff on how he started his work on conceptual metaphor
…
CPAC–Conservative Political Action Conference–2012–Videos
Who will win the CPAC 2012 Straw Poll?
Will Ron Paul win for a third time when he is not speaking at CPAC 2012?
Predictions – Paul poised to possibly prevail in Maine, beating Romney & Collecting More Delegates
Did-Ron-Paul-Win-Iowa,-Nevada,-Minnesota,-Colorado-and-Missouri?
CPAC 2012 Results Announced: Mitt Romney Wins the CPAC Straw Poll
CPAC 2012 Schedule of Events
http://cpac2012.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Schedule-Of-Events_Latest.pdf
Click Here to Watch the 2012 CPAC Conference Live
http://nation.foxnews.com/cpac-2012/2012/02/09/click-here-watch-teh-2012-cpac-conference-live
Latest News from CPAC
http://cpac2012.conservative.org/
Bernard Whitman CNN Early Start 2.10.12
“Bernard Whitman, Democratic strategist, argues that Republicans are uncomfortable with Mitt Romney, who has effectively been running for president for 8 years. The audience at CPAC doesn’t like him, but the one thing he has going for him is his business credentials. Although, his business credentials don’t resonate with the Independent and Democratic base. His biggest problem is that he doesn’t have a clear concise economic plan. In order to reach out and grab conservatives he has to make them believe he is in the only viable candidate that can bring economic renewal to America and beat President Obama.”
Ann Coulter “We Elected A Man Based On The Color Of His Skin” pt.1
Ann Coulter “We Elected A Man Based On The Color Of His Skin” pt.2
Ann Coulter endorses Ron Paul in 2012
One Minute of Ann Coulter Playing With Her Hair At CPAC
Laura Ingraham Crushes On Arianna At CPAC
HuffPost Talks To ‘Joe The Plumber’ At CPAC
Ron Paul at CPAC 2012!
Mark Levin Plays Audio Clips Of Mitt Romney’s CPAC 2012 Speech
Newt Gingrich’s Speech at CPAC 2012 | High Quality |
A Conservative A Liberal & A Moderate Walk Into A Bar… Bartender Says…” Foster Friess
Full Speech Rick Santorum at CPAC 2012
Breitbart and company make an enterence CPAC 2012
Andrew Breitbart on the the new Citizens United movie on the occupy movement at CPAC 2012
Art at CPAC again
Steven Malanga – Public Sector Unions
Voices of CPAC Taylor Thompson Ron Paul fan
.
Rand Paul full speech at CPAC 2012
Senator Marco Rubio Addresses CPAC 2012
Mitch McConnell at CPAC 2012
Rick Perry CPAC 2012 Speech (2/9/2012)
RGA Chair Bob McDonnell’s speech at CPAC 2012
Brad Stine Brings The Wussification Of America To CPAC 2012
John Boehner “No One Loves Congress” (HEY! Something We Can ALL Agree On!)
Representative Jim Jordan Addresses CPAC 2012
Allen West CPAC 2012 Full Speech
Congressman Steve King 2012 CPAC Speech
CPAC 2012: Lt. Col. Oliver North
Ted Cruz at CPAC 2012
CPAC 2012: Occupy Protesters & Anti-gay Activists
Ron Paul cites ‘travel constraints’ as reason for skipping CPAC
“…Ron Paul, the two-time winner of the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, isn’t attending this year’s conference in Washington because of “travel constraints” – but the Texas congressman hasn’t held a campaign event since Tuesday.
The American Conservative Union, which hosts the annual confab, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) addresses supporters during a caucus night party Tuesday, in Golden Valley, Minn. His campaign has been quiet since. (Jim Mone – AP) said in a statement last week that Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would address the conference in his father’s stead “due to the travel constraints of his Presidential campaign.”
And Paul’s press secretary Gary Howard told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday that “we have too much campaigning to do across the country.” …”
The Machine that Changed the World–Videos
(1 of5)The Machine that Changed the World: Giant Brains. 1992 480P Documentary
(2of5) The Machine that Changed the World: Inventing the Future. 1992 480P Documentary
(3of5) The Machine that Changed the World: The Paperback Computer. 1992 480P Documentary
(4of5) The Machine that Changed the World: The Thinking Machine. 1992 480P Documentary
(5of5) The Machine that Changed the World: The World at Your Fingertips. 1992 480P Documentary
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries
You must be logged in to post a comment.