Archive for May, 2010

liberal, progressive, conservative–which are you?

Monday, May 31st, 2010

Timothy Ferris in a new book THE SCIENCE OF LIBERTY (HarperCollins, 2010) promotes a new way of looking at political labels. He points out that the usual left wing/right wing labels are out of date. They originated back in the French Revolution when the then liberal radicals sat on the left side of the French National Assembly and the conservative monarchists sat on the right side of the Assembly.

Instead of a straight line with left-wing liberals at one end and right-wing conservatives at the other end, Ferris suggests a triangle. At the apexes of the triangle you would have LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE and CONSERVATIVE. Classical liberals are people (going back to John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine) who lean in the direction of freedom. Progressives (going back to Karl Marx and social-democrats) lean towards equality. And Conservatives (going back to the English philosopher Edmund Burke) lean towards tradition.

Like any and all labels, of course, this oversimplifies. Individual people (and politicians) are always some unique mixture of these three trends when it comes to individual issues.  Even though I remain suspicious of all political labeling, the Ferris triangle seems to me more sensible than the traditional left-right continuum. Let’s take a few examples.

Minimum wage. Progressives favor raising the minimum wage as high as possible in order to bring more income equality. Liberals favor no minimum wage at all, on laissez-faire free-market principles. Conservatives are reluctant to change whatever we have now.

In this case I think the liberals have the strongest argument. Progressives have good intentions but many studies have shown that the higher the minimum wage, the more unskilled young workers are squeezed out of the market and left unemployed. This especially hurts young minority males who do not get the chance to take that first step on the lower rungs of the employment ladder. Of course you could abolish the free-market altogether and go to a system like Cuba where everyone has the same salary and inequality of income does not exist. You would probably also get, as in Cuba, equal poverty.

Health care. Progressives are in favor of a national heath care program where every citizen would have equal access and equal treatment. Liberals say the government should stay out of it and let the chips fall where they may. Conservatives say our present system is adequate.

In this case I think that the progressives have the better argument. Just as good roads, clean air and water, police protection, and equal access to the courts are important government benefits for all citizens, so too I think we are a wealthy enough society that good health care should be a must for all citizens. My wife and I get our health care bills paid (mostly) by Medicare. So here I agree with the progressives. It would probably be best to have a single-payer system for everyone as we presently do with Medicare, and as most European countries do with all citizens.

Education. This is one is tricky. Progressives, with their emphasis on equality, demand that we close the achievement gaps between minority and majority populations. That we produce not only equal opportunity, but also equal results. Liberals agree that we need to provide equal opportunity but we can’t and should not guarantee equal results. Conservatives demand that we provide solid content education for all citizens, minority and majority. All three have a point.

On the whole here I find myself somewhere in the middle of liberal and conservative points of view. Like the conservatives I think we do need more attention to solid content. Like the liberals I think we need to keep advancing the equal opportunity side promised by the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision in 1954.  So far as the progressive point of view goes, I applaud efforts to close the “achievement gap.” However I wish we did not put so much alarm and publicity on this particular gap. There are “gaps” in every field, in every job, in every activity.

For most people (especially teenagers and young people) sports, for instance, are far more important and far more prestigious than academic test scores. And in sports, minorities (especially African-Americans), have opened up achievement gaps every bit as wide in their favor as the academic ones where they lag behind. No one seems to be alarmed about this sports gap, why make so much about the academic test gap?

Free-markets and globalization. Here I think the conservatives and the liberals have the winning side and progressives who often oppose globalization today are simply wrong. If you define progressive as favoring equality, globalization has been a huge success. Progressives today, in other words, seem to oppose the very things that are helping to achieve their goals. A recent study found that globalization does lead to change as capitalism always has. UN statistics show enormous overall gains in countries as diverse as India, China, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brazil and South Africa. The World Bank reported in 2004 that economic growth in the underdeveloped world resulted in a “spectacular” decline in poverty in East and South Asia. The report showed that with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa, world poverty as a whole has declined dramatically. “Never before have so many people—or so large a proportion of the world’s population—enjoyed such large rises in their standard of living,” reported the Bank.

What about the United States? Have we suffered? Actually no, we too have gained! Spectacularly. Contrary to the critics of globalization, the Congressional Budget Office reported that average wages in the United States rose between 1991 and 2005. This was the period of greatest expansion in global trade and the period when China and Mexico were blamed for taking American jobs and income. Dividing the level of income in the U.S. into five parts, the gains between 1991 and 2005 for the wealthiest fifth were indeed large, 50%. But contrary to what many think the gains for the lowest fifth, the poorest in the U.S., were even larger. They increased by 80 percent! (The gains for the three in-between middle-class fifths increased by around 20%.) In the end globalization not only resulted in truly astonishing increases in world-wide prosperity, but it has also added around $10,000 a year to the average American household income!

War and peace. Here there are so many exceptions I don’t think labels make sense. When I visited the cemetery at Omaha Beach in France a few years ago I sobbed on my knees when I saw all of those crosses. Young men who never had a chance to live the rich full life I have had. And not a single one had a political label.

In the end as my few examples demonstrate, none of the three political categories, liberal, progressive or conservative has a monopoly on “progress” In other words, you can’t bank on solving problems by reaching into your back pocket and pulling out a prepaid credit card labeled “liberal,” “progressive,” or “conservative.” Maybe in the end we should refrain from using these labels at all.

Corrections and additions:

Dr. Doo Jung Jin at the Northwest University in Kirkland, Washington kindly sent me a couple of corrections for my recent blog on experiments in Korea. Japan controlled Korea from 1910, not from 1911. The Korea War did not start in 1947 as I mistakenly wrote, but in 1950. I should have caught that last error myself because it was indeed in 1950 that my wife and I had just graduated from Antioch College and were quite aware of that war.

Another reader, Steve Gorzula, gave me a boost by agreeing with my comments on zero-sum economics and by sending an interesting article of his own on Nepal, a country right now going through painful political turmoil. His article gives a good example of win-win economics by focusing on the potential for hydro-power in Nepal that could make a crucial difference in the Nepalese struggle to move into the modern world.

Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President

P.S. The 2010 sale is over now, but for the rest 2010/2011 school year we have cut all of our regular prices by 50% or more.  Look to our web site above for bargains on top-quality relevant DVDs to help make your fall beginning a rip roaring success.

zero-sum vs. win-win: life from scratch and more history experiments

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

It’s a bit of a stretch perhaps but the news last week that scientists had for the first time constructed a living thing from scratch (from chemicals off-the-shelf that is) got me to thinking in a different way about what I had originally planned to write about for this Hawkhill News. Here goes.

Many people today still believe that the wealth of the country, and of the world, is like a big pumpkin pie. If I get a bigger piece, you will have to be satisfied with a smaller piece. This makes for a zero-sum world. If I win, you lose. If you win, I lose. Actually for quite a few thousand years that view made sense.

Agricultural-age societies for at least ten thousand years past banked on a pie of land, gold and slaves (or serfs or peasants) for their livelihood. Since these all were severely limited the only way one group could get wealthier was to steal from another group. That usually meant war.

When the scientific and industrial revolutions began a few hundred years ago the enormous leap forward in world-wide wealth made this zero-sum economics obsolete. Now instead of war, creative invention and free trade was the best way to get wealthier. But belief in zero-sum wealth did not disappear. Unfortunately it is still alive today and distorting our world views.

Some green activists, for instance, still seem to believe in zero-sum ideas. Jeremy Rifkin, one of the green movement leaders, claims that “we are going to have to learn that the more we consume the less resources are available on the earth for other human beings and other creatures.  So if we want to steward this planet for our children’s generation we are going to have to develop a green lifestyle, a green cultural movement, we are going to have to learn to use our fair share of resources and no more, we are going to have to be good neighbors in terms of the rest of the planet.”

Which gets me back to the new invention that J. Craig Venter and his associates announced last week–life. His new bacteria were created from scratch, using only simple common chemicals as the raw materials, the “natural resources.”

What would Rifkin say about this new invention? My guess is he would object as he has to most experimental work in genetic engineering. But suppose we could, as Venter just demonstrated, design bacteria (or a new plant or animal) on the computer, using only the most common simple chemicals. This new “resource” might reproduce rapidly and be able to gobble up carbon dioxide, or oil spills, or create a new fuel for vehicles, or a new material to replace paper or copper wires or lumber, or take down malarial mosquitoes, or attack cancer cells, or repair the molecules in the brain that cause Parkinson’s Disease or Alzheimer’s. Just suppose. All of these are not only possible now, but probably inevitable.

(I can already hear some saying, but what if these new bacteria get away from us and cause havoc, even catastrophic havoc? My answer: yes, we do have to keep up our guard, but would you want to give up automobiles, computers, electricity, etc. just because sometimes they do cause serious problems?)

The main point is, if and when they come (and actually some have already come) would you call the new organisms a “natural resource?” Would you want to buy and sell these resources with our neighbors around the world or corner them for only our own use and prosperity?

The point is, like most of modern resources, like most things we call wealth today, the important thing is not the simple chemicals that come naturally out of the soil, air and water, but what human sweat and creativity has made of them. One of the most important forms of modern wealth, for instance, computers, are made of the most common of chemicals, mostly silicon, which comes from sand. Ventnor’s new bacteria too are made of the most common chemicals, water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and a few other very common elements like nitrogen, sulfur, potassium and zinc.

To be good neighbors to the rest of the planet it seems to me that our best bet would be to share the information needed to create the new wealth, like computers, vaccines, plastics, scientific laboratories, schools, books, blogs. Then we would both benefit. It would be a classic win-win exchange.

Last week I used Korea as an example of a controlled experiment in history. This week I have another experiment in mind that shows in a major way how win-win economics trumps zero-sum thinking. It also shows that there is progress in the world even if delayed.

After the First World War ended in 1917 the allies were still thinking in zero-sum ways. After you win a war, to the winners go the spoils, right? They proceeded to impose harsh revenge on Germany. They took away big chunks of its territory, stole factories and mines, imposed heavy reparations and in general made life miserable for the defeated country. The result was what they could have predicted. Germans rebelled, reorganized and rearmed for the next war. And you got Hitler, World War Two and the Holocaust.

After the Second World War the United States and her western allies took a different tack, based on a different idea, win-win economics. Instead of punishing Germany and Japan we helped them rebuild their devastated cities and economy. This strategy resulted in quick recovery, conversion to liberal democratic ways of life and peaceful win-win competitive trade where both sides became winners.

Today Germany and Japan are among the world’s richest free-market liberal democracies. And the United States, contrary to some critics, is still number one–the world’s richest, most powerful, freest and most creative country. In other words, all sides over the past sixty years, victors and vanquished (with the notable exception of those states that are today still Communist or Radical Islamic) have been winners.

Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President

P.S. You still have time. The big 2010 sale will end next week on June 1. Please take the opportunity now to stock up with top-of-the-line VHS videos and DVD programs at huge discounts. 90% for the videos, 70% for the DVDs. Your students will appreciate it next fall and you won’t be sorry. I guarantee it. See our web site above for further information and to place your order.

P.P.S. For more on the connections between win-win economics and democracy see our well-reviewed program CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY. For more on the history of genetic engineering see STEM CELLS, GENETIC ENGINEERING, THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT, CLONING: HOW AND WHY, and THE GENE ON DVD.

Korea, movies and experiments in history

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

My wife and I go to a lot of foreign movies. Not that I have anything against American movies, but my hearing is so poor that unless movies are captioned or subtitled I can’t understand most of the dialogue.

Two recent interesting films we saw came from South Korea: MOTHER and SPRING, SUMMER, FALL, WINTER … AND SPRING. The first is a mystery with an unusual twist. The second is Buddhist inspired, slow but kind of fascinating.

All of which leads me to a blog lesson for today, experiments in history.

Japan occupied and made Korea a part of the Japanese Empire in 1911. After Japan surrendered to end the 2nd World War in 1945, the Korean peninsula was occupied by Soviet armies in the north and U.S. armies in the south. The occupying armies set the 38th Parallel as an arbitrary dividing line between Soviet-dominated North Korea and U.S.-dominated South Korea.

In 1947 North Korea invaded South Korea with the intention of making the entire peninsula a communist country. President Truman got United Nations backing and went to war to defend South Korea.

Eventually the war ended in a stalemate with an armistice that divided Korea again at the 38th parallel, just where it was before the war began (and where it still is today.). This sometimes “forgotten” war (Truman called it a “police action,” not a war) cost the US over 50,000 lives and set a pattern that was repeated 20 years later in Southeast Asia when a communist North Vietnam attacked U.S. supported South Vietnam.

Even though the Korean “police action” ended in a military stalemate, the stalemate represented a significant victory for South Korea and a disaster for North Korea over the next 50 years. In a sense it was also as close to a controlled experiment as you can get in recent history.

Before the war the two Koreas were roughly equal in wealth and poverty. South Korea had more people, North Korea had more land, neither had much ethnic diversity. North Korea had more natural resources. South Korea had a somewhat warmer climate and more agriculture. Both had access to the sea. North Korea benefited from heavy subsidies from China and the Soviet Union after the armistice. South Korea benefited from United States aid, but to a lesser extent.

The major variable difference over the next 50 years was the government. In one case, North Korea, the government was a command-economy socialist dictatorship. In the other case, South Korea, the government began as a free-market authoritarian dictatorship but eventually evolved into a free-market liberal democracy. After 50 years the results of this real-life “experiment” were startling.

The gross national product per capita today is around $900 in North Korea, over $13,000 in South Korea. In North Korea, one of only two Marxist-Leninist communist countries in the 21st century (the other is Cuba), up to 2 million people died of famine and starvation in the 1990s. That was out of a total population of 22 million. The life of the survivors was in the words of one survivor “worse than a pig’s life in China.” South Korea today has, like the United States, a surplus of dieters.

South Korea is a full member of the United Nations, has the fourth largest economy in Asia, the 15th largest in the world, and is a major producer and exporter of automobiles, ships, electronics, robotics and petrochemicals. North Korean exports are meager, mostly minerals and military weapons. On the Index of Economic Freedom for 2007 North Korea came out last, 157th out of 157 measured countries. (Cuba was second to last, number 156 out of 157.) South Korea came out a respectable number 36, better than Israel, number 37, but worse than Norway, number 30.

North Korea does have a larger military than South Korea and is said to be developing first strike capabilities for nuclear bomb attacks using long range missiles. South Korea is exporting Hyundai automobiles known for superior safety and good gas mileage. And interesting movies.

Conclusion: Free-market win-win capitalism works for people, prosperity and culture. Command-economy zero-sum socialism works for the military but not so well for people, prosperity and culture.

To me this is still one more piece of evidence, if more is necessary, that socialism is inferior to capitalism. Unfortunately in practice there is a major problem. As the dedicated socialist George Bernard Shaw once quipped: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”

Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President

P.S. You still have time. The big 2010 sale will end on June 1. Please take the opportunity now to stock up with top-of-the-line VHS videos and DVD programs at huge discounts. 90% for the videos, 70% for the DVDs. Your students will appreciate it next fall and you won’t be sorry. I guarantee it. Go to our web site: for further information and to place your order.

P.P.S. For more on the connections between capitalism and democracy see our well-reviewed program CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY. For more on the history of democracy see DEMOCRACY IN WORLD HISTORY.

you can’t fool mother nature — or maybe you can

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

The Iceland volcano that spread such havoc over European airspace as well as the hurricane destruction in Haiti give more evidence, if more is really needed, that mother nature can be harsh. And also that “natural” is not a very close synonym for “good.”

Despite this evidence advertisers and gullible consumers continue to believe that foods, medicines and even furniture, buildings and shoes that are “natural,” “organic,” “no chemicals” are somehow superior to foods, medicines, furniture, buildings and shoes that use modern plastics, chemicals, and artificial ingredients. The truth is, sometimes natural is better, but sometimes artificial is better. In other words, you can fool mother nature.

I can hear some folks say “whoa, that’s a stretch. Hurricanes and volcanoes have nothing to do with organic vegetables, homeopathic cures and earth-friendly dyes and fabrics.” Well, yes, and no. How about bacteria that cause tuberculosis, mosquitoes that carry malaria, rats and mice that spread bubonic plague? All of these are “natural” and “organic” and have no added “artificial chemicals.”

Or how about DDT? Here is a chemical that has proven to be very effective in preventing malaria, fooling nature so to speak. How about the vaccines that can prevent smallpox and polio? Or the antibiotics that can cure tuberculosis, staph infections and so many other nasty diseases? Fooling nature again.

In a sense some of these vaccines and antibiotics are “natural,” (that is, some of their molecules were made originally by natural creatures like bacteria, viruses, etc.) but they have been “artificially” changed a great deal by scientists aided by many modern chemicals, plastics and other non-natural ingredients.

The point is, of course, that “natural” and “organic” do not connote safety or quality or any other adjective you want to apply. Nor of course does “artificial” or “chemical” connote safety or quality or any other adjective you want to apply. You have to narrow it down to specific cases. Some natural things, like hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, many bacteria, bugs and plants and animals are destructive to human prosperity, health and progress. So are some chemicals, like mercury, strychnine, rat poison, carbon monoxide and chlorine.

On the other hand in the correct dosage, many of these same chemicals (whether natural or man-made) can be useful in treating human illnesses and advancing human comfort and prosperity. In the very long run even hurricanes and volcanoes can be good things. Without long-ago volcanoes for instance, Hawaii and Iceland would not exist. And without long-ago violent windstorms and ice sheets, the Midwest U.S. would have no soil.

And then consider the cases of botulin toxin and of warfarin. Botulin toxin is the natural product of certain bacteria. In its pure form it is the most toxic substance known to man. 70 nanograms (that’s 0.0000000007 grams, seven parts per trillion!) are enough to kill a 200-pound man. Warfarin is almost as toxic and is commonly used to poison rats. Both botulin toxin (botox) and warfarin, on the other hand, in appropriate small doses are used today to erase wrinkles, alleviate migraine and control blood pressure. The chemical water, H2O, is actually lethal in very large doses. And of course our bodies (and those of all living creatures) are made of an amazing cocktail of chemicals from DNA to H2O.

Bruce Ames, the biochemist at the University of California-Berkeley, invented the Ames Test. This is now the international standard for deciding whether a given chemical is carcinogenic or mutagenic. He claims that after testing thousands of “industrial, man-made” chemicals and thousands of “natural” chemicals found in “organic” plants and animals, about half of each type turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic. Of course again in each case the dose is critical. But again there seemed to be no difference in the two groups. If anything the natural chemicals were more powerful.

I will admit that in one sense organic fans have a point. Living creatures have adapted to the natural chemicals over millions of years of evolution while we have not yet had time to adapt to the industrial chemicals. Evolution has probably selected for people who had genetic immunity to some natural chemicals that cause disease—by killing those who did not have such immunity before they could pass on their genes. I don’t think we want to wait that long to develop people with immunity to newly created industrial chemicals.

Still I do think the fear of “chemicals” in the food chains and natural cycles is way overdone, even as I respect the views of those who disagree and opt to eat only “organic, chemical-free” foods. In the end each case deserves unbiased research to test for risks and benefits.

But hey, let’s have a little respect for language. Is there such a thing as non-organic food? Is there such a thing as chemically-free anything? And when you get down to it, the only thing that is not natural is … well, nothing at all.

So it’s true, on the one hand you can fool mother nature. We do it all the time. On the other hand you can’t fool mother nature–because we are mother nature!

Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President

P.S. You still have time. The big 2010 sale will end on June 1. Please take the opportunity now to stock up with top-of-the-line VHS videos and DVD programs at huge discounts. 90% for the videos, 70% for the DVDs. Your students will appreciate it next fall and you won’t be sorry. I guarantee it. Go to our web site: for further information and to place your order.

P.P.S. For more on the connection chemicals and health see our well-reviewed program DISEASE AND HEALTH as well as our popular programs CHEMICAL CYCLES IN THE BIOSPHERE, FOOD CHAINS IN THE BIOSPHERE and LOUIS PASTEUR PROVES GERMS CAUSE DISEASE.

genes and memes

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

The lessons you learn early along at home and in school leave lasting imprints on the mind. This is not big news. Biologist Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene calls these lessons, memes. And he claims that some of these memes are every bit as important as genes in guiding the individual’s fortunes and in the long run in nudging the course of human history.

“Just as genes propagate themselves in a gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs,” he wrote, “so memes propagate themselves in the same pool by leaping from brain to brain.”

Like genes, memes also mutate and cause mutations in their parasitic leaps from brain to brain by means of music, books, talk, television, Internet, etc. In other words just as there is a geosphere (inanimate matter) and a biosphere (living matter) so there is a “noosphere” (world of thought) that compliments, interacts with and sometimes guides the geosphere and the biosphere.

I think this noosphere is real and is important in history.

One example: as a child in the depression days I remember asking my father why President Roosevelt didn’t just print some money and give it to people like us who needed it. I don’t remember his answer. He probably didn’t have one. (Actually Roosevelt did try to do that. It didn’t work very well.)

That idea however–that meme– that the government can and should solve all of our economic problems is a powerful one that has lasted right up to this day. Our founding fathers back in 1776 looked forward to a prosperous America. But they expected it to come not from government efforts so much as the growth of independent American farms, businesses and industry. And so it has. The government had an important part of course. That was primarily to defend the new country and to free the citizens from tyrannical rulers, royal and clerical, so that they could then produce wealth and prosperity.

Calvin Coolidge was president when I was born. For the most part he agreed with the founding fathers. My wife Jane shares a summer house in Vermont adjacent to the Coolidge farm and land. Often we have visited the Coolidge homestead in Plymouth, Vermont. The small post office in Plymouth has an upper attic room that was the “summer white house” in the Coolidge administration of the 1920s. They sell a post card there now with a picture of Cal and his two secretaries (his only two secretaries) in a bare room roughly 25 feet by 25 feet, opening a mail pouch. That was it. The summer white house!

Silent Cal is often ridiculed today. You have probably heard the perhaps apocryphal story about the fancy White House dinner party where a lovely lady seated next to the President said to him, “a friend bet me Mr. President that I couldn’t get more than three words from you.” Cal answered, “you lose.”

Some pundits love to mock his other much repeated quote that “the business of America is business.” Actually the quote is reasonably accurate but critics rarely put it in context. If you do so I think you might agree that he had some points we would be wise to consider today.

“After all,” Coolidge said in his speech before a gathering of businessmen, “The business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. … Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture. Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it.”

In contrast consider Franklin Roosevelt’s attitude toward wealth. His attorney general, Homer Cummings, defended his boss’s visceral hatred of wealthy businessmen and once said “I cannot understand why it is immoral to stop people from becoming rich.”

Perhaps he should go to China as Jane and I did a few years ago. We came upon a street festival in a small city in Yunnan Province (one of the poorer provinces of China) where a group of women were singing to a large crowd. A translator said the lyrics were “it’s great to be rich!” What’s the world coming to when China is lecturing us about the virtues of capitalism?

During Coolidge’s six years of office we had an average unemployment of 3% and inflation of 1%, the lowest “misery index” for any president of the 20th century.

Unfortunately we seem to be now travelling down the Roosevelt path rather then the Jefferson/Washington/Hamilton/Franklin/Coolidge one. The meme that says to take from Peter to pay Paul will always get the support of Paul. In the long run both Peter and Paul will suffer however.

Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President

P.S. You still have time. The big 2010 sale will end on June 1. Please take the opportunity now to stock up with top-of-the-line VHS videos and DVD programs at huge discounts. 90% for the videos, 70% for the DVDs. Your students will appreciate it next fall and you won’t be sorry. I guarantee it. Go to our web site: for further information and to place your order.

P.P.S. For more on the connection between business and democracy (and prosperity) see our well-reviewed new program CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY.