Posted on 07/23/2003 10:03:09 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
In Back to Basics for the Republican Party author Michael Zak (FR's distinguished patriot, Grand Old Partisian) undertakes the heroic and herculean task of clearing the name of the Republican Party from the thicket of lies, distortions and misrepresentations which has been cultivated by the Democrat/media alliance. Since any partisian argument in today's America must begin with the refutation of chronic and consistent lies told about the GOP, Zak's book provides the necessary ammunition to do just that.
This well-written, interesting and enjoyable tour of GOP history can be of use to any patriot who wants to know the truth about the histories of the two major parties. It traces the origins of the GOP to the proto-Republican, Alexander Hamilton, and the Federalists and that of the Democrat Party to its ancestors Jefferson, Clinton and Burr. A brief survery of Federalist and Whig antecedents and policies is sketched to give historic context to events. Since the GOP was created and grew in opposition to the policies and failures of the Democrat Party to extend the benefits of the Constitution to all Americans, that party's history is also examined.
And a sorry history it is. A story of treachery, short-sightedness, racism and economic ignorance unfolds as we see the Democrats consistently for 170+ years fight against allowing the Blacks a chance to achieve full freedom and economic success. Opposition to that fight has defined the best of the GOP's actions. Every advance in Civil Rights for Blacks has come from GOP initiatives and against Democrat opposition. Every setback for Blacks achieving constitutional protection has come from Democrat intitiatives and against GOP opposition. Racists have led the Democrats during most of their history, in sharp contrast to Republicans. All the evils visited against Black are of Democrat design. Democrats created and maintained the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Black Codes, it was Democrats lynching Blacks, beating Blacks, exploiting Blacks and perpetrating murderous riots which killed Blacks in
Zak rescues the reputation of the party from the slanders thrown against it during the Civil War and Reconstruction, many of which are popular around FR. He also clearly shows the mistaken disavowal of GOP principles which brought the modern party to its lowest state and allowed the demagogues of Democrats to paint the party as "racist." This was because of the disastrous turn to States' Rights which grew from the Goldwater campaign. It was the final straw in the process which transformed the share of the Black vote from 90-95% GOP to 90% democrat. A modern tragedy of immense proportions.
This is a book which should be studied carefully by Republicans in order to counter the barrage of Lies trumpeted daily by the RAT/media. While it is a work of a partisian, Back to Basics does not hesitate to point to GOP mistakes, failures and incompetence in carrying out its mission nor does it neglect to give Democrats credit when credit is due for actions which are productive of good for our nation as a whole. Unfortunately, those are far too few.
In order to effectively plan for the future we must be fully aware of the past, Zak helps us achieve that awareness.
False. You did not provide it for the first time until well after I asked for it. At the time I asked you had also claimed to have provided it even though you had not.
Dictionary authors are rarely requested since there are hundreds for some books.
False. The book you allegedly quote is not a lexigraphical volume in the normal sense of the word but a specialized reference for a single field, economics. As such it is not the least bit unusual that it would have only one or two authors.
The cover does not make the authors' names obvious.
Then open it up and look inside at the title page!
If I posted the American Heritage Dictionary would you whine "who are the authors" for that, too?
No, because the American Heritage Dictionary is a general dictionary and not a field reference. It is also the only book by that title and therefore easily verifiable.
Since you obviously do not understand the purpose behind providing citations, I will happily inform you. Aside from serving as a means of accreditation for the work of others (thus avoiding plagiarism) citations permit the source of your work to be independently verified with ease by other persons. That way others can determine if you are accurately presenting the material you claim and if the material itself is valid. If your citation does not provide enough information to permit another person to independently verify it, it is no good and no different than if you were claiming an anonymous authority. In your case, failure to provide a title (as was initially true with your book prior to me requesting that title) makes independent verification virtually impossible. And in cases where the title is not unique or easily distinguishable from other similar titles, an author is also required for verification. This is also true of your book as there are many dictionaries of economics by many different authors.
Even the simple definition posted shows you are wrong.
False. The definition you provided is itself too simplistic to even make that determination. Besides, as I have already show via an immeasurably stronger authority that your alleged dictionary, Adam Smith, your original definition misplaced the purpose of mercantilism. The "ultimate object" of the mercantile system, notes Smith, "is always the same." It is "to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade." Or just as I said, to accumulate national wealth.
Perhaps you are unaware that there is a difference in writing a thesis or college paper and posting comments here?
Not at all. The standards of citation for posting here are inherently more relaxed than for a formal paper. But being relaxed does not equal being non-existant. That is why it is only reasonable to expect simple verification information such as title and author. You do not need to post a formal bibliography but you do need to provide your sources when you quote from them. If you quote somebody without attribution here you are still plagiarizing their words. And if you quote somebody without providing even basic identifiers such as those two I mentioned, your appeal to their authority is no better than if it were anonymous.
So if authorities differ, you can't reference them?
You can reference them to your heart's content, but you cannot conclude upon a disputed authority that the said authority is proof of your correctness in an absolute sense.
Why don't you show me the economist who holds a dissenting view of mercantilism? If you can find one.
Already have. "[The Mercantile System's] ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture, and of the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations in all foreign markets; and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities, of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities...It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it." - Smith, Wealth of Nations, IV-VIII
...and that is why you should avoid using dictionaries to make conclusive characterizations of complex economic theories.
Simple dictionaries do not go into all the ramifications of such complex theories.
...and that is why you should avoid using dictionaries to make conclusive characterizations of complex economic theories.
The book I referenced was one I found one day at a used book store and I only use it as a first cut.
And for that purpose it was obviously deficient. So again that is why you should avoid using dictionaries to make conclusive characterizations of complex economic theories.
More extensive definitions are available but I didn't have them available.
Smith's analysis of mercantilism is readily available all over the internet and provides a very precise and carefully worded definition of the system. Would you like me to quote it for you again? Here you go:
"[The mercantile system's] ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture, and of the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations in all foreign markets; and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities, of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture in order that our own people may be enabled to work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities...It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it." - Smith, Wealth of Nations, IV-VIII
But rather than work on clarifying, extending or making more accurate the definition from the book, you prefer to attack my honesty and do nothing to come up with a better definition.
False. I've already provided you with a better definition from Smith. It is copied above for your use. As for your honesty, I only attack it because it is clear that in the case of your citation ability that honesty is lacking. If you do not like me attacking it you should not fib in the first place.
Smith discusses gold with ample detail in the other chapters. But that is not the substance of mercantilism as he defines it - only an attribute. Mercantilism's "ultimate object" which "is always the same" no matter what aspect of mercantilism is being discussed, notes Smith, is not gold itself but "to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade." In other words, national wealth.
In order to understand it one needs to recall that all the goals of the system are designed to increase the stocks of a nation's precious metals.
You are still confusing attributes with substance. The goal of the system, as in its "ultimate object," is to "enrich the country," meaning to accumulate wealth. Acquiring gold, silver, or some other metal of value CAN BE a means of doing so under the system and OFTEN WAS the preferred means of doing so, but gold too is part of another greater end, that of accumulating wealth.
Gold and silver are the means of measurement for mercantilism and a trade balance.
They are a means. They are a means to the end of accumulating national wealth, and that end is the defining object of mercantilism, not a means of pursuing it, which is an attribute.
The point of all this quibbling about the definition of mercantilism is your pretense that Hamilton was a mercantilist.
And he was. The straight forward definition of mercantilism from Adam Smith states that "[The mercantile system's] ultimate object, however, it pretends, is always the same, to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the exportation of the materials of manufacture, and of the instruments of trade, in order to give our own workmen an advantage, and to enable them to undersell those of other nations in all foreign markets; and by restraining, in this manner, the exportation of a few commodities, of no great price, it proposes to occasion a much greater and more valuable exportation of others." Hamilton, as his economics writings indicate, pursued that same end by those same policies. Therefore his economic theory was a form of mercantilism.
Thus, his program did NOT, as mercantilism did, try to increase the money supply through programs concentrated on increasing the supply of metals through but rather through the system of national credit.
In other words, his programs tried to use government tools of trade and money to increase national wealth - the "ultimate object" of mercantilism, which "is always the same" in mercantilism, and which, accroding to Smith, defines mercantilism. Thus Hamilton was a mercantilist. Live with it.
False. Prior to my many requests for even simplest of documentation it would have been physically impossible for any individual to determine the exact origin of your quote by any means other than comparing its text to arbitrarily chosen dictionaries in a random search for a match. You did not sufficiently identify either the title or authors at any point prior to my asking, and even then only with great difficulty. As for participation in quibbling at the expense of substantive discussion, you may turn to yourself for both an example of that action and the source at which blame properly rests. Rather than responding to my simple and informal requests for such basic information as a title and author as any reasonable, polite, and sane individual would have no difficulty doing, you first attempted to pass the fib that you had already done so despite a documented failure to do so and then posted them only after repeated further requests on my part. It is without hesitation and with full merit I may note that your behavior over this issue of book titles is not normal. It is instead indicative of a severe psychological inability on your part to even so much as accomodate a request that you source your claim, much less concede your initial error in failing to do so or your subsequent error in fibbing about that same failure to do so. That, fake-it, is the source of this so-called quibble about your book and it is one that you could have ended days ago.
My citation was sufficient to avoid any fear of phlagarism.
False. Quoting a passage from a book while simultaneously failing to identify either its author or its title is by definition an act of plagiarism. You did not provide a title or author at the time you quoted, nor even after it until you were subjected to repeated requests to do so.
You are a comedian! That's what you've been doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.