I'd Rather Listen to Insects Buzz

Brilliant reply!

The reply of an ostrich.

You might've invited him to hear what you have to say on the matter or ask if he'd like to have his plan critiqued.

"The reply of an ostrich."

I disagree, of course.

Politicians are not serious about economics. They pursue office, not truth. To pretend otherwise -- or to offer them trappings that mask their pursuit of office as something more intellectually or emotionally appealing than what it really is -- is to enable their duplicity and awfulness.

It is inconceivable that Barack Obama or John McCain would say anything about the economy that he believed to be true IF he feared that saying that something would diminish his electoral prospects.

Why pretend otherwise?

I do not object to someone else inviting Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain to campus. I have no interest whatsoever in telling others who they can invite or who they can listen to.

But I -- I, Don Boudreaux -- want no part of giving a platform to a politician. I -- I, Don Boudreaux -- want to play no role in pretending that campaign speeches have any end other than maximizing the speaker's prospects of securing elective office.

Don - but what about a nifty job in the Obama administration? That's what TL was accusing you of - ignoring future job prospects!

I think what Don was saying is that Obama won't be convicted for how he quote manages the economy unquote. He'll be convicted on some charge related to campaign memorabilia.

Socrates did not shun Euthydemus and Dionysodorus for their Sophistry, he sought them out.

It is reasonable to conjecture that your students, if they remain curious, will be hearing weak arguments for unsound policies from charismatic speakers throughout their adult lives. An opportunity to hear them made in person, with a chance to ask questions — possibly prepared questions — of the speaker is an opportunity to grasped.

No he is no economist but he is a scholar of the constitution. Thus I suspect all professors of constitutional law would allow their students to hear him speak.

Then the day will come when we have an actual economist for a presidential candidate.... I guess he could speak for Prof Boudreaux students... but of course he should not be allowed to speak to the constitutional scholars students.

Don let your students decide. And besides Mr. Obama has at his side some of the worlds best economist and an open mid with which to take their advice.

It's cynical to think a politician should be an expert in all professions to qualify for office or to presume yours is the only one that matters.

Muirgeo,

If Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek were still alive and seriously sought high political office, they would abandon their economics immediately and become duplicitous and power-greedy.

By the way, I wonder if Constitutional Law Professor Obama ever read Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution that enumerates the very limited powers delegated to the national government.

Then Obama would have later said:

"In the lecture I gave to the economic department at George Mason University, I explained to them how..."

thus boosting his appearance of having knowledge & credibility in economic matters at the expense of your own. Yes, Don, you did the right thing.

Politicians should not need to be experts in all professions. Unfortunately, they like to adopt powers which not even an expert in all professions would be fit to wield.

By the way, I wonder if Constitutional Law Professor Obama ever read Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution that enumerates the very limited powers delegated to the national government.

Of course he read it, Don. It's very important that one has a detailed understanding of the rules one is intent on violating.

I think of the constitution as the book of regulations for government. Like all regulated parties, those in government have learned how to circumvent it. Those who are the most successful in circumventing the restrictions put upon them also understand the nuances of the restrictions better than anyone.

Don,

I think that, on occassion, there is a happy coincidence of truth, honesty, and political success (Winston Churchill in the run up to World War II, perhaps?). It is rare, however, for truth and honesty to be the best strategy to gain political office. Usually, the political process promotes to the top those who believe their own nonsense--they're the best "liars".

This was just the rope-a-dope.

The first step was to get you to decline the invitation. Step two is to call you a racist.

Then they've marginalized you and made you suspect as far as any media outlets are concerned. You can expect to see your acceptance of editorial letters decline.

"It's cynical to think a politician should be an expert in all professions to qualify for office or to presume yours is the only one that matters." -muirgeo

Care to explain where Don says economics is ONLY issue that matters, muirgeo? Aside from that, given the destructive powers of government (Hoover and FDR) thinking that it's okay to be less than competent at knowing how economics works and how the government (usually negatively) effects the economy is pretty irresponsible.

This brings me to my broader question: why do people put words in other people's mouths? Is it because they can't argue against the position that's been given, so change the topic to erect a straw man to tear down? In addition to muirgeo, Holaday adopts the position that since you will definitely not invite or make any effort to invite Obama to GMU, that you will take any effort to prevent him from talking at GMU and denying your students an audience with him, even after you explicitly say "I do not object to someone else inviting Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain to campus."

Hmmmmm - I guess common courtesy in such a reply must not be within the skillset of either an academician or a libertarian...can't decide which it is.

Either way, while you have the absolute right to espouse any view you like, you certainly don't have to be an ass about it. And you certainly were an ass.

Obama was here last year, all the young, impressionable students packed the campus commons building (the Johnson Center). I took advantage of the relatively light inner-campus traffic (it can get really congested) and high-tailed it on outta there.

Students who want a faculty that will actively participate in enabling visits by policy makers should go to Georgetown.

I certainly understand your point, Don, but I see a larger issue. You are in the business of preparing students for a world in which they confront cockeyed schemes, fuzzy logic, and bogus theories on a daily basis.

How better to prepare them than to confront such in an academic setting? Here you can confront the devil head-on, bolster your students' thinking, and give them the fortitude to say "No Thanks" to the huckster.

>>It's cynical to think a politician should be an expert in all professions to qualify for office or to presume yours is the only one that matters.<<

I only wish that Bush would have spoken about the things that physicians do...so I could watch you go apeshit and show yourself for the hypocritical lemming that you are.

muirgeo says:

"And besides Mr. Obama has at his side some of the worlds best economist and an open mid with which to take their advice."

Subjective...

At a certain point you have to say NO to the devil, that you will not allow him a forum. At a certain point you must FIGHT the devil and destroy it.

True_Liberal, you can do all that without enabling the guy to come to campus. It's not like Obama is not all over the news and it's not like Don is prohibited from talking about him to his students.

muirgeo says:

"And besides Mr. Obama has at his side some of the worlds best economist and an open mind with which to take their advice."

Like the very smart people who formerly ran Freddie/Fannie and are now available for government service. Judging from their votes on the bailout, both Obama and McCain are very open minded about taking advice from those who couldn't see the train that ran them down.

The failure of schools to educate a large number of people have divided us into haves and have nots. Obama, and other politicians, simply want to appease the have nots with more government (taxpayer) money. Certainly, this is an understandable economic principle. It is an effective way to buy votes. As someone once said, everything has a price.

jorod - I can only hope that people educate themselves enough through the internet to deprogram sufficiently from their public school brainwashing.

Hmmmmm - I guess common courtesy in such a reply must not be within the skillset of either an academician or a libertarian...can't decide which it is.

Either way, while you have the absolute right to espouse any view you like, you certainly don't have to be an ass about it. And you certainly were an ass.

Posted by: nunya | Oct 9, 2008 7:50:13 PM

Ha! You sound so wounded, nunya. Some people have so much emotion invested in their candidates.

I say invite him... On the terms that he must debate his proposed policies with a senior in the undergraduate econ program... It'd be comedy gold.

This blog is my salvation. No where else do I meet so many people that think like I do about economics. Thank you!

You should have invited him. Then laughed everytime he included some horrible economic fallacy to buttress his points. I imagine that Obama's lecture would, to use a stand-up comedic term, kill.

There's nothing a tyrant fears more than the people's laughter...

Don,

I would put forth that you were not, in fact, an ass, and rather that you were honest. It seems to me that most people can not handle an honest assessment, and rather desire you to sugar coat your words with nonsense.

I agree though that it might have been fun to require Obama debate a student, or at least have a buzzer to sound when he voiced fallacy. Of course, I doubt he would ever agree to such a debate, considering that "debate" in current political parlance consists mainly of one sentance dodges followed by prepared speeches.

I greatly enjoy the blog, and salute your honesty and integrity in this matter.

You should have accepted, but on the grounds that he be interviewed on this subject by an actual economist and then set Rustici up to do the interview.

Based on the transformations I've witnessed at various seminars through the years (especially IHS's), I fantasize about Obama sitting down with Don, Russell, Vernon Smith, Peter Boettke, and other GMU Economics professors and gaining over the course of hours of conversation an understanding of markets that he had never had. He would grasp for the first time that his "economic" policy positions have had little to do with current economic knowledge and he would dedicate himself to remedying that basic error.

Vernon Smith fancied socialist ideals long ago, too. He would be able to discuss his intellectual growth and its empirical basis in a way that Obama could identify with and might find inspirational.

I agree with Don that the likelihood of changing Obama's mind is not particularly high, and I respect his decision in this matter. However, I've seen people's minds open up to the philosophy of liberty, people who seemed to me to be more stridently socialist than Obama. I can't help but contemplate the possible gains from Obama adopting a free market perspective.

Short of meeting with Obama, which wouldn't be likely anyway, here's an idea. Perhaps, the GMU Economics Dept. would consider writing a full page open letter to McCain and Obama in which it implores them to check their premises and realize that free markets are the complex, adaptive problem-solving means to the peaceful achievement of the social ends they espouse (ie, more entrepreneurial opportunities, health care options, and wealth for the most people). This would serve many ends, not least of which is to stem the tide of fraudulent accusations about markets failing that daily spew forth from mainstream media.

Cheers,

Adam

The request from Oama's supporter was not about Obama coming to consult, but to outline his economic platform.

Hans nailed. The news story would have been about Obama addressing the economics department at GMU.

If the request had been about Obama coming to seek advice...sans publicity, maybe, otherwise don't let politicians maneuver you into providing implicit endorsement.

Quote from muirgeo: "No he is no economist but he is a scholar of the constitution."

Man, you are a funny guy.

Unfortunately, your assessment of politicians is true not just of your specialty, but of specialties in general. Anytime I have ever heard a presidential candidate (or most other politicians) talk about something where I had actual knowledge, I have been shocked by the shallowness of their understanding.

Dr. Boudreaux, after reading this post and having read ‘Globalization’, I vote your next book be posed in the same smartness as your blog.

Your flair for sharp-wittiness is superb. Two thumbs up!

You stand firm by your economica belief and knowledge. As an economist and libertarian sympathizer it makes me sick how many politician and specially lawyers think they can speak properly about Economics (I speak for what constantly happens in my country Honduras). If I`m not a scholar of an specific topic I´ll be humble and wise enough to shut my mouth and listen to more learned people. But that doesn´t matter when the only incentive you have is to obtain power, and its a good strategy to tell people (the masses) what the "circumstances" indicate you they want to hear about. In a certain way this people use free market forces - supply of Rethorics filled with hope for a current demand of uncertainty and naiveness - conciously or unconciously.

Any ways, GMU is not the place for politicians to talk about Economics, maybe they would make a good experiment of how incentives drive people to say gibberish, and students might want to write an essay on this... So good call Don B.

PS (neither candidate should come and speak to GMU about economics)

I would contend that an invitation to both presidential politicians to come consult with GMU's Economics faculty, including recent Nobel Prize winning scholar Vernon Smith, would be a worthwhile proposition. I'm picturing a no-bullshit, no media weekend-long seminar/Q&A style free market boot camp for the next POTUS.

Yes, I'm still fantasizing.

Dustin --

As a recent law-school grad, I was surprised at how much economics is actually taught in law school today. That probably varies a lot school-to-school, but there is a huge "law and economics" movement to try to understand the law through the eyes of an economist. It's telling that Richard Posner and Gary Becker have a joint blog.

Now, that's fairly recent -- too many of the lawyers in Congess have never heard of this approach.

"Spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks just in time when the market is hurting the most," McCain said to cheers at a western Wisconsin rally. "We have to protect investors, particularly those who are relying on investments for retirement."

John McCain

That's what we're doing alright. We are not bailing out the mortgages of trailer trash. We're protecting "investors", and it's far from over.

"McCain also told the crowd of his mortgage bailout plan. He said in his debate with Democratic rival Barack Obama on Tuesday that his administration would spend $300 billion to buy bad mortgages and help homeowners refinance into more affordable loans."

Now, that's a bailout of home debtors, if it ever happens, but it's a bailout of the "investors" too. Basically, it broadens support for the "investor" bailout, like all those sweeteners for various Congressmen in the bailout bill.

First, we bailout the bond holders by purchasing their bonds for more than the market value, based on some theoretical "hold to maturity" price that assumes the debts home buyers accepted before the bubble burst.

Next, we bail out the home debtors by writing a new mortgage at the post-bubble value of their house, thus making a sham of the "hold to maturity" value (which is a sham anyway).

This two-step process simply creates rents for the "investors" from the fictitious, pre-bubble value of these houses, but the home debtor doesn't pay the rent. Taxpayers do.

Needless to day, in a genuine market economy, the people who wrote these mortgages and bought these bonds bear these costs. The costs aren't socialized to taxpayers.

Capitalism is rent seeking writ large.

Come on, Obama has many great advisors. Take for example his proposed vice president, who appears to think that the office he seeks is defined by Article I of the Constitution. Now I am no lawyer—oops sorry a little piece of paper in my wallet says that I am—but I recall the office of vice president being defined by Article II of the Constitution. However, at the same time he says that the Vice President has no role in the legislative branch. What? I seem to remember something about the Vice President being the President of the Senate. Like Don and Russ, I am used to politicians having little knowledge or blatant disregard for the Constitution, but I have yet to see a clown blow it this bad. Then again, perhaps if Neil Kinnock had read the U.S. Constitution, then Joe may have known better.

Socialist enculturation has become so pervasive, as I have said before, that most people (even those who think of themselves as staunch conservatives) have no idea of how ignorant they are and how indoctrinated they are.

Was being domestic this morning at 5:15AM, cleaning the juicer for the wife, and had the Walton & Johnson show on for something to listen to. They were talking to the founder of GOOOH (Get Out Of Our House) about the requirements for people who wanted to become a participant and/or candidate with GOOOH's support.

Walton said, "As I understand it, anyone left wing or right wing can get the support as long as they pledge to remain moral." I had my coffee to my lips at that moment and had to clean up the spew from that bit of stupidity.

There was a man who repeatedly comes out against socialism not understanding for a bit that the fact that a person declares themselves to be left wing, by definition is admitting to immorality in that he believes in a theology that has as its root belief that theft is moral if it is done in the name of the people.

To further this thought just view upthread the comments by nunya, muirduck, and T L Holaday. Are these people just plain stupid?

T.L.Holaday, you think Prof Boudreaux is being an ostrich because he sees no need to provide a forum for Obama's stupidity? Christ man, if you are dumb enough to think that hearing Obama prove he is ignorant about economics, when day after day he makes that clear on the national stage, by providing him with a venue at GMU then sir, it is you that is mentally defective and deliberately blind.

Muirduck we can dismiss because we know he is stupid.

nunya shows by her response that she is a sideshow joke. Obama and his supporters are dumber than a box of rocks if they think he knows shit about markets and economics, and that is exactly what they want you to believe, so yes, they are dumber than a box of rocks.......God I just wish McCain knew something about economics.

I heard on the news coming home that the Fed is going to buy stock in private banks. Of course the news presented it as "the government" buying stock. The Fed is not government.

True Liberal,

"How better to prepare them than to confront such in an academic setting? Here you can confront the devil head-on, bolster your students' thinking, and give them the fortitude to say "No Thanks" to the huckster.

Posted by: True_Liberal | Oct 9, 2008 8:32:14 PM"

Sir, do you really think the Obama campaign would ever let that happen, do you really think they would even agree to him showing up to face unknown and confrontational knowledgeable questions that would reveal his ignorance, do you really think that the results of that would ever be known outside of "word of mouth" reporting on blogs because the MSM would not show the American public how Obama would be revealed as an empty suit.

Yeah right.

From an article on Yahoo news:

"Paulson said the U.S. program would be designed to complement banks' own efforts to raise fresh capital from private sources. The government's stock purchases will be of nonvoting shares so it will not have power to run the companies."

The Fed, meanwhile, has repeatedly tapped its Depression-era authority to be a lender of last resort, not only to financial institutions but also to other types of companies. Earlier this week, the Fed said it would buy massive amounts of companies' debts, in another unprecedented effort to break through the credit clog."

The FED is privately owned by about 7 different owners, of which only two ar4e American.

If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, then I have not the imgaination to think of what would.

T.L. Holaday,

My earlier response directed to your word of Ostrich was written before I later had time to see your follow-on rational.

Though I still disagree and for the reasons stated, I apologize for the tone. I think you are wrong and naive on the Ostrich idea, but I can see that you had some rational behind your word. Which makes my dismisal and tone inexcusable, again my apoligies.

This is no excuse just an explanation. I had just returned from 4 days of 10 hours each dealing with the nation's 2nd largest wealth distribution system, plaintiff's attornies, and was in a disgusted frame of mind. I didn't take the time to read through the entire postings.

vidyohs, would you care to elaborate on the private ownership of the Fed? I'm befuddled as to what you mean by that.

That's a vague question CR.

When I was a tyke I saw signs in front of banks that said things such as; "First State Bank", "Texas State Bank", "State Bank", "First National Bank of America", etc. etc. and in my youthful naive state I thought that that meant the State of Texas owned the banks. Of course time provided the truth.

Now, you see the words Federal Reserve Bank and you think that that means the Federal government owns it and it somehow holds wealth in reserve that can be tapped by the U.S. Federal government.

Think logically of the implications that such a belief has to have.

If I own my wealth can I borrow my wealth? I can word it that way if I choose but in fact I would just be moving my wealth from one designated spot to another. If by moving my wealth would I be creating personal debt? Would that not just be the shell game on a national level?

No, CR, study the history of the Federal Reserve what the wealthy bankers that own it had to go through in order to get it established to serve as the "Central Bank" of the USA.

The Morgan family, the Rockefeller family, the Rothchilds, the Warburgs, the Lazarrus, and a couple of others whose names escape my immediate memory formed the cartel that owns the Federal Reserve, which as a private entity can loan to the government of the USA. But, they have nothing in the way of wealth in reserve, they just create the money out of thin air, paper money, and accept our government's pledge of the people's labor as collateral.

Oh, you say, but the president of the USA appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Yes he does, but from what list of candidates and which is provided by who; finally what does it matter? Even cursory observation should have taught you by now that the president does not tell the FED chairman what to do, he requests or asks; ditto for congress.

When the Chairman of the FED adjusts interest rates, after meeeting with the owners and discussing how much the change will be, he is not protecting anything but the investments of his employers.

Oh well, nuff said. Do some serious research and you'll find your elaboration.

Here is what they should be doing!

“America’s Self Preservation Plan” 9-11-2008

As our government meets with congress to debate and develops a “Financial Rescue Package” for our economy, let me make it quick and easy for them by giving them what I feel is the peoples plan.

America’s Self Preservation Plan

This Plan is so easy and I guarantee it will end our recession quickly, boost the economy, increase the world value of the US dollar, significantly reduce global warming and the US carbon footprint, eliminate our dependency on foreign fossil fuels, create jobs, reduce wars saving lives, reduce hunger, keep US wealth in America, and make history and all of this by 9-11-2011.

You may be saying to yourself, this is not possible; no plan can ever achieve all of these great things, it would be too good to be true and difficult to implement!

Well, you are all wrong, this plan is so easy and simple, it can be achieved by the American people making only one decision in their life, without spending a dime, with little effort, in fact, it will probably save you money for you.

Believe me this plan is fool proof. .

How can this be done? Well here is my simple plan in one sentence

1. Park your gas vehicle and purchase a compressed air car within the next year or at least put one on order, it will not cost you a dime more than your spending now, it basically will be free. (Read on this plan will make total sense soon, I promises.)

How can this be the whole plan? Simple, these cars will be for sale in the US beginning in 2009. These cars will cost approximately $16,000.00 but, as I said, it will not cost you a dime more than you’re paying not for transportation. You will pay for this car over the next 3 years with the extra money you will save ($200 to $400/month) by not fueling your gasoline powered vehicle. Compressed air cars can travel up to 90 mph and approximately 125 miles on a $2.00 tank of compressed air. (Google search compressed air cars for more details on this technology), but I am not here to promote any particular car manufacturer, I am here to explain how my simple economic plan if fool proof.

If we all purchase ( again, no real cost purchase) these cars at the same time this out cry of the American people will force the government into providing tax credits, incentives and low interest financing. Banks and car manufacturers will look at these loans as safe investment and will easily grant them to the consumers but in won’t really matter to us because these cars are fairly inexpensive and will not cost you any more out of pocket money then you are currently sending fueling your gas vehicle. In fact, most people will save money and be driving a new environmentally friendly, green vehicle for free.

With the extra money in our pocket, the consumers can purchase a small compressed air refueling system for their home from their local compressed gas/propane distributor. You can also just plug in your vehicle over night and it will recharge by it self. Gas stations may not cooperate with the transition of their tanks and pumps from gasoline to compressed air so the government may need to aid in pushing through simple regulation for compressed air home refueling systems along with financing and incentives for localized compressed air refueling stations to speed up the process.

That’s it! “The America’s Self Preservation Plan”, how easy was that?

Now you’re asking yourself, how will this no cost purchase of these cars by the American people achieve all of the great things I stated in my opening paragraph?

Easy and here is how it wills all falls into place!

1. The end of our recession and a boost for the economy: most car driving American families I know are spending between $50 to $100 dollars a week in gas refueling, minimum. This equates to $200 to $400 dollars for gas minimum per month. This money is substantial and in not going into the American economy. Most of the money is going overseas making a few people very wealthy. These very wealthy people have too much money with little needs, they do not live in the US and therefore they are not putting it back into the American economy. If consumers, instead of rich oil lords, are saving this money and putting it into the American economy it will result in a proven continuous stimulus package. Consumers will spend the extra money on home purchases, renovations, electronics, cars, vacations, air travel, investments, cure cancer, heart disease etc. Most importantly the cost of oil per barrel will begin to plunge drastically to compensate for the surplus in world oil, reducing gas prices at our pumps. The reduction of gas prices will further help the economy and aid in the transition phase to total compressed air transportation. Other technologies such as generators and heating system boilers etc will emerge from the compressed air technology reducing oil dependencies further.

2. Increased value of the US dollar: Once the US starts climbing out of the recession and the price of oil per barrel starts to fall the value of the US dollar will increase, basic economics. Quality of life will be better; as US citizen can then return to traveling once more out side of the country.

3. Reduced global warming and US carbon footprint: These cars have zero emissions! The US consumes the majority of the world fossil fuels resulting in significant US pollution and emissions. I understand that you need to consume fossil fuels to produce compressed air but this type of generation produces far less emissions and can be regulated easier. Power to manufacture compressed air can also be produced by alternate energies such as nuclear, coal, hydro-electric, solar, fuel cells, cogeneration, wind generation, wave generation etc, all American made self supported technologies. Let’s not forget the reduction of oil spill risk and disasters which involve costly environmental clean up, reduced off shore drilling and terrible affects oil spills have on habitats. By the way, does anyone really know what the effect of removing all of this oil from the ground is doing to our planet? What about the energy saving resulting from not having to pump the oil from the fields, transferring of oil to gas stations buy trucks and tankers etc?

4. Eliminate our dependency on foreign fossil fuels: If the majority of us purchase compressed air cars this will force all US car manufacturers to get into this arena and other transportation vehicles such as trucks boats etc will soon follow eventually eliminating the need for foreign fossil fuel dependency.

5. Create jobs: Compressed air home or centralized refueling stations will need to be installed and built, all US car manufacturers will need to get hire labor and get into production of compressed air vehicles very quickly. Why do you think American’s buy foreign cars? It’s because they get better gas mileage and the vehicles are more dependable! Well, all compressed cars will get great MPG’s and the US car manufacturers will be forced into producing a dependable engine and vehicle. I was in the manufacturing field for many years and I know these cars can be produced within a short period to time.

6. Reduce wars and save lives: If you think 9-11-2001 and our current crisis in the Middle East is not because of oil terrorism you have been living under a rock. Our young men are being killed and permanently damaged because we are dependant upon oil.

7. Reduce Hunger: Corn field and oil fields used for energy can be farmed to produce more food for the hungry. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of land not producing food, why. The Government can offer more farm-aid for this transition.

8. Keep US wealth in America. Yes we have witnessed history in the making twice in less then 10 years. 9-11-2001 and 2008, right now. For those of you who are not aware of the situation, US wealth is exiting our shores faster then it has ever done before in our history. Many wealthy people, investors etc are leaving the country to protect their $$ investments due to high taxes, low dollar value etc. This combined with the high foreign oil prices is resulting in our countries wealth exiting our boarders at a rate never seen before in history. Yes, if you have not figured it out oil controls our economy and foreign oil lords are in the driving seat, pretty frightening.

I hope I made all of you a believer in my plan, its fool proof. I am not a politician, lobbyist; writer, I am not associated with compressed air car manufacturers. I am in the technology field, an engineer by profession. I am married with a family, an American concerned with all of the current issues which face us today in the US. My father and grandfathers fought and died for this country. My family has worked in the manufacturing and engineering industry and was part of the “Great Industrial Revolution” which built this country and put us on top as a world power. Our generation is now in control of this country and it is our turn to make History with this simple plan.

I can say one thing for what it’s worth, I guarantee this plan will work but it will take all of us to believe. If we fight together the results will be real with little to no effort or financial burden to all of us Americans. If we do our part in purchasing these types of vehicles this year the rest will fall into place I guarantee it.

I said my plan will take approximately 3 year to be fully implemented although results will be seen almost immediately.

Let’s set a date to be oil independent, it is appropriate to set it for 9-11-2011 on the 10th anniversary of a historic tragedy. This day will go down in History as “Oil Independence Day”, the day the American people fought back and achieved independent from foreign oil and tool back control of our country and economy. We should do this for our children’s future and in honor and memory of all of the victims of oil related wars and terrorism.

Thank you for your time.

“American’s Self Preservation Plan.”

God Bless America

End

Reduce wars and save lives: If you think 9-11-2001 and our current crisis in the Middle East is not because of oil terrorism you have been living under a rock. Our young men are being killed and permanently damaged because we are dependant upon oil.

That doesn't explain the other 100+ countries in which we have troops stationed.

If I travel a distance greater that 125 miles, how long will it take to 'refuel' to go another 125 miles?

If we all purchase ( again, no real cost purchase) these cars at the same time this out cry of the American people will force the government into providing tax credits, incentives and low interest financing.

If it's as good a deal as you claim, then it doesn't need to be "incentivized" by the government. If everyone goes out to purchase such a vehicle , the price will go up. If the government provides tax credits, the price will rise to account for the credit.

But as it stands, it sounds reasonable for a commuter vehicle.