tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post3043854296707546698..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 345Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-49315109159155506232008-07-18T19:20:00.000-06:002008-07-18T19:20:00.000-06:00As to your last question, either because his mind ...As to your last question, either because his mind is addled with pragmatism, or because he's evil enough to want to feed at the government trough rather than do away with it.<BR/><BR/>On one aspect of his "wealth transfer" argument, Pickens is right by accident. States have no property rights. Our money should not be going to foreign regimes, particularly if they are guilty of having stolen the property of Americans.<BR/><BR/>However, the solution is to reclaim what is ours, not for our own government to repeat the crimes of foreign regimes past as Pickens has succeeded in making it do.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-285179268542655222008-07-18T17:57:00.000-06:002008-07-18T17:57:00.000-06:00I've seen the "Pickens Plan" commercial, and it is...I've seen the "Pickens Plan" commercial, and it is horrible. One really lousy argument that I remember was his characterization of America's use of foreign oil as an enormous "wealth transfer" to the Middle East. (That phrase would be accurately applied to the nationalization of Western oil resources by those countries during the 20th century, but not to our ongoing purchases of oil.)<BR/><BR/>How can a wealthy businessman evade (or fail to grasp) the distinction between trade and government welfare?Andrew Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001665674703307354noreply@blogger.com