>> There's more to life than high growth rates.
> But not for "free speech on economic issues"
First you need to accept free speech as a precondition of free
markets.
Once you do that maybe _then_ we'll start dealing with more lofty
matters.
As it stands now discussing "other matters" with you is like
complaining about Hitler kicking a cat.
. . .
> It's the high growth rates that you keep yapping about in comparing
> China with the USA.
They have free speech on economic issues.
We have free speech on naked nazi flag burner parades.
I'm going to yap until free speech on economic issues is restored to
U. S. jurisprudence.
> The "more to life" doesn't seem to have entered
> it.
_You_ are the one who changed the issue to European economies.
> For example, that China has an authoritarian one-party state which
> is in direct opposition to any notion of "free speech" doesn't seem to
> matter.
Is the "inner kingdom" out on the dock counting containers?
> They have high growth rates and - supposedly - will soon
> overtake us. That's all that's required according to you.
>>> I still
>>> am waiting for your response as to whether the USA had "free speech on
>>> economic issues" prior to the 1930's. According to you, our "high
>>> growth rate is proof positive" that we did.
>> Indeed, the number of newspapers peaked out in 1913.
> What do newspapers have to do with free speech?
Ever read the 2nd clause of the 1st Amend?
> What does that have to
> do with high growth rates?
Again, does free speech precede each and every free trade?
Bret Cahill
