The problem with neoconservative economists is that they can sound so logical, yet the whole argument doesn't make sense. For example, he writes... "Many economic issues are complex, but sometimes a single fact will tell you all you need to know. When you know that central planners in the Soviet Union had to set 24 million prices-and keep adjusting them, relative to one another, as conditions changed-you realize that central planning did not just happen to fail. It had no chance of succeeding from the outset." That sounds correct, doesn't it? The USSR collapsed. We all know that. Therefore "Central Planning" doesn't work, right? But if that is true, then how does he explain the US Army? It's based on central planning. And the US Army's centralized planning won WWII. Yes, there are tremendous inefficiencies, but it works. Furthermore, the USSR did not fail because of central planning. Stalin's horrible dictatorship and the pervasive police state destroyed loyalty and hope in the government. The population simply gave up on the government. There's plenty more examples of wrong arguments in his article. Cheap American labor and mass production devastated the European clock industry. Detroit is a rust belt, due to cheaper labor elsewhere. And so on. The general American economic trend of the last 40 years has been a slow decline of manufacturing and the conversion of the economy into low-pay service jobs. America will not be standing tall again on manufacturing jobs anytime soon, because the US will not regress back to a manufacturing economy, just as it will not regress into an agrarian economy. The neocons ignore all this. They are trying to score points, to provide arguments for their owners. Yes, their owners. The neocon economics professors are paid and hosted by corps. The Hoover Institute is at Stanford, and it is sponsored by corporations. That's why they don't have to be right. They just have to muddy up the issues. yrs, andreas www.andreas.com