April 2024, Owen Pitts

Example of the broken window fallacy as applied to a government intervention that was not discussed by Hazlitt.

What is the broken window fallacy? The broken window fallacy was supposed to explain the things seen and the things not seen. If someone breaks a window, the owner must use his money to replace the window. That is the thing seen. What about the thing not seen? If the window was never broken, what would the owner of the window would have used the money that was supposed to replace the broken window on? The owner of the broken window would have used that money on something else, but he had to use it on the broken window. That is the thing not seen. What the owner would have used his money on if the window was never broken. What if the owner of the window was going to buy a new suit? Before the window was broken, he had the window and the money. Now, he has only the window. Or, he will have to chose, either the window or the suit. This fallacy creates jobs (the window maker gets money for the new window) and destroys jobs (the suit-seller now can not sell a suit because the man now has to buy the window instead of the suit he wanted to buy), thus, harming the economy. And since we see the winners (the window maker) and not the losers (the suit-seller) we say the economy is better off.

According to Study.com, “Government intervention is when the government gets involved in the marketplace for the purpose of impacting the economy.“

One such example of government intervention of the broken window fallacy is the money spent on war. The government takes money from people to spend on war things, like weapons, uniforms, etc. That is the thing seen. However, now that money can not be used for other things, like food, healthcare, clothing, and several other sectors of the economy. That is the thing not seen. Now, the winners in this system are the weapon manufacturers of the plane manufacturers, etc. The losers are the people who work in basically every other part of the economy, including the people the government takes money from to “fuel” their war.

Why was this movie, “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster?

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

What was The Birth of a Nation? According to Wikipedia, this movie was “…a 1915 American silent epic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith…” What was the goal for this movie? According to pbslearningmedia.org, “The film is considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. Thomas Dixon, who wrote the book The Clansman, on which The Birth of a Nation was based, reveled in its success. “The real purpose of my film was to revolutionize Northern audiences that would transform every man into a Southern partisan for life.”“

Why was this movie, “The Birth of a Nation”, the first blockbuster? First I need to answer this question: what is a blockbuster in terms of movies? According to Oxford Reference, “A film with an extremely high *production and *marketing budget that attains considerable commercial success. The term ‘blockbuster’ derives from the word used to describe large-scale bombs used in World War II.” And this movie was considered the greatest blockbuster of the silent film era. That means people really liked it. According to The Guardian, “Most of all, the audiences of 1915 were dazzled by feature-length movies that could legitimately be called blockbusters, notably the record-breaking, notorious The Birth of a Nation, DW Griffith’s racist romance of America’s Reconstruction era following the civil war.” People really like movies, especially The Birth of a Nation.

Why did people like The Birth of a Nation? This movie portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as the saviors of the South from the freedpeople, who were showed as being vicious and brutal beings. Apparently, Woodrow Wilson praised the movie. He made it the first movie to ever be showed at the White House. This movie was an incredible success. However, some people challenged the portrayal of African Americans and tried to have the movie banned and censored, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt. According to Facing History & Ourselves, “African American writer James Weldon Johnson wrote in 1915 that The Birth of a Nation did “incalculable harm” to Black Americans by creating a justification for prejudice, racism, and discrimination for decades to follow.”

Why was this movie so popular? According to Wikipedia, “Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film’s success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S. In response to the film’s depictions of black people and Civil War history, African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested.” The author of the book The Clansman (the book the movie is based on), Thomas Dixon, wrote: “My object is to teach the North, the young North, what it has never known—the awful suffering of the white man during the dreadful Reconstruction period. I believe that Almighty God anointed the white men of the South by their suffering during that time . . . to demonstrate to the world that the white man must and shall be supreme.”

This movie was popular nationwide and has captivated the minds of white audiences, but angered the blacks. This movie was a great blockbuster, but that does not mean that is was a good movie.

Why wouldn’t someone voluntarily offer you a job at twice today’s minimum wage?

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

Why wouldn’t someone voluntarily offer you a job at twice today’s minimum wage? Because, the minimum wage law must be modest. It can not be a huge wage. But why not? Why can’t there be a big wage? Start with this: if a worker feels underpaid, or if the minimum wage is above what the worker is worth, the worker will leave, and find a job that is probably not legal. But if you talk about increasing the minimum wage, the person who is leaving will be like, ‘you can not make people richer by increasing wages’. But why is this the case? People realize that if you increase someone’s wage, you will not have enough money to pay other workers, so you will have to fire people. You have to fire people to pay other workers more. And people realize this. If a huge minimum wage increase will not work, will not make people rich, ask yourself: Why not? Well, you can not pass a law to make people rich. It’s that simple. You can pass a law to make people a little better off, but you can not pass a law to make people rich. And people know they can make people better off, even if they know that they can not make them twice as better off by doubling their wage. Increasing wages will also mean an increase in prices, and businesses can not immediately pass on these increased costs to customers. And if businesses can raise the prices to pay for extra wages, why does the business not raise the prices whenever they want? And the people who quit or get fired because they are not getting the increased wage, must seek employment elsewhere. And competition lowers prices. Now the people who can’t find a job are really suffering. With lowered prices, businesses can not afford to pay new workers. Now, the state may put unemployed workers on relief, unemployment insurance. So now we have the state intervening. The state uses tax money to help unemployed people who were fired through no fault of their own, because they were not fired through any fault of their own. It is the government’s fault for increasing the minimum wage in the first place.

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty?

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

What is “Philip Dru”? “Philip Dru” is a book written anonymously by Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” “Philip Dru” was a political novel published in 1912. According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is a very quick summary: Philip Dru was a man who joined the military. He was a military genius, but he lost his sight while in a desert. He won a military competition against other military generals, soldiers, etc., held every five years, in his mid twenties. He was a military genius. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused. He then went into politics. He discussed several issues in the book. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government because it had become too corrupt. In the end of the book, he eventually becomes the dictator of America.

Is the novel, “Philip Dru”, a defense of liberty? What is liberty? According to the Dictionary, “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” Liberty is the state of being free from the oppressiveness of people in government or in authority or power over you. Meaning that these people cannot stop you from doing what you want to do. They cannot stop you from freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Our three God-given rights are life, property, and liberty. That is the purpose of the government. To protect our rights. However, the government can over-reach its power. Like imposing taxes. The government makes us pay our hard earned money to them. That is a complete violation of our God-given right to property. Plus, the government just waste the tax money they ‘steal’ from us. They just give it to other government funded businesses, or they just waste it on useless things. And when the government slacks, crimes are not dealt with, the country falls into chaos. Laws are necessary for a nation to run smoothly, I think you can relate to that. However, when one person is making decisions for an entire country based on their own judgement and worldviews, the nation will fall into chaos. One man can become corrupt. Philip Dru was a dictator and made decisions based on his judgement in the book. One man cannot possibly make decisions that work for the whole nation. That is why America has different forms of government (legislative, judicial, executive), to make sure that not one person is running a country, but a group of people, making decisions for the people based on the best interests of the people. The government was made not by the people, but for the people.

That is why I think that the novel “Philip Dru” is not a defense of liberty. Having one man in charge of everything is a terrible idea.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the 32nd president of the United States of America, serving from 1933-1945. He was born on January 30, 1882, and lived for 63 years until his death on April 12, 1945. He became the only president to serve three terms. Well, he really served three terms and three months of a fourth term. According to Wikipedia, “Roosevelt won a third term by defeating Republican nominee Wendell Willkie in the 1940 United States presidential election. He remains the only president to serve for more than two terms.” This man served for almost twice as long as any other president in the history of the United States of America. It is really quite impressive that he was able to do this. According to Wikipedia, “Franklin Delano Roosevelt, commonly known as FDR, was an American statesman and politician who served as the 32nd president of the United States from 1933 until his death in 1945. He was a member of the Democratic Party and is the only U.S. president to have served more than two terms.” What is he best known for? According to Wikipedia, “He created numerous programs to provide relief to the unemployed and farmers while seeking economic recovery with the National Recovery Administration and other programs. He also instituted major regulatory reforms related to finance, communications, and labor, and presided over the end of Prohibition.” He was also president during the Great Depression and World War II. That means that, of course, he was president when the bombing of Pearl Harbor occurred and caused America to join Word War II. It is said that he knew in late November in the year 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December that same year, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. The dating in this accusation is accurate, because the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. However, did President Roosevelt know about the attack and failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific? I will hopefully be able to answer that question by the end of this essay.

On December 7, 1941, Japan managed to stage a surprise attack on America’s Pacific fleet located at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu in Hawaii. This attack completely destroyed the US’s Pacific fleet, making the Japanese successful in the attack. The military commanders in the Pacific had no idea of the attack until it was too late. The Japanese decimated the fleet. If the commanders in the Pacific had any idea that the Japanese would be attacking, the attack might have had a different outcome. It is said that President Roosevelt knew in late November that the Japanese would attack American forces in the Pacific in early December, however, he failed to warn military commanders in the Pacific. If this is true, then how did he know the Japanese would attack? And if so, how did he fail to warn military commanders in the Pacific? Did the message just not get there in time? Did he just chose not to warn them? There are several possible answers to these questions, and hopefully I will be able to answer them correctly by the end of this essay.

Did President Roosevelt know in late November that the Japanese would attack in early December? Actually, yes. The United States did know in late November, early December that the Japanese would attack. According to tamucc.edu, “So, the US Government did know about the attack on Pearl Harbor and it tried to cover up the knowledge of it. But let’s not forget that they did not just know about the attack from the Japanese, but that they instigated Japan into attacking the US.” So, the United States knew that the Japanese would attack the US in early December, however, how do we know this is accurately true? According to Independent Institute, “On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records prove that from November 17 to 25 the United States Navy intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to his carriers.” So we know that the US really did know that the Japanese would attack, which meant that President Roosevelt knew.

How did President Roosevelt know that the Japanese would attack? I literally just told you, if you remember the last paragraph. On the date December 25, 1941, the Admiral Yamamoto of Japan sent a radio message to the Japanese fleet of warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, and America intercepted these transmissions, however, they only got enough information to know that Japan would attack, America did not know when, or even where the Japan navy would attack. Naval records that were recently released prove that the United States have intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to the fleet from November 17 to 25. And if the United States government knew, then President Roosevelt knew. These naval records prove that America really did intercept transmissions from Japan to the naval fleet that was supposed to be attacking Pearl Harbor. However, did Japan know that America was intercepting their transmissions? Think about it this way: if Japan knew that America was intercepting its transmissions, would they still have attacked? Maybe, but I do not think we will ever know for sure.

However, this just raises another question: If the United States knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor, why were they not warned, or prepared for an attack? Well, the Americans knew that the Japanese would attack, however, they did not know where they would attack. So really, the U. S. knew of an attack, they just did not know where Japan would attack. Some American officials figured that the Philippines were the target of the attack, so the Philippines were warned of an attack and put on alert. The idea that the Japanese would attack something as far out as Pearl Harbor was considered to be ludicrous, therefore Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack. That was a big mistake.

Japan actually ended up attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7. And because Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack, they were not ready for an attack. Japan surprised Pearl Harbor with the attack, and Japan ended up being successful in its attack. It was the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor that America declared war on Japan and officially entered World War II. And this was because Pearl Harbor was never warned of an attack. If they were warned of an attack, they might have at least been ready for an attack. Maybe Japan might not have even succeeded in its attack.

However, this brings another question to my mind: Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor? The answer is quite simple. Japan wanted to build an Empire of its own. However, it lacked the resources to do so. For one thing, 96% of Japan’s oil supply was being imported. When Japan occupied French Indochina in 194, America retaliated by freezing all of Japan’s assets in the U. S., cutting off 96% of Japan’s oil supply. Because of this, Japan then decided to take oil by force. However, Japan feared that if they attacked British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in the south they would provoke the U. S. into entering World War II, so to eliminate the threat of the U. S. entering World War II, Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor, hoping that the U. S. would negotiate peace. However, because of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U. S. did not try to negotiate peace. Instead, the day after the attack, the U. S. declared war on Japan and officially entered World War II. This is not what Japan was expecting. In fact, this is exactly the opposite of what Japan was expecting America to do. They attacked America to make sure that America did not join World War II because they knew America was too strong. It was actually America that defeated Japan at the end of the war, by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. Because of the U. S. entering the war, Japan has less of a chance of actually winning the war, which they eventually did lose. It would have been better if Japan just did not attack Pearl Harbor, and they probably know it, whether they do admit it, or they do not (now that I look back at this information, it really is not that simple after all, is it?).

If you look at it right, you could see that the U. S. is the cause (somewhat) for the U. S. entering World War II. If the U. S. did not cut off oil imports to Japan, Japan would have no reason to take oil by force, so there would be no need to worry about provoking the U. S., so Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor in an attempt to make the U. S. try to negotiate peace, so the U. S. would not have entered the war. I do not expect you to agree with me. I am just simply stating that the U. S. might be the reason for why the U. S. entered the war, if you can understand me right.

But I get, right? The U. S. just retaliated to Japan’s occupation of French Indochina. And I get it. The U. S. had no idea that Japan would try to attack other countries and try to obtain oil by force. I mean, I would have retaliated (probably) the same way. Although, the U. S. did not have to retaliate. They could have just left them alone and stayed neutral. But they did retaliate, and look at where that got them. They ended up entering World War II, which was not a good thing to have been done. And they had the choice not to join World War II, but they ended up joining anyway. They could have just ignored it, but they did not, they retaliated. And because of this (part of the reason), Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to scare America into submission. But, they ended up joining World War II anyway, which is exactly the opposite of what Japan was expecting.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. This statement is almost completely true. America knew that Japan was going to attack American forces in early December, and America knew this in late November. And if America knew, then the President knew. That we know. However, he did not fail to contact American military commanders in the Pacific. He just warned the wrong military commanders. Remember when I said that America thought the Philippines were the target of the attack? It’s true. America did think that the Philippines were the target of the target of the attack they knew Japan was planning. However, the idea of Japan attacking something as far out as Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous and crazy. So they were not warned of an attack. The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” , is only half true. President Roosevelt knew that Japan would attack, but they did not know where. So they warned the wrong area of an attack! President Roosevelt did not forget to warn the military commanders in the Pacific of an attack, he just warned the wrong military commanders of an attack!

The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” is only half true. This is because America knew that Japan would attack, they just did not know where. So America warned the military commanders they though were the target, but did not warn Pearl Harbor because the idea to attack Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous, but are there any other reasons why Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack? This can not be the only reason the Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack. Now, it may have been the number one reason, but it could not have been the only reason. And it wasn’t.

There was also a communications delay which prevented the warning from getting there in time. So apparently, America knew that Japan would attack, they just did not know where. So they put the Philippines on alert because they thought that they were the target of the attack. However, the idea of attacking Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous and crazy. However, apparently they warned Pearl Harbor anyway. What stinks is that there was a communications delay which prevented the warning from getting there in time. Also, America thought that an attack on Pearl Harbor was impossible because they thought that Japan knew that Pearl Harbor was alert and prepared for an attack, so America thought that because Japan knew this, they would not attack Pearl Harbor. However, whether Japan knew this or not, they still attacked. So really, America was warned of an attack, but the message did not get to Pearl Harbor in time, so it was as if it was never sent. It was sent, but it did not get there in time, so it was as if it was never sent.

Did Japan know that America was picking up its transmissions from Japan to its fleet which was going to be attacking Pearl Harbor? America was picking up Japan’s transmissions and figured out that they were going to attack, but did Japan know that America was picking up its transmissions? I do not think that they did, otherwise they might have backed off, since this was supposed to be a surprise attack. But, we will never know because we do not know if Japan knew that America was picking up its transmissions to the attacking fleet in the Pacific. We do not know if Japan knew that America was intercepting its transmissions because if Japan did know, they probably would have not carried out the attack, but they did. So there are two ways this could have turned out. Japan could have known and backed off from the attack, but they did not. Or, Japan could have known, but they attacked anyway because they were ‘past the point of no return’, so they did it anyway. Or they could have just not known, because they still attacked, which would indicate that the most likely reason is that they just did not know, which is probably what happened. If Japan knew that America was picking up its transmissions, would you think that Japan would still attack? Probably not. But we will never really know.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. I feel like we have gone over this topic numerous times already, but I think it is good to review it. So, President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack an American base (because of the intercepted transmissions), but they did not know where. So, they warned the Philippines because America thought that they were the target, but they also tried to warn Pearl Harbor, even though the thought that Japan would attack something as far out as Japan was considered ludicrous. However, there was a communications delay, so they never got the message. So President Roosevelt did try to warn American military commanders in the Pacific, but there was a communications delay, so they never got the message. Also, the thought that Pearl Harbor would be the target of the attack was thought to be crazy, so not a lot of people really cared.

However, it is not their fault, so do not think it is. They did not know where Japan would attack. All they knew is that Japan would attack. They did not know where. It is completely understandable that they thought that the Philippines were the target of the attack. The Philippines are much closer to Japan, and Pearl Harbor is way out in the Pacific. Plus, they did try to warn Pearl Harbor, there was just a communications delay which prevented the warning from getting there in time.

President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific. President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack, because of the intercepted transmissions taken from the Japan base sent to the fleet that was supposed to be attacking Pearl Harbor. However, all America got out of it was that Japan would attack, but they did not figure out where. So America warned the most likely target: the Philippines. However, Pearl Harbor was warned as well. But the message got delayed, so it never got to then. Does this situation count as failing to warn Pearl Harbor? America did try to warn Pearl Harbor, but the message got delayed. Does this count as failing to warn Pearl Harbor? I think it does. They tried to warn Pearl Harbor, so that was good, however, the message did not get to them in time. It does not matter how the message did not get there, it failed to get there in time. President Roosevelt did fail to warn military commanders in the Pacific, but he did try to warn them. But he did fail. It was not his fault that he failed, there was nothing he could do to speed up the time it took for the message to get to Pearl Harbor in time, but it never got there, so he did fail. It really stinks, but it is true, he did fail.

So when I said that the statement “President Roosevelt President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” is only half true, that was when I was only half way through examining the statement. Now that I have examined all of it, I see now that it is all true. This entire statement is totally true. President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack, but he did not know where. He warned military commanders in the Philippines because that was the most likely target, but he failed to warn military commanders in the Pacific, because the message was delayed and did not get there in time. You may not consider him not getting the message to Pearl Harbor in time a failure, but he tried to do something, and it did not work out. That is what I (and maybe a lot of other people, maybe you do not and that is okay) call a failure, but that does not mean that I think it was his fault, because it was not his fault. There was nothing he could have done to make the message get to Pearl Harbor in time. It was out of his hands from the moment he sent it. The message just did not get there in time, and that was a terrible thing to have happen, especially at that time. If it was delayed at any other time, it would have been fine, but it just had to have been delayed at that time. Things like that just happen, I guess. Also, I do not think that people really cared if the message got there in time, because people thought that Pearl Harbor was not the target of the attack, and the Philippines were. People thought that the idea of an attack on Pearl Harbor was ludicrous and impossible. So, they did not really think the idea of warning Pearl Harbor was beneficial to anything, but they did it anyway, but it was delayed, so nobody really thought much of it. America thought that the Philippines were the target of the attack because they are just south-west of Japan. The Philippines are much closer to Japan than Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, which is way out East in the Pacific. It is much farther away than the Philippines, so much farther away that people thought that the thought of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor was crazy, so they really did not think much of warning them. Especially when America has a base in the Philippines, which is much closer to Japan than Pearl Harbor.

You may not have noticed this, but I have mentioned that America joining World War II due to the attack on Pearl Harbor was the opposite of what Japan was expecting from America. Well, it is true. Japan attacked America to scare them into surrendering to them, so they would not think of joining World War II, because Japan knew that America could destroy them if they wanted to, which is what ended up happening at the end of the war (two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan by America). However, America joined World War II because of this attack, which is not what Japan wanted. This is precisely the opposite of what Japan wanted to happen. It would have been better if Japan did not attack, because Japan would not have been bombed by America if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor. Attacking Pearl Harbor was a big mistake. And I am sure that even Japan knows that it would have been better if they just did not attack Pearl Harbor at all. Would Japan even have still attacked Pearl Harbor if they knew that America was intercepting their transmissions? We know that Japan did attack, so whether Japan did or did not know that its transmissions were being intercepted, they still attack. Now, whether they did not know and they attacked, or they did know but just did it anyway, they attacked. You cannot change the past. However, if Japan did know that America was intercepting its transmissions, they might not have attacked. It was a possibility, but, they still attacked, so we will probably never know for sure. Though, it is most likely that Japan did not know America was picking up its transmissions, because if they did the attack on Pearl Harbor might have had a different outcome, because Japan did know America was intercepting its transmissions, Japan might not have even attacked. These are just things to think about.

What was the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor? According to Census.gov, “The attack killed 2,403 U.S. personnel, including 68 civilians, and destroyed or damaged 19 U.S. Navy ships, including 8 battleships. The three aircraft carriers of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were out to sea on maneuvers.” According to Wikipedia, “Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor took place on December 7, 1941. The United States military suffered 19 ships damaged or sunk, and 2,403 people were killed. Its most significant consequence was the entrance of the United States into World War II.” According to National Archives (.gov), “Following the devastating attack, Congress declared war on Japan, bringing America officially into World War II. All of the Pearl Harbor battleships save three, the USS Arizona, the USS Oklahoma, and the USS Utah, were raised, rebuilt, and put back into service during the war.” The casualties of Pearl Harbor were devastating. No wonder why America declared war on Japan and entered World War II. America even declared war on Japan the day after the attack, on December 8, 1941. The casualties were devastating. 2,403 people were killed in this attack, along with 19 Navy ships. But I feel like the worst part about the attack on Pearl Harbor is the reason it is most remembered for: the beginning of the entrance of America into World War II, which was a lot more devastating to not just the military and its soldiers, but also to U. S. civilians as well, than Pearl Harbor could have ever been. America could have ignored this attack and not entered World War II and just stayed neutral, but I understand why they did not do this. 2,403 people were killed in this attack, which is reason enough to declare war on Japan, but to top it all off, Japan also destroyed 19 Navy ships and obliterated the Naval base at Pearl Harbor. It was no wonder why America declared war on Japan. The effects of this attack were horrible. I feel like if President Roosevelt’s message got to Pearl Harbor on time and did not get delayed, then the attack would not have been so terrible. Pearl Harbor would have been ready for an attack. It was because Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack that made the attack the most devastating. Japan surprised Pearl Harbor with the attack. If the message got there in time, Pearl Harbor would have been ready, and Japan might not have succeeded in its attack. But, World War II was more terrible for America than the attack on Pearl Harbor could have ever been, and they could have avoided it, but they did not. I think that America would have been better off if it had never entered World War II and just ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And to think, all this devastation started with Japan occupying French Indochina. America was not happy with this, so America retaliated by cutting off all Japan’s oil imports from America, so Japan then had to take oil by force because 96% of it was imported. However, they feared that this would spark America into joining Japan’s enemies and enter World War II, so they attacked Pearl Harbor, wanting to scare America into surrendering and negotiating peace. However, this attack only angered America into joining World War II anyway. The entire attack was pointless. The only outcome of the attack on Pearl Harbor was 2,403 dead people, 19 destroyed Navy ships, and the complete obliteration of the military base at Pearl Harbor.

Here is a final report of the statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” President knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December. How did he know this? On the date December 25, 1941, the Admiral Yamamoto of Japan sent a radio message to the Japanese fleet of warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7 (however, America did not know when or where the Japan navy would attack). Naval records that were recently released prove that the United States have intercepted eighty-three messages that Yamamoto sent to the fleet from November 17 to 25. And if the United States government knew, then President Roosevelt knew. President Roosevelt knew that Japan would attack, but they did not know where they would attack, or when they would attack. So America sent a warning to the Philippines because they though that the Philippines were the most likely target. The thought of Japan attacking anything as far out as Pearl Harbor was considered ludicrous and crazy. However, they sent a warning to them anyway. However, there was a message delay and it did not get there in time. So Pearl Harbor was not warned of an attack, and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which was not ready for an attack because they never received the warning, which is why Japan was successful in its attack on Pearl Harbor (remember the reason Japan attacked America, they wanted to scare America into negotiating peace, but their plan did not work, instead, America joined World War II, which is what Japan did not want to have happen). Remember, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to attack British Malaya and the Dutch East Indies in the south, but they feared this would trigger America into entering World War II, which they did not want to have happen, so they attacked Pearl Harbor to try to scare America into surrendering, but America instead entered World War II which Japan did not want to have happen. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so that America would not enter World War II, but America did not surrender like Japan wanted, but entered World War II, which was the opposite reason for why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the first place. Was the message not getting to Pearl Harbor in time considered failure to warn American military commanders in the Pacific? I think it was. The goal was to warn Pearl Harbor, but they were not warned in time, so I consider it a failure. President Roosevelt did know that Japan was going to attack, so he warned Pearl Harbor, but there was a communications delay which prevented the message from getting there in time, so he failed in warning Pearl Harbor of an attack. The statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific” is totally and completely true.

It took a little longer than I expected, but it looks like I answered the question of this essay in extreme detail, don’t you think? It doesn’t matter, because I answered this statement with all that I know.

This essay was supposed to be a debate paper, but it does not look like one, does it? But, it is. And I have stated the points about why I think this statement “President Roosevelt knew in late November 1941 that the Japanese Navy would attack American forces in early December, but he failed to warn American military commanders in the Pacific.” Now it is time for me to determine if this is accurate, or not. However, you probably already know that I will say that yes, this statement is true. President Roosevelt did know that Japan would attack, and he did try to warn Pearl Harbor, but he failed because the message did not get there in time.

Explain the broken window fallacy

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

According to Wikipedia, “The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.”

The broken window fallacy was supposed to explain the things seen and the things not seen. If someone breaks a window, the owner must use his money to replace the window. That is the thing seen. What about the thing not seen? If the window was never broken, what would the owner of the window would have used the money that was supposed to replace the broken window on? The owner of the broken window would have used that money on something else, but he had to use it on the broken window. That is the thing not seen. What the owner would have used his money on if the window was never broken.

This happens all the time in different examples, but it is the same fallacy. People argue that building a bridge, for example, creates jobs, therefore helping people. And it does help people get jobs. However, what would have the money used on the bridge be used for if the bridge was never built? Maybe for other projects or expanding the business, which also increase jobs. And with the bridge, once it is built, you do not need the workers any more. They lose their jobs. However, if you use the money to expand the business, people fill those new jobs, and these jobs stay, so the people stay.

Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in “Philip Dru”?

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

What was the income tax amendment of 1912? Amendment sixteen to the Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913. It grants Congress the authority to issue an income tax, but they did not have to issue it based on the population.

Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in “Philip Dru”? Well, if you read the book, you will see that the message of the book is progressivism (according to Wikipedia, “Progressivism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology.”). The reason for progressivism alone would make me not want to vote for the income tax amendment. Plus the fact that taxes are literally people controls.

But I would also not vote for it because of the implausible plot line. It would just never happen. Like a man in his mid twenties winning a military game in which other sergeants and generals enter who have had years of military experience? And near the end of the book, Dru tries to raise funding for his massive army, which is completely taken care of by one young lady in just a few weeks. Also, Dru’s army of 500,000 who have had no military training fight against America’s army of 600,000 who have had years of military training, and Dru’s army win. That is just impossible. There is no way anyone reading this would believe this was real, even if you wanted to. Also in the end of the book, Dru goes on to control the whole country as a dictator. The plot line is just completely implausible. This never happened, and it would never happen.

It is for these reasons that I would not have voted for the income tax amendment of 1912.

Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money?

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

What is money? Money is the most marketable commodity that is used to be traded for goods and services. Money is also hard. Hard money does not mean it is hard like a rock, but rather, it is hard to make, or find. That is why gold and silver have been used as money for thousands of years. Because gold and silver are hard to mine, and they can be made into small, portable coins. However, nowadays, gold and silver are too valuable for every day purchases and are too heavy to carry around large amounts of. So the government decided to make paper money backed by gold. Basically, you could trade gold for paper money for gold when you wanted to buy things, but then people started to realize that paper money had the same value as the gold, so they started to trade paper money for goods instead of gold. The government could not print more money without mining more gold, and it worked great! until the government started printing as much money as they wanted without actually mining more gold. This is called inflation. Inflation is when the prices of goods and services go up when the value of your money go down. Have you ever noticed that prices on goods going up? The cause of that is the government printing as much money as they want. Inflation have destroyed entire countries in the past, and I would hate for inflation to be the cause of the destruction of the US.

However important the topic of money is, it is not the topic for this essay. The topic for this essay is ‘Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money?’ What is honest money? Well, it is not something I can really explain. I think I can better explain this with an example. So, U. S. money is paper, but it is backed by gold. That is honest money. The money is honest. It has value. Back in Roman times, they used gold coins to buy things, And it worked great, because gold had value because it was rare, and hard to mine. This money worked very well, however, the government decided to try to make more money without actually mining more gold. Romans shaved off little pieces of gold off of the existing gold coins, and melted them down with other metals, like iron, or copper. Now, there are more coins acting as money in the system. These half-gold half-other metals coins are not honest money. Do you get what I’m trying to say? And now, since there are more coins in the Roman money system, people have to mark up prices on everything, making everything more expensive. And since there is less gold in the coins now, from shaving off little pieces of the existing coins making them worth less, and melting those shavings down with other metals to make more coins which have less gold and other metals in them, the coins are worth less. These two problems make the prices of goods and services go up (making more coins out of existing coins), while the worth of the coins are going down (because the coins are no longer one-hundred percent gold and the coins are now smaller because of shaving gold off them meaning they have less gold in them), at the same time! Also, that’s why U. S. coins have ridges on them so people can see if people have been shaving off little pieces of them. The new coins that have pieces of gold shaved off, and the coins that have been melted down with other metals are not honest money. Also, back then, coins were measured by weight, not value. People used scales to weigh the money to figure out how much you could buy. If the coins that had pieces shaved off of them are put back into the system, that coin will not be as heavy as it was before it was shaved, making it worth less. And the metals melted down with the gold from shaved pieces of coins might not be as heavy as gold. So they might be the same size, but they are full of different metals, all different weights depending how much extra metal they put in with the gold. Depending on this, these new coins might be heavier or lighter than the real coins were. So now, there is more money in the system, and the current money is losing value. This is also happening in the America today.

Hopefully you can see what I’m trying to explain to you.

America used to give people paper money worth gold the government had in reserve. They could not print more money without mining more gold. And back then, people traded their paper money with the bank for gold the bank had in reserve to buy things with, but it was not long before people began to realize that the paper money had value, because it basically had the same value as gold, so they started trading that instead. It worked great. Do you understand? They could not print more money without mining more gold. Paper money backed by gold in reserve? Now that is honest money. However, the government began to get greedy, as they all do. They started printing money without mining more gold. They made money out of nothing! When you make money out of nothing, that is fake money. The U. S. A.’s main source of currency (paper money) is fake. It is not honest money. The United States of America’s main source of currency is not honest money. It used to be, but since then, the government got even more greedy, and started printing money out of thin air! The money used to be worth something, but when you make money out of nothing, it is not honest money. It is not real money. It has no legitimacy. Also, it is much harder to mine gold than to print money, so the government thought it would be a good idea to use paper money instead of gold. Big mistake. This just paved the way for future government officials to print money out of nothing. If the government continues to print massive amounts of money every year, the money may soon become worthless. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “How can it be dangerous? If the government prints too much money, people who sell things for money raise the prices for their goods, services and labor. This lowers the purchasing power and value of the money being printed. In fact, if the government prints too much money, the money becomes worthless.“

Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? How does a national government issue its own money? In simple terms, the Federal Reserve prints it, and releases it into the system. But does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? What kind of money are we talking about? I will assume that we are talking about American currency. As I just explained, the paper money we as Americans use used to be honest money, paper money backed by gold in reserve. However, the government recently started printing money out of thin air. This makes the money fake. There is no honest money. American paper money is not honest money. So, if the government prints dishonest money, then releases it into the system, then gets some back from taxes and what not, it is still dishonest money. Now, if we are talking about any other government from a different country, it would probably be different. Their money might be honest. But in American currency, the money is not honest, therefore, the national government can not secure honest money because there was no honest money to begin with.

People can also use their own ‘money’. It is called bartering. People used to do it all the time before gold or coins were used as money. People traded one thing for another, just as long as both people were willing to accept it. Why don’t we do this today? Because money gives you a larger market. If you want to trade an apple for an orange, you would not only need to find someone who wants an apple, but also is willing to trade it for an orange. With money, you can sell your apple to anyone who wants an apple, and then spend the newly acquired money to buy an orange. Money widens the market. This is only one reason out of several others of why we use money instead of bartering.

What happens when a national government issues too much money? If there is too much money in the system, then prices can rise and the value of the money decreases, causing inflation. Inflation is when the prices of goods and services go up, while the value of your money goes down. There are some countries that have experienced hyperinflation. The prices of goods and services go up every day, sometimes the prices even double or triple every day! That is what happens when the government prints too much money. And soon, the money becomes worthless, pretty much worth nothing. Did you ever notice how much a penny is worth? It can not buy you anything in today’s world. One hundred years ago, a penny used to be over eighteen times the value today! And with the minimization of inflation, money was worth a lot more than it is today. And the prices of products and services were also a lot lower than they were today. Butter back then was thirty-six cents, eight dollars and seventy-two cents in today’s dollars. The common dollar had much more value one hundred years ago than it now does today.

Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? Honest money in this scenario is paper money backed by gold the Federal Reserve or banks have in reserve. Paper money used to be honest money, when it used to be backed by gold. The government could not print more money without mining more gold. But, lately the government has become greedy and started printing tons of money every year without actually mining more gold. Therefore, the money is now no longer backed by money. Or, money is backed by gold, but an extremely little bit of gold. This makes gold very expensive. The paper money is no longer backed by gold, so it is not honest money. Does the national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? The nation government issues money, and the money we use circles back to the national government when people use it. The national government secures this money, so the national government does need to issue its own money to secure money, but if the money was not honest in the first place, how can it be honest later? The money is no longer backed by gold (if it is then it an incredibly low amount of gold) so it is no longer honest. So the national government does need to issue its own money in order to secure money, but if the money was not honest in the first place, it can not be honest later. The national government can not secure honest money because there was no honest money to begin with.

Can this money become honest again? How I think this is possible, is if the government prints no more money, and they mine more gold. They mine gold until they equal each other. Then the money will be honest. Also, I have heard that one of the reasons the government prints money is because of the ever growing population. However, they are printing too much money, and prices rise. In fact, if they did not print any more money, and the population did grow, people would have to be paid less so they can spread out the rest of the money to the rest of the population, and that actually lowers prices of goods and services. If the population is growing, they do not need to print more money to satisfy the whole population. The money will be spread out across the population so that more people get paid. And with people getting paid less, businesses will lower prices of goods and services to satisfy the population.

Do you know about counterfeiting? Printing money illegally? I am sure you do. But, did you also know that you can counterfeit legally? The government does it all the time. That’s right. The government prints money all the time, and that is also counterfeiting. The government counterfeits all the time. Counterfeiting is basically getting something for nothing. If someone printed money (nothing) and traded that for something (goods and services) they are basically stealing from the people who have the ‘something’. The government prints money out of thin air and uses it to buy things. The government is basically stealing from people using paper as money. Paper has no value. The government prints money out of paper. Now, when paper money was backed by gold, it had value. It was honest money. Now, the government just prints money without mining more gold. They are printing money out of nothing. Paper money is fake. Why do we still use paper money if it is fake? There are laws that say that you are only allowed to use money that is approved by the government, which is the paper money. You are not allowed to use any other type of money.

Were you ever aware that when you use paper money, you are really using fake money? Well now you do. However, did you know that there alternatives to paper money that are not illegal? I have two examples. One: Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the first ever decentralized cryptocurrency. It is digital currency. Now you may be thinking how this is any different than paper money. For one, it is impossible to inflate. Whoever has Bitcoin owns a part of it. You have a say in if someone wants to make a change to it. And to make a change to it, you need the majority vote, which is basically impossible. And the more people who own it, the more valuable it becomes. The second choice is the Goldback. The Goldback is like paper money, but with major differences. Yes, it is physical, you can hold it. However, it is made out of pure gold, also making it impossible to inflate. And because it is made of gold, the vale of it rises with inflation, whereas the paper money’s value decreases with inflation. And you can use it just like you use cash.

Both of these choices are accepted world wide, making them acceptable in several countries. Now, some countries may not accept it, but the U. S. does. And both of these choices are widely better than paper money. A lot better.

Which of these three authors, O. Henry, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, would you prefer to read on your own time?

Posted 1 year ago by Jeffrey Pitts

William Sydney Porter, better known by his pen name O. Henry, was a well known American writer. He lived from September 11, 1862 through June 5, 1910. He was mainly known for his short stories, although he also wrote poems and non-fiction. His most well known works consist of The Gift of the Maji, The Duplicity of Hargraves, and The Ransom of Red Chief, and several other short stories. His short stories were his greatest works. His greatest and most popular short story was his classic The Gift of the Maji. His writing style in his short stories can include surprise endings, humorous language, and tearful smile, among others.

Jack Griffith Chaney, better known as Jack London, was an American novelist, journalist, and activist. He was also one of the first American authors to become an international celebrity and earn a large fortune just from writing. By 1913, he was making more than ten thousand dollars a month. Ten thousand dollars in 1913 is about a quarter of a million dollars in today’s money. He lived from January 12, 1876 through November 22, 1916. Jack London was most famous for his books (and you might recognize these because they are still famous today), White Fang (1906), Call of the Wild (1903), The Sea Wolf (1904), among other well known literary and journalistic accomplishments and works.

According to Wikipedia, “Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce was an American short story writer, journalist, poet, and American Civil War veteran. His book The Devil’s Dictionary was named one of “The 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature” by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration.” He lived from June 24, 1842 through 1914. His most well known work was “The Devil’s Dictionary”. It was published in 1906 as The Cynic’s Word Book, after originally being an occasional newspaper item. According to Wikipedia, “Described as “howlingly funny”, it consists of satirical definitions of English words which lampoon cant and political double-talk.” According to the washingtonpost.com, “All his life, Bierce savagely skewered organized religion, which he defined in his book The Devils Dictionary as “a daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the Unknowable.” Likewise, he considered faith “belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”“

Which of these three authors, O. Henry, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, would you prefer to read on your own time? Let’s see… O. Henry wrote well known humorous short stories. Jack London wrote famous books, some of which are the famous White Fang (1906) and Call of the Wild (1903). Ambrose Bierce wrote “The Devil’s Dictionary”, which is a dictionary, but the definitions to the words he puts in it are preposterous and very funny. I have read some of it and I can attest to it being funny. Honestly, I would rather read O. Henry’s short stories. I love short stories and his are amazing. I have read some of them, and I think that they are really good short stories. I would also like to read Bierce’s Dictionary, because it is hilarious. I also like London’s books too. They are very interesting to read. I like all of these works that each of these people wrote. They are all amazing.