[Gianni]

You might be able to make a point or two, if you could get anything out without sounding like an arrogant jackass.

I have no problem discussing mistakes or failures in his programs or ideas

Apparently, you do. Whenever someone even suggests that he might have been wrong, you denounce them as a traitor and an imbecile unable to understand the 'subtle complex ways of the mighty-friggin-H-man' who you can't stop adoring long enough to see that even Madison viewed H's leadership as an elected monarchy. Me rave on? Please.

Not some warmed over Jeffersonian lies.

i.e. to "understand the subtle complexity of his thought" one must accept that everything he said was Gospel while Jefferson spewed forth only lies and deceit. Right, step off the looney-meter before you break the thing.

You have never read of "infant industry protection?"

Yes, I have. Unfortunately, you said that protectionism applied to infant industry was "not protectionism" somehow. A clearly false statement. A capitalist can agree that protectionism may be used to foster competition, but would likely not subscribe to a theory that "some protectionism isn't protectionism" as you stated previously. Want me to read more? I will. Maybe you should learn how to write in the meantime.

Perhaps you are unaware that H's program and call for government intervention was specifically to repair an economy deliberately distorted by the Crown's colonial policies which did not allow the growth of industry. He had no wish for government intervention after that distortion was corrected.

Does your crystal ball also indicate when those protections would be lifted? I can help you out here: Never. Your acceptance of government intervention as the best method for 'correcting that distortion' is another matter which would normally be the subject of a worthwhile debate, were you able to carry one.

Since H's program lead directly to the dynamic and explosive growth of the modern American economy I would suggest that your 1+1=5 analogy is entirely inappropriate.

Laughable assertion on your part. As much evidence could be produced linking Washington chopping down the cherry tree to the development of the atom bomb, but what would you care, so long as you spew uncontested?

Stick to my comments and don't try and saddle me with your caricatures and false statements.

Your comments... Okay. I can stick with material like "monarchs aren't monarchs" and "protectionism isn't protectionism" and so on and so forth. I especially loved your "How much is the grand canyon worth" line. I laughed so hard that the people in offices nearby came over to join in. "Yes honey, we can't afford the house payment, but the love of our children is priceless so we're really not in debt."

Unfortunately, what I'm really trying to address is your root problem which is a belief that big government is the answer, and also attempting to refute your contention that love of big gov't is somehow conservative.

From now on, I'll stay with replies like "protectionism, takeit, is... alas... always still protectionism."

[Grand Old Partisan]

Don't forget that slavery was a Big Government program of Stalinist proportions, abolished by the Republican Party and its northern Democrat allies during the Civil War.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson spoke many truths just not many when in opposition to Hamilton, however. And it is unfortunate he didn't act on more of the others.

Infant industry tariffs is not what is generally called "protectionism." It is a form of it I will agree. However, it is radically different since it is designed to promote competition while the other form is designed to suppress it.

Of course not, but if any man could make such a determination it would be Hamilton using the same method he used for all his reports, massive data gathering and expert analysis of the effects of the different opinions.

Since there has always been some form of distortion of the market economy because the assumptions for Perfect Competition are never all there, it is safe to assume that governments will always be involved in trying to accomodate the political world to the economic and vice versa. What is important is Wisdom in the use of these tools of intervention.

I am not aware of any authority who denies the overwhelming influence of Hamilton on the development of America's economy. Even his enemies admitted "he did the political thinking of his day." And his financial program was just as farreaching.

Never said "monarchs aren't monarchs" or " protectionism isn't protectionism."