Correspondence | Reader Feedback

Reader Feedback

Origins Of Comboland
In his excellent article on the online Comboland Radio (Metro, November 2008), Philip van Vleck says that I “coined the term Comboland in 1985 via Mitch Easter.” Since this leaves the word’s origins a bit diffuse, let me offer some clarification.
When I was in junior high school in the early ’60s, I had never heard of “garage bands.” Guys who gathered in their folks’ garages to bash out versions of “Pipeline” or “Louie Louie” were known as combos. The term endured for a while, then became decidedly passé and uncool.
In 1985, putting together a collection of local music to promote in Great Britain (the project was backed by Bernie Reeves, editor and publisher of Spectator Magazine), I decided I needed a catchy name to substitute for the cumbersome and uncatchy “New North Carolina Rock Music.” Since the NC scene’s salient attribute was that it contained an astonishing number of bands hailing from locales throughout the state (there was no single-city focus as in Minneapolis, MN, or Athens, GA), I considered terms like “Garageland” and “Land of a Thousand Bands,” but nothing seemed quite right.
One day, I recalled that my friend Mitch Easter (as well as some other local musicians) had, in a kind of retro-hip/ironic slang, revived “combo” as a synonym for band. I thought: “Land of Combos”? And then it clicked: Comboland.
I subsequently learned that a catchy title is a great help to a project like Comboland’s 1985 outreach to Europe. And “Comboland” has survived as a synonym for NC rock ’n roll of the ’80s. I’m happy that, via projects like Comboland Radio, it continues to beckon people toward the wonderful music of that era.
Godfrey Cheshire
New York City

Editor’s note: Go to www.metronc.com and click on the Comboland link to hear the music.

Clarifying The Invisible Hand
Jim Leutze and I have this in common — we’re both former college professors. He probably remembers (and I certainly do) receiving exam answers from students where they filled up a lot of space with sentences demonstrating that they had no idea what they were talking about.
Leutze’s musings about economics in his November column remind me of that. He admits that he’s no economist, then proceeds to offer economic thoughts based on his “knowledge of history and human nature.” That’s fine, but he doesn’t base anything on facts of history or human nature, but instead his absolutely mistaken notions of what Adam Smith and Ayn Rand said.
First, Smith did argue that people pursuing their own interests are driven “as if by an invisible hand” to also promote the best interest of others. But then Leutze adds sarcastically that Smith was saying that laissez faire “would assure that everyone prospered.” That isn’t Smith’s claim, and it’s evident that Leutze has never studied The Wealth of Nations.
What Smith meant was that people tend to search out the goods and services they might offer for sale in the market based on the most urgent needs and desires of other people. For example, in a poorly fed community, people strongly desire more food, so it’s likely that a newcomer would be more apt to become a farmer or baker than a musician. Why? Hungry people will pay more for food than to hear music, so it’s more in the self-interest of that person to work at satisfying their most urgent wants.
Smith’s conclusion was that there is a spontaneous order in a free economy that works to harmonize the interests of producers and consumers. The highest profits are to be obtained in putting land, labor and capital to use in making what consumers want the most.
Smith was not saying that the “invisible hand” automatically means that “everyone prospers,” but that if we want to move most rapidly toward prosperity, the government should not alter the natural profit and loss signals of the market. And, emphatically, he was not saying that, as Leutze puts it, “We could have it all and not pay for it.” There is nothing in Smith’s work that even remotely suggests that idea. Obviously, Leutze has never spent any time around economists, or he’d know that one of their favorite sayings is, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”
In almost any course in the principles of economics, students are soon taught that everything has a cost. (For an outstanding exposition of basic economics, Leutze ought to start with Henry Hazlitt’s venerable Economics in One Lesson.) Every person understands that in his own decision-making: If I do this, I won’t have time to do that: if I buy this, I won’t have enough money for that. Recognizing the scarcity of their own resources, individuals are very careful in evaluating costs and benefits.
With politicians, however, things are markedly different. First, they aren’t playing with their own money. They spend other people’s money. Second, they seldom stand to either directly benefit from good decisions or to suffer from bad ones. Third, the ability to spend beyond their means through the creation of fiat paper money makes it seem that they can dispense free benefits, but that is just an illusion.
That brings us to Rand. Leutze labels her a “Libertarian,” but she rejected that term, preferring “Objectivist.” The terminology isn’t the important thing here; getting her views right is. Rand, like most libertarians, favored a government limited to just those few “night watchman” functions Thomas Jefferson thought necessary — the protection of life, liberty and property, and the adjudication of disputes. Rand, contrary to Leutze’s assertion, did not “distrust all government,” but wanted to see it limited to just those few necessary functions. The reason is that she understood how easily government can be turned into a weapon for the expropriation of property and the abrogation of freedom. Her concern was exactly what James Madison feared when he wrote about the evils of “faction” in Federalist Paper #10 — interest groups forming and working for political favors.
The United States today is Madison’s nightmare. Factionalism is rampant, with countless interest groups lobbying for government benefits. More and more of our resources and energies are sucked into the game of power politics, a game played ever more ruthlessly. We are a poorer and more divided society for it.
Back to Rand and her “devotee” Alan Greenspan. Rand advocated sound money, as prescribed in the Constitution. That is, money based on tangible value such as a precious metal. (The dollar, incidentally, is defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 as a coin of 371.25 grains of pure silver.) Rand rejected the idea of a monetary system based solely on government fiat that pieces of paper are money and must be accepted. At one time Greenspan agreed, but later decided that his life would be more lucrative if he threw in with the big government types, and he eventually rose to become chairman of the Federal Reserve.
More than anything else, it’s the Federal Reserve that is behind our economic cycles of boom and bust. Its blunders triggered and then greatly exacerbated the Great Depression. (There are several books to consult on that, e.g., Gene Smiley’s Rethinking the Great Depression.) Without the Fed’s easy money policies driving interest rates down to artificially low levels, the housing bubble wouldn’t have blown up in 2002-2005. (Fiat money isn’t the only culprit here; other federal policies that meddled with the housing finance market are also at fault.)
Blaming free market economics and thinkers like Smith and Rand for our current troubles gets things exactly backward. It is the intrusion of the state into the orderly functioning of civil society, substituting its clumsy mandates and prohibitions for the spontaneous order of voluntary human interactions that deserves the blame.
George C. Leef
Director of Research
John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy
Raleigh

Jim Leutze responds:
Picky, picky, picky. While I may have, indeed, received exams from students who filled a lot of space indicating that they didn’t know what they were talking about, I never spent 925 words correcting their misdirected ramblings.
In The Wealth of Nations (which I admit I read, but not willingly, many years ago), Adam Smith says that while an individual may be seeking only his own gain, he is “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worst for society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it.” That, to me, sounds a lot like saying the invisible hand ensures that society prospers when individuals pursue their self-interests — which is what I said.
Basically Smith argued, as the writer says, that “government should not alter the natural profit and loss signals of the market.” To my mind this is nuts — it’s like saying that since drivers will all look out for their own interest, we don’t need traffic signals or police. Indeed, back in the 19th century, which is where the Bush administration wanted to carry us (William McKinley was Karl Rove’s ideal president), government didn’t interfere with the “natural profit and loss signals of the market,” which led to regular economic panics and ultimately helped spawn the progressive movement. After 1929, we accepted the fact that government did need to interfere in the market because Smith, your writer and Alan Greenspan did not factor in that “invisible hand” that inclines one to be greedy.
Now my opinion piece was actually more about how Greenspan interpreted Smith, so if you want to know that, look to his Adam Smith Memorial Lecture delivered in Scotland on Feb. 8, 2005. In Greenspan’s view, Smith understood that “the competitive force unleashed by individuals in pursuit of their rational self-interest induces each person to do better.” Moreover, he said that “the individual is driven by private gain but is ‘led by an invisible hand’ to promote the public good which was no part of his intention.” To drive the point home, Greenspan added that Smith laid the groundwork for our current (2005) success by creating the “modern vision of people free to choose and act according to their individual self interest.” Need I remind anyone that that “self interest” also led directly to our current crisis.
Now, though I hate to, let’s bring in Ayn Rand. How could a hack screenwriter and awful novelist come to have such sway over some ostensibly intelligent people? Although the prolix, turgid Atlas Shrugged is her best-known work, her previous The Virtue of Selfishness gives a better picture of her pinched, stingy personal philosophy. Even her friends admit that she was an awful human being who was a devout atheist, not just because she didn’t believe in God, but because she believed the church encouraged charity, which to her was wrong. She became, and still is, an icon of the arch conservative movement, many of whom share her ludicrous view that government should limit itself to crime control and the judiciary. To liken her views to those of Thomas Jefferson stretches credulity.
As to Rand and Greenspan, the writer implies that Greenspan, who actually wrote articles for Rand’s magazine, broke with her later when he went into government service. In fact, he continued his association and attended both her funeral and her memorial service.
My understanding of history suggests that the experiment with laissez faire economics in the 19th century led directly to the government oversight that the Bush administration unwisely gutted. They were aided by those Democrats who encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen regulations on risky mortgages. In each case, less oversight resulted in more exploitation by greedy financiers. I guess it is this process of less and more what the writer calls the “spontaneous order of voluntary human interactions…”
I’m no economist, but early on I learned about kids and cookie jars.
Jim Leutze

Sign Up For Leutze
I look forward to receiving Metro Magazine each month and congratulate Bernie Reeves and his able cadre of writers for consistent delivery of a periodical that informs, stimulates and entertains.
As a former student of Dr. Jim Leutze during my years in Chapel Hill, I especially enjoy reading his columns and remember that he had the ability to make even military history a fascinating subject for coeds. His latest offering in the November 2008 issue, “What Will Tomorrow Bring?”, made me want to sign up for another class.
Willa Kane
Raleigh

Banks Are The Problem
I wanted to compliment Bernie Reeves for his November editorial. Usually, given my political leanings, I find his column rather over-the-top (“Beware the Man Behind Obama” was difficult to take seriously) but always a worthwhile read. Though it did contain the predictable conservative argument implicating Senate Democrats in the mortgage crisis, the article stuck to the point: it was banks that caused this situation with their greed and lack of foresight. It was an intelligent, refreshing read with a focus I’d like to see more of in other articles on the issue, regardless of their political slant.
David Henderson
Raleigh

EDGE Recipient Of Metro Miracle
I can’t thank you enough for the great article Liza Roberts did on the EDGE School (www.edgetp.org) for young high school drop outs in Durham. We were all pleased and proud to appear in your beautiful magazine. Since the interview, I’ve enrolled six new students who are qualified to begin study and nine of the current students passed their practice tests showing they are ready to begin taking the GED at Durham-Tech. The date is set to bring in 10 additional students for testing. The waiting list is still growing daily, and hopefully we can start an afternoon program soon.
EDGE sails along regardless of rough seas. One marvelous result of your article happened one afternoon when I least expected it. An African-American lady, casually dressed, who had read the story, called and said she wanted to come by the school. When she arrived, she asked for a tour. After the tour, she asked how much I needed as she got out her checkbook and began to write three checks. I was overjoyed by her unselfish desire to help someone she didn’t know; I couldn’t thank her enough. She said, “Don’t thank me, thank God; he told me to do it.” This was the miracle EDGE needed. A big thank you to Metro for spreading the word and bringing in help. I hope you’ll write about us again next year for your education issue, and we’ll have a lot of progress to report.
Fran Alexander, Executive Director
EDGE Training & Placement, Inc.
Durham

Son Defends Michael Peterson
My father, Michael Peterson, is a casualty of the Durham legal system. I write today on his behalf, and also on behalf of my family: my brother, Todd; my sisters, Martha and Margaret; my mother, Patricia; and my uncles, Bill and Jack. We are Michael Peterson’s family, and we are hoping for justice – true justice. My family and I are also victims of the legal system – after suffering the tragic loss of a beloved family member, we then had another loved one wrongly taken from us.
The details of the motion, filed last Wednesday by my father’s lawyer, Jason Anthony, show the errors in the case against Michael Peterson, and reveal unanswered questions and unresolved issues. The errors are inexcusable; had the investigators of Kathleen Peterson’s death and the prosecutors of Michael Peterson done their duty, we believe the very outcome of this trial would have been quite different.
Several cases have come to light in the past few years, in which it is apparent that people within the Durham District Attorney’s Office, and the Durham Police Department, have not performed their duties as the law requires, or with Durham’s best interest at heart. The Duke Lacrosse case, and the cases of Mr. Erick Daniels and Mr. Frankie Delano Washington, are known examples where the misconduct of a few has led to an egregious miscarriage of justice.
Many of the same people involved in those cases – Freda Black, Art Holland, and Michael Nifong – also played key roles in the investigation and prosecution of Michael Peterson. The same mind-set – that a conviction is far more important than the truth – sullied those cases, and had an equally damaging effect on both the investigation into Kathleen’s death, and Michael’s subsequent trial.
Unfortunately, this kind of story is nothing new in the city of Durham. It is discouraging to think that Durham’s residents may have grown accustomed to news of another grievous error in the legal system – a fault that should not have been, that must not happen again, that we pray will be remedied.
A trial is not fair when the prosecution withholds exculpatory evidence and the police investigate only the details that support their foregone conclusions. Michael Peterson’s trial was marred by countless instances of prosecution secrecy and investigative tunnel vision. The courts must remedy this injustice, must overturn this conviction, and must release this man.
We firmly believe in our father’s innocence. We fully believe that justice will eventually prevail. We will not rest until Michael Peterson’s freedom is restored.
Sincerely,
Clayton Peterson

Correction
In the piece “Comboland Radio” in the November 2008 issue, one of the founders of the ’80s rock band The Fabulous Knobs was Jack Cornell, not Rick Cornell as stated in the article.