Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article is reprinted with the permission of Encounter and The Fraser Institute.
“Capitalism and the Jews” was originally presented as a lecture before the Mont Pelerin Society in 1972. It subsequently was published in England and Canada and appears here without significant revision.
IV. Why the Anti-capitalist Mentality?
How can we reconcile my two propositions? Why is it that despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews, despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in all liberal literature from at least Adam Smith on, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-cap- italist?
We may start by considering some simple yet inadequate answers. Lawrence Fuchs, in a highly superficial analysis of The Political Be-havior of American Jews, argues that the anticapitalism of the Jews is a direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture. He goes so far as to say, “if the communist movement is in a sense a Christian heresy, it is also Jewish orthodoxy—not the totalitarian or revolutionary aspects of world communism, but the quest for social justice through social action.”[7] Needless to say—a point I shall return to later in a different con-nection—Fuchs himself is a liberal in the American sense. He regards the political liberalism of the Jews in this sense as a virtue, and hence is quick to regard such liberalism as a legitimate offspring of the Jewish values of learning, charity, and concern with the pleasures of this world. He never even recognizes, let alone discusses, the key question whether the ethical end of “social justice through social action” is consistent with the political means of centralized government.
Werner Sombart
This explanation can be dismissed out-of-hand. Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, at the most, less than two centuries. Only after the Enlightenment, and then primarily among the Jews who were breaking away from the Jewish religion, did this political stance emerge. Werner Sombart, in his important and controversial book, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, first published in 1911, makes a far stronger case that Jewish religion and culture implied a capitalist outlook than Fuchs does that it implied a socialist outlook. Wrote Som-bart, “throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . . The whole religious system is in reality nothing but a contract between Jehovah and his chosen people . . . . God promises something and gives something, and the righteous must give Him something in return. Indeed, there was no community of interest between God and man which could not be expressed in these terms—that man performs some duty enjoined by the Torch and receives from God a quid pro quo.”[8]
Sombart goes on to discuss the attitude toward riches and poverty in the Old and the New Testament. “You will find,” he writes, “a few passages [in the Old Testament and the Talmud] wherein poverty is lauded as something nobler and higher than riches. But on the other hand you will come across hundreds of passages in which riches are called the blessing of the Lord, and only their misuse or their dangers warned against.” By contrast, Sombart refers to the famous passage in the New Testament that “it is easier for a Camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God” and remarks, “as often as riches are lauded in the Old Testament, they are damned in the New . . . . The religion of the Christians stands in the way of their economic activities . . . . The Jews were never faced with this hindrance.” He concludes, “Free trade and industrial freedom were in accordance with Jewish law, and therefore in accordance with God’s will.”[9]
Sombart’s book, I may say, has in general had a highly unfavorable reception among both economic historians in general and Jewish intellectuals in particular, and indeed, something of an aura of anti-Semitism has come to be attributed to it. Much of the criticism seems valid but there is nothing in the book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism though there certainly is in Sombart’s behavior and writings several decades later, indeed, if anything I interpret the book as philo-Semitic. I regard the violence of the reaction of Jewish intellectuals to the book as itself a manifestation of the Jewish anti-capitalist mentality. I shall return to this point later.
A more balanced judgment than either Fuchs’ or Sombart’s with which I am in full accord is rendered by Nathan Glazer, who writes, “It is hard to see direct links with Jewish tradition in these attitudes; . . . One thing is sure: it is an enormous oversimplification to say Jews in Eastern Europe became socialists and anarchists because the Hebrew prophets had denounced injustice twenty-five hundred years ago . . . . The Jewish religious tradition probably does dispose Jews, in some subtle way, toward liberalism and radicalism, but it is not easy to see in present-day Jewish social attitudes the heritage of the Jewish religion.”[10]
The clock has likely struck midnight on Tebow Time.
With Peyton Manning in discussions to sign a blockbuster deal with the Denver Broncos, the NFL future of incumbent quarterback Tim Tebow is in serious doubt. The crossover football star will almost certainly be traded by the team, ridding coach John Fox and John Elway of a player whose popularity and penchant for comebacks made him an albatross on their plans to mold the franchise in their own image.
Multiple outlets report that the Broncos will try to trade Tebow once the deal with Manning is finalized. He should have no shortage of suitors. He’ll never be a Manning or a Tom Brady, but in the right system, Tebow could flourish as a change-of-pace quarterback or hybrid player.
The Jacksonville Jaguars are expected to show interest. Bringing in Tebow would create buzz and sell tickets to a stadium that’s often littered with empty seats. He grew up in the state and starred in nearby Gainesville with the Florida Gators.
Another possible destination could be the New England Patriots. Offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels drafted Tebow to the Broncos in 2010, the team has a surplus of draft picks and Bill Belichick has that “crazy as a fox” reputation that would enjoy the hoopla of trying to make Tebow fit into an offense with Tom Brady. The coach was complimentary of Tebow before New England’s blowout playoff win over the Broncos. Of course, that praise could have been a Belichickian power play — praise the guy who stinks and nobody will accuse you of underestimating the opponent.
And it wouldn’t be a quarterback derby if the Miami Dolphins didn’t get involved, then fail to land their target.
Denver could also choose to keep Tebow, though that seems to be an untenable stance. The Manning circus will be big, but not big enough to keep Tebow under its tent.
I was saddened that SNL proclaimed Mormonism true in a skit Saturday. The archaeological record is obvious that Joseph Smith was wrong in many of the details he put in the Book of Mormon and he assumed that the Indians in the North America had the same surroundings that the Jews did in the middle east 2000 years […]
I knew this day would come soon. I was asked this morning if I thought God was pulling for the Broncos and I responded, “No I do not. Many think that and for them it will be said that that devil Tom Brady brings the Tebow winning streak to a halt.” Sure enough New England […]
Another good article I read on Tebow: By PATTON DODD On a brisk Thursday evening in mid-November, I sat high in the stands at a Denver Broncos home game, covering the ears of my 4-year-old son as the fans around us launched f-bombs at Tim Tebow, the Broncos’ struggling second-year quarterback. Mr. Tebow was ineffective […]
Everyone is wondering if this amazing fourth quarter comeback streak will end for the Denver Broncos and their quarterback Tim Tebow. At the December 11, 2011 early service at Fellowship Bible Church, pastor Mark Henry noted: How many of you have been watching the drama behind Tim Tebow. Tim Tebow is the starting quarterback for […]
I have also listed below the other posts I have on the Mannings. Injured Peyton Manning shows off his adorable baby son (at least one of them is in uniform!) By Daily Mail Reporter Injured NFL star Peyton Manning proudly showed off his adorable eight-month-old son Marshall yesterday clad in a mini Manning jersey. […]
Peyton Manning holds his son, Marshall following the Colts-Panthers game, Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011. Provided by Fox-59 __________ Did you know that Peyton and Ashley Manning had kids? I did not know that and I thought that I kept up with news items like that. Here is an article that tells all about them: As […]
s See larger AP Photo / Darron Cummings Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning (18) greets New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (12) on the field after Indianapolis defeated New England, 35-34 in an NFL football game in Indianapolis, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009. From this video you can tell how much the Mannings wanted to stay […]
In a night of disappointments, the complete lack of any mention of Social Security other than as an excuse to raise taxes was one of the greatest. Although the Social Security trustees, several of whom are members of the President’s cabinet, has warned that the program faces perpetual deficits, the President evidently has no plan to protect the retirement security of millions of Americans who face a 25% benefit cut in less than 25 years. Most officeholders join the President in treating Social Security as an issue that can be discussed later – much later, but the reality is that just like a leaky roof, the longer that the President and Congress waits to fix the program, the more expensive the reforms will be.
Tax Reform? It’s Needed, but There’s A Better Way to Go – Emily Goff
President Obama says he is ready and willing to embark on tax reform. This is a welcome statement, as our current tax system is ripe for overhaul. However, instead of piecemeal approaches or solutions that give preferences to one industry or company over another, the President should look to the fundamental reforms that the New Flat Tax, as part of The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream, would bring.
Obama Doubles Down on the Worst U.S. Tax Policy – J.D. Foster
One of the universally acknowledged banes of the federal income tax has for years been the individual Alternative Minimum Tax. Borne in its current form in the 1986 tax reform act, this parallel system which runs in parallel to the regular income tax forces taxpayers to calculate their taxes twice and pay the larger of the two.
Today, this tax makes no sense, and most tax reform proposals of sufficient heft seek as a primary goal the repeal of the AMT. Tonight, President Obama proposed not merely to embrace the AMT in principle, but to extend the principle robustly to the business income tax – to create a new basic minimum tax for businesses. Once again, when it comes to tax policy, President Obama sees what needs to be done – and does the exact opposite.
___________________
Got to tackle entitlement reform but your speech did not mention that once.
Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com
Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:
Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
On May 11, 2011, I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:
Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner. I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.
Enact user fees that recover all the costs of programs with identifiable users, such as:
Requiring agribusinesses and farmers to assume the full cost of their crop insurance coverage (2004 spending: $3,965 million, mandatory); and
Imposing user fees on commodity futures and options contract transactions to help finance the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ($91 million, discretionary).
Reform other programs targeted to the wrong recipients by:
Restricting federal housing assistance to those with the greatest need and requiring able-bodied, non-elderly recipients to engage in work-related activities;
No longer providing substantially more federal aid to Howard University than is provided to other private universities;
Limiting Congress’s franking privilege to non-election years to prevent taxpayer funding of campaign mailings; and
Enforcing current laws limiting School Lunch program eligibility to low-income families.
I wondered why President Obama was claiming that he was not increasing regulations as much as Bush did. However, the real truth coming out in this article below:
President Obama famously declared in this year’s State of the Union: “I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.” Heritage’s James Gattuso and Diane Katz have run the numbers. And Obama shouldn’t be bragging.
Obama’s comparison encompassed all regulations, including federal rules for such things as Medicare rates, migratory birds and fireworks safety. And on that point, he was telling the truth.
This week’s chart tests Obama’s claim by looking at the number of major regulations imposed by each administration. Major regulations, as defined by the government, are regulations that cost up to $100 million or more each year.
In his first three years of presidency, President George W. Bush imposed 28 major regulations at a cost of $8.1 billion. Obama imposed 106 major regulations at a cost of $46 billion.
“This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years,” according to the report.
Gattuso and Katz’s report, Red Tape Rising, documents how the Obama administration has greatly increased government regulations.
A few notable findings from the report:
A majority of the major regulations came as a consequence of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare and the EPA’s global warming crusade.
The report used information given by the agencies that have no incentive to report accurately, so the costs estimated are understated, giving agencies the benefit of the doubt.
More regulations are looming. Obamacare is imposing rules faster than the regulators can write them.
In order to help the economy and put a stop to regulations, Katz and Gattuso suggest three prongs of strong oversight: approval of new major regulations by Congress, a congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis, and sunset dates for existing regulations.
Katz spoke about the report at The Bloggers Briefing, which is available on Livestream and BlogTalkRadio.
In the clip above we see President Obama in his earlier debate with Hillary Clinton and he answered the question concerning the drop in the capital tax by Bill Clinton and the resulting increase in revenues, that he still would raise the capital gains tax on the 100,000 million Americans that owned stock because of the issue of fairness.
It seems that the corporate tax in the USA is almost double the world average and it should be reduced. In fact, Canada reduced theirs dramatically and still brought in about the same revenue.
Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and the editor of Downsizing Government.org.
Added to cato.org on March 13, 2012
This article appeared in Daily Caller on March 13, 2012.
The President Obama and most members of Congress agree that the U.S. corporate tax rate should be cut. Thankfully, it is finally sinking in that having a 40 percent corporate tax rate when the world average is just 23 percent is suicide in a globalized economy.
The sticking point on slashing the corporate tax rate has been the fear that the federal government might lose revenues under such a reform. To prevent an expected revenue loss, policymakers have searched for tax loopholes to close in order to “pay for” a corporate rate cut. The problem is that members never find any loophole closings that they can agree on.
I’ve concluded that the effort to close corporate loopholes is a big waste of time. It is simply blocking desperately needed reforms to the tax rate. If I was drafting a corporate tax reform bill, I’d match a tax rate cut with federal spending cuts, but that idea hasn’t caught on either.
The good news is that a corporate tax rate cut without any changes to the tax base probably wouldn’t lose the government any money over the long term. Good evidence comes from Canada’s corporate tax cuts of the 1980s and 2000s.
The chart shows Canada’s federal corporate tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and the federal corporate tax rate. The tax rate plunged from 38 percent in 1980 to just 15 percent by 2012. Amazingly, there has been no obvious drop in tax revenues over the period.
Canadian corporate tax revenues have fluctuated, but the changes are correlated with economic growth, not the tax rate. In the late 1980s, a tax rate cut was followed by three years of stable revenues. In the early 1990s, a plunge in revenues was caused by a recession, and then in the late 1990s revenues soared as the economy grew.
In 2000, Canadian policymakers enacted another round of corporate tax rate cuts, which were phased in gradually. Corporate tax revenues initially dipped, but then they rebounded strongly in the late 2000s.
The rate cuts enacted in 2000 were projected to cause substantial revenue losses to the Canadian government. That projection indicates that the reform didn’t have much in the way of legislated loophole closing. But the chart shows that the positive taxpayer response to the rate cut was apparently so large that the government did not lose much, if any, revenue at all.
In 2009, Canada was dragged into a recession by the elephant economy next door, and that knocked the wind out of corporate tax revenues. However, it is remarkable that even with a recession and a tax rate under 20 percent, tax revenues as a share of GDP have been roughly as high in recent years as they were during the 1980s, when there was a much higher rate. Jason Clemens of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute notes that Canadian corporate tax revenues have been correlated with corporate profits, not the tax rate.
If a corporate tax rate is high, there is a “Laffer effect” when the rate is cut, meaning that the tax base expands so much that the government doesn’t lose any money. Estimates from Jack Mintz and other tax experts show that cutting corporate tax rates when they are above about 25 percent won’t lose governments any revenues over the long run.
The overall Canadian rate this year is about 27 percent when the average provincial rate is included. By contrast, the average federal-state rate in the United States is 40 percent, which is roughly 15 points above the revenue-maximizing rate. That means that Congress can proceed with a corporate rate cut and everyone would win — taxpayers, the economy and even the government.
Corporate tax reform with loophole closing is a wild-goose chase. Congress never seems to agree on which loopholes to close, with the result that our economy continues to suffer under a super-high rate. If we matched Canada by cutting our federal corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, it would generate a large increase in reported income as corporate investment boomed and tax avoidance fell. The tax base would automatically expand without Congress even legislating reductions to deductions, credits or other loopholes.
In 2012, Canada will collect about 1.9 percent of GDP in federal corporate income tax revenues with a 15 percent tax rate. The United States will collect about 1.6 percent of GDP with a 35 percent tax rate. Do we need any more evidence that our high corporate tax rate makes no sense?
MESSAGE INTRODUCTION
The second of the four principles of knowledge is the law of causality. This law is defined as “Every effect must have a cause.” A right understanding of this law can lead one to the answer to one of the greatest theological questions the seven year old can muster: “Who made God?” A wrong understanding can lead to denying the existence of God. Thus, the importance of this law should not be minimized.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To see the seriousness of misunderstanding or ignoring this law.
2. To understand the nuances of the word “effect.”
3. To understand David Hume’s objections to causality.
QUOTATIONS AND THOUGHTS
The mind is good—God put it there. He gave us our heads and it was not his intention that our heads would function just as a place to hang a hat. (A.W. Tozer)
It doesn’t take a great mind to be a Christian, but it does take all the mind a man has.
(R.C. Raines)
Nothing but faith will ever rectify the mistakes of reason on divine things. (William S.
Plumer)
LECTURE OUTLINE
I. Four principles of knowledge are crucial for dialog about God.
a) Law of non-contradiction
b) Law of causality
c) Basic reliability of sense perception
d) Analogical use of language
II. The Law of Causality
a) Prior to the Enlightenment (which emerged in 18-century France), the principle of causality was the foundational and unchallenged argument for the existence of God. Aristotle began this tradition by arguing that God was the “First Cause” or “Unmoved Mover.”
b) Bertrand Russell believed in God as a young man, but after reading John
Stuart Mill, who objected to the causal argument for the existence of God, he was convinced otherwise.
c) But Mill and Russell, great philosophers though they may be, made an error of definition. They believed that using causality as an argument for the existence of God only led to a series of infinite regressions.
d) They defined the law of causation as, “Everything must have a cause.” But the true definition of the law is, “Every effect must have an antecedent cause.” The God we claim exists is not an effect; He is uncaused. Thus, He does not require a cause. Therefore, infinite regress does not occur.
III. Understanding Causality
a. Formal truth and analytical truth
b. Illustration: A bachelor is an unmarried man.
c. Formal principles do not directly teach us anything about the real world.
d. Illustration: Dr. Sproul will not allow for uncaused effects.
IV. Conclusion: Did David Hume destroy causality and therefore causal arguments for the existence of God?
Pele as can be expected came back to play with Brazil in the 1962 World Cup which was played in Chile. This time however Pele was much more known to the fans as well as opposing players; who were not really all that eager to see him score another six goals or perhaps more in this world cup. Brazil were defending champions with basically the same players which won the world cup in 58 and who despite the passage of four years were still relatively young. All of which making it easy to see why a second world cup for Brazil in as many tournaments was not out of the realms of realistic possibilities. Specially since there were no other teams which were really strong enough to challenge them. Germany going through a rebuilding period while Italy still did not have the sort of team which could aspire to recapture their glory days of the 30s. Uruguay pretty much being but a shadow of their former selves.
The world cup known as Chile 62 however become a very defensive affair as teams were no longer willing to score as many as three goals or more in loosing efforts as had been the case in Switzerland 54 and Sweden 58. Teams became more eager to hold on to their leads once they had them and not risk them by going forward for more goals. This making most teams play with four defenders and only three forwards where before it had been with two defenders and five forwards.
Brazil for its part got off to what looking back might have been considered a good start in beating Mexico by 2-0 with Pele scoring Brazil’s first goal yet despite this victory; Brazil was severely criticized with much of the blame falling not only on their performance but on Pele. This despite Pele’s having scored one of Brazil’s two goals. This perhaps allowing Pele to see for himself what Mazola had experienced four years earlier when despite having scored two goals in Brazil’s first match; still had people saying he should not be on Brazil’s team. It being a case that Brazilian fans in those days were used to seeing Brazil beat Mexico by much more goals than only two. Brazil, after all had beaten Mexico by 5-0 in Brazil 50 and by 4-0 in Switzerland 54. All of which standing to their reason that a defending world champion should be able to beat Mexico, once again by at least as wide a margin as their teams in the past had done if not by a wider one.
Brazil’s next game came against Czechoslovakia. This a match which ended in a 0-0 draw and with even more criticism aimed at Brazil by their fans and media back home. It was also in this match that Pele left the field injured not to return for the rest of the tournament. Pele had not even been touched by any of Czechoslovakia’s players yet despite this managed to do damage on himself which would take him out of the remainder of the world cup.
For my part, I being skeptical about almost everything, wonder if Pele’s injury was such that he could not have played Brazil’s next game against Spain. Pele after all had not broken anything and had not even been fouled. Was it perhaps an attempt to try another player? Pele had not really played all that well in Brazil’s first two matches or such it was perceived by the fans and the media back home. So I often wonder if perhaps Brazil’s trainer did not exaggerate the gravity of Pele’s injury in order to try another player in his place like he had done with Pele in Mazola’s place four years earlier. It being Amarildo who took Pele’s place against Spain in a game which though not an absolute must win game for Brazil; was one in which they would have to do better than they had in their first two matches. This if perhaps not to qualify, at least to demonstrate to their fans that they were still a team capable of producing great football.
The game started with Spain taking a 1-0 lead when Adelardo scored 35 minutes in to the game. Spain would even take a 1-0 lead in to the second half. This something which had not happened in a very long that that Brazil ended the first half behind on the scoreboard. Brazil at this point even finding themselves in danger of being eliminated in the first round. This being the case that Spain with a win would have had four points which would have put them first in the group. Brazil with a loss would have had three points which would leave them depending on what Mexico (who was already out of the competition) could do against Czechoslovakia. Naturally a Czech victory or even a tie would have left Brazil out had they lost.
All however proved to be academic, as Brazil came back in the second half to win the game by two goals to one with both goals being scored by Amarildo; who just happened to be the man playing in Pele’s place. Obviously Pele’s replacement was doing his duty so I wonder if Pele would have been able to return to the starting team even if he had been healthy or if his injury was such that it was the real reason he was kept out of the starting lineup.
Amarildo had played well against Spain, this there was no doubts about and specially in a world cup in which defensive play was the order of the day unlike it had been in the last two previous world cups. Spain, in fact having a strong team back then which two years later went on to win the European nations cup.
Brazil went on to win their next two matches with relative ease. First against England by 3-1. This in a game which Garrincha scored two truly amazing goals. First one off a header and the next one of a free kick which could not have been better placed. Brazil’s other goal being scored by Vava, who continued where he left off in Sweden 58. Brazil’s next win came in the semifinals against the home team, Chile whom they defeated by a score of 4-2 with once again; Garrincha and Vava doing the scoring for Brazil. It being Garrincha who scored Brazil’s first two while Vava scored Brazil’s third and fourth.
Brazil was clearly playing well and was in top form and all without Pele. It was a case of this team being of such a high quality that even the absence of Pele did not disturb anything. Apparently Amarildo had been more than capable of filling the void left by Pele while the rest by just keeping up their level allowed Brazil to easily get in to the final. Of course, one could always say that this world cup did not really have very strong teams and those which were in fact solid such as the Soviet Union (winner of the 1960 European Championship) and Hungary did not really live up to expectations; apart the fact that Brazil did not have to face them anyway. Brazil was in the finals however and to their credit deservedly so and all without the man who many would later call the best player of all time.
In the finals Brazil met Czechoslovakia for the second time in the tournament yet unlike in their first match; this one could not end in a draw. Czechoslovakia, for its part like Sweden four years earlier also scored the first goal though not as early in the match as Sweden. Czechoslovakia in fact having to wait till the 15th minute of the game when Masopust slipped past Brazil’s defense to give his team a 1-0 lead. Brazil however being the solid team they were did not take long to reply. Brazil in fact having to wait but two minutes till Amarildo (Pele’s replacement) scored to level matters at one a piece. Amarildo, scoring a brilliant goal from a very tight angle which perhaps Czechoslovakia’s goalkeeper; Schroijf should have saved yet the score none the less was tied at one all.
Czechoslovakia for what concerned them, were playing well and went in to the half time break tied at one though it is my opinion that they perhaps celebrated too much after scoring. This allowing Brazil to get back in to the game after only two minutes of having gone down by a goal to nil. Czechoslovakia had its chances in the first period and had it not been for their lack of concentration after scoring and Schroijf’s error perhaps would have gone in to the half time break with a one goal lead or perhaps a two goal lead. This if they had continued with the solid play which had gotten them to the final in the first place.
Brazil however regrouped at the half and came out strong with Zito scoring his first world cup goal and Brazil’s second in the final to put them up by 2-1. Brazil perhaps was not dominating as strongly as they had in 58 yet were definitely in the drivers seat. It being in the 78th minute of the game that Garrincha sent up a high ball which in all honesty should not have given Czech goalkeeper, Schroijf any problems what so ever yet he somehow managed to drop it. The ball falling straight in to the path of the ever opportunistic Vava, who scored his first goal of the match and Brazil’s third to make the score 3-1; which is how it would end.
This last goal making Vava the first player to score in two finals. Brazil had won the world cup and became just the second team, after Italy to win two in a row and to a certain extent Pele had picked up his second world cup win though in all truth, as I have clearly pointed out; he hardly played. Naturally, to many at the time this did not really matter as Pele was a man who at the age of 21 had already won two world cups even if the second one was just for being on the team and little else. This perhaps making it possible for Argentina to say that Pasarella won two world cups with Argentina, who as a matter of fact only played in their first game against South Korea but I ask is this enough to say he is a double world champion? I would go one step further and ask if Brazil had beaten France in 98 then could Ronaldo claim to have won three world cups as well since he was on their world cup winning team in 94 though did not play at all? This being a matter of interpretation of course.
As an added comment, I would like to say that I feel it is sad that Amarildo did not really get the credit he earned for his performance in Chile 62. It being Amarildo, who to a certain extent with his two goals against Spain saved Brazil from the humiliation of being eliminated in the first round. Amarildo even scoring in the final when Brazil was loosing by 1-0 yet despite his efforts which were important in Brazil’s second world cup win, is rarely if ever mentioned amongst the great players of all time though he undoubtedly was.
My name is Gianni Truvianni, author of many an article to be found on the internet along with the book “New York’s Opera Society”. My works also include the books “What Should Not Matter”, “Love Your Sister” and several others which still remain unpublished though I am presently looking to change this.
During the football offseason I do try and look for any excuse to talk about football. My sons Wilson and Hunter helped me with this below, but to say we agreed on all of it would be an exaggeration.
These are my predictions for the next five years concerning the football and basketball SEC Champs: My reasons are very simple for the picks below. Kentucky will continue to win at will as long as Calipari is at Kentucky but he does want to retire in a few years and that will give everyone else a chance.
In football the west was dominate this year but I think the East will be much better in coming years than they were this year. I really think Arkansas will be very good in 2012 with their best running back and quarterback returning from a top 5 team.
In coming years you have to consider that teams like Auburn and Tennessee will be much better since they have been outrecruiting the Razorbacks recently.
2012-2015 Kentucky will win SEC regular conference championships and tournament. 2016 Arkansas will take the SEC regular conference championship and tournament (Calipari would have retired one year earlier.)
2012 football SEC Championship East Georgia, West Arkansas, Overall Georgia
2013 football SEC Championship East Florida, West LSU, Overall Florida
2014 football SEC Championship East Tennessee, West Alabama, Overall Alabama
2015 football SEC Championship East Florida, West Auburn, Overall Florida
2016 football SEC Championship East Georgia, West Arkansas, Overall Arkansas
I think that the hogs and the vols both need 10-6 conference records to get in the NCAA. I have said all year that we need two road victories to do that. I do assume that we will need to beat Florida in Fayetteville to accomplish that. Cuonzo Martin: 10-6 in SEC puts Vols ‘in […]
Florida’s Patric Young (4) goes to the basket as Tennessee’s Jarnell Stokes (5) tries to block the shot during the first half of an NCAA college basketball game in Gainesville, Fla., Saturday, Feb. 11, 2012. (AP Photo/Phil Sandlin) _____________________________ It appears the Arkansas Razorbacks will be facing a new and improved Tennessee Vols basketball team […]
Arkansas must get a couple of road wins if we hope to make it to the NCAA Tournament this year. By reading the comments on Arkansas Sports 360 it appears the fans are anxious for one. Looking at the schedule and there remains games at Tennessee, Auburn and Mississippi State. The Miss St game would […]
I am glad that Petrino got more defensive players than offensive players but time will tell if he can develop these three star players like he did in 2008 when that class later turned the hogs into a national contender in 2011. Below is an article from http://www.ajc.com Alabama (26): The national champs added to their […]
I know that many of us are disappointed that Dorial Green-Beckham did not sign with the Razorbacks but we just have to move on. I am not interested in reliving the whole thing and going through all the negative things said about the Hogs during the process. That always happens in every recruiting case and […]
I was disappointed that Vandy had a better class than Arkansas but I was glad that we got a chance to get a quality linebacker to switch to the Hogs at the last moment. Otis Kirk’s Recruiting 360: Arkansas’ Peoples Key In Landing Otha Peters by Otis Kirk, Hawgs247.com 2/2/2012 at 1:06pm Arkansas struck late in […]
.jpg)
Canadian corporate tax revenues have fluctuated, but the changes are correlated with economic growth, not the tax rate. In the late 1980s, a tax rate cut was followed by three years of stable revenues. In the early 1990s, a plunge in revenues was caused by a recession, and then in the late 1990s revenues soared as the economy grew.
The Daily Hatch 