Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Friday, May 12, 2017

Anti-Social Left vs Anti-Economic Left

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 4 Comments Wednesday, May 10, 2017 @ Sultan Knish Blog

The Democrats have ended their unity tour more divided than ever. Unlike Republican quarrels, their war is mostly ignored by the media. And yet it will define what the left and its plan to take over the country will look like.

When Hillary lost, she didn’t just lose the White House. She also lost the DNC. Her loyalists, already discredited for their brazen tampering to disenfranchise Sanders supporters, had to make way for Obama’s people. The Clinton legacy is over. The Dems belong to Obama now. Or do they?

When Obama inherited the DNC from the Clintons, he also inherited their bitter enemy.

Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders are the leaders of the two sides in the Dem civil war. The shots are already being fired. As usual, they are coming from the insurgent Sandernistas.

Keith Ellison, Bernie’s man to take over the DNC, fired the first shot, blaming Barack for Dem losses.

"Obama could have been a better party leader, and I think that the fact that he wasn’t, has put his legacy in jeopardy," he charged. "We lost a lot of state House seats, governorships, secretaries of states… he can’t say that he wasn’t part of those losses. I mean, who else?”

Who else indeed? It’s an obvious question that can’t be asked in Dem circles. Obama is the only truly national figure that the party has. And he has used the fall of the Clintons to take over the DNC.

If Obama is really responsible for Democrat losses, then the party and its donors just bought first class seats on the Titanic. That’s why Democrat autopsies of the defeat remain so explosive. Blame can be apportioned to white people, to racism, Islamophobia and to Global Warming, but not to Barack Obama.

Keith Ellison was the best messenger Sanders had to take a shot at Barry. Black loyalty to Obama is still the third rail of politics. And Ellison is one of the few black people in the Sanders inner circle. Obama’s pricey Wall Street speech offered the opportunity for a more direct attack from Bernie Sanders.

“I just think it is distasteful,” Bernie slurred on CNN. “At a time when we have so much income and wealth inequality … it just does not look good.”

The attack went to the heart of his differences with Obama. Unlike the Clinton era, the split is no longer between the left and the radical left. Obama and Sanders are both representatives of the radical left.

But they don’t represent the same radical left.

Bernie embodies the old left. Its mantra is class warfare. There is a great deal of talk about billionaires, working people and the ruling class. Obama pays lip service to that same rhetoric, but his is the program of the intersectional left. The intersectional left is far more interested in identity than class. It defines its organization around a coalition of racial, sexual and other minorities. Where Bernie wants to talk to the working class, the intersectional left wants to hear from transgender Muslim women of color.

The differences aren’t just intellectual. They define the tactics and agenda of the Democrats.

When Tom Perez, Obama’s DNC boss, recently read pro-life Democrats out of the party, he was following the Obama blueprint. Bernie meanwhile went on campaigning for a somewhat pro-life Dem. Bernie does not really care about abortion, gay rights, transgender bathrooms and the social issues of the intersectional left. The old Socialist follows the older slogan of the hard left. No war, but class war.

Bernie Sanders has been repeatedly dismissive of identity politics. “It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’” he had sneered.

“One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics,” he had insisted.

“Whether its gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, you are talking about people fighting for liberation in a particular way,” Bernie said in an interview. “This… is a more generalized resistance… it is moving in the direction of a class based way… you aren’t seeing this just in this country, but all over the world.”

Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your granfalloons and artificial divisions.

Democrats and the left had long ago replaced pure class warfare with identity politics warfare. Intersectionality entirely displaced and demonized the old Dem white working class base.

And the Dems paid the price.

Obama’s reign torched most of the last of that white working class base. Trump’s victories would not have been possible if the Dems had not become a party of wealthy bicoastal urban and suburban elites who were out of touch with the South and the Rust Belt. And who were proud to be out of touch with a bunch of “ignorant racist, sexist homophobes” still “clinging to their guns and religion”.

The clash between Bernie and Obama is also over the autopsy of Hillary’s defeat. Did the Dems lose because they failed to turn out the base as effectively as Obama had or because former Obama voters had come out for Trump? Should the Dems try to appeal to working class whites with a class warfare pitch or work harder to turn out the intersectional coalitions of minority voters?

Bernie and Obama learned very different lessons from their political experiences. Vermont is a largely white state. If you can’t appeal to white voters, you can’t appeal to anyone. Obama won in Illinois with large totals in Cook County while disregarding Wayne County. The white conservative Protestants who voted for his opponent could be largely ignored. They were swept away in the landslide.

Even though Illinois went mostly red, Cook County did deliver Illinois for Hillary. But Chicago isn’t America. That’s what Obama still doesn’t understand. And so the Dems don’t get it either.

The Democrats are caught in a civil war over two kinds of ideological purity.

The Bernie faction would purge what they view as the corporate wing; that comfortable alliance of the wealthy urban social left with its minority coalitions and obsessions with abortion and gun control. And then refocus the party on class warfare to unite minorities and white working class voters.

The change to the Dems would be almost incomprehensible. And most of Bernie’s college hipster supporters who get triggered by stray gusts of wind don’t even understand that this is the agenda.

The Obama faction wants to purge conservative deviations from their social line on abortion and gun control. This ideological consolidation would shift the party further toward urban and suburban coastal elites while continuing to alienate white working class voters. The intersectional left remain convinced that these voters will be replaced by a new majority of immigrants, domestic minorities and college whites. Alienating these voters is a calculated strategy to force the Dems to accelerate the new majority.

This internecine warfare on the left parallels the debates on the right between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. The social lefties and fiscal conservatives are urban and suburban creatures. But the social conservatives and fiscal lefties are more likely to thrive in more rural areas. Fiscal conservatives cede social issues to the left while fiscal lefties would cede some social issues to the right.

The Bernie faction argues that a 50 state strategy is impossible without the white working class. But it’s hard to think of any worse messengers to the white working class than Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison. The Obama faction is convinced that increasing minority turnout without sacrificing a single social dogma is possible in every state. Class warfare can be funded by Wall Street donations. White voters in Nebraska will learn to cheer Black Lives Matter protests. And it will all end in a beautiful synthesis.

It’s not just about strategy. It’s about what both factions envision America should look like.

The left’s utopian visions are inversions. They take what the left hates about a country and inverts that into an ideal society. These visions appear outwardly positive, but are deeply negative.

The two lefts hate different aspects of America most.

The old left is anti-economic. It hates free enterprise most of all. It is motivated by an endless spite aimed at the middle class and upper class for their success. Its ideal society inverts all that independent economic activity into a system in which resources are “fairly” administered by the state.

The intersectional left is anti-social. It hates white people, men and women living normal lives. It obsessively seeks to deconstruct all of society by attacking its norms as supremacism and oppression. Its ideal society is an intersectional caste system with white people and married couples at the bottom.

The left embodies both an anti-economic and anti-social agenda. The debate is over what comes first.

Both believe that inverting what they believe is the existing power structure and ruling class will undo the oppression that is responsible for all the ills of the world. The old left wants to ‘overthrow’ the middle class and the rich. The intersectional left wants to ‘overthrow’ white people and heterosexuals.

The old left insists that social differences will fade away under Socialism. The intersectional left believes that without social deconstruction, Socialism will just mean white supremacy and hetero-cis power.

The old left believes that the true enemies are the billionaires and that working class white men must be enlisted to fight them. The intersectional left will take money from billionaires to fight working class white men who are the real enemy.

That is the Bernie and Obama split in a nutshell.

Obama will take money from Wall Street to fight white men. Bernie wants white men to fight Wall Street.

Both factions of the left are utterly deranged. Their ideologies are built on hatred and can only cause misery. And they are now fighting each other for control of the left, the Dems and the country.

The Trump Family Is Helping America by Marketing Economic Citizenship

May 11, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

Although I gave him a good grade for his first 100 days, it’s no secret that I’m not overly optimistic about the long-term policy implications of the Trump presidency. Simply stated, I fear he’ll wind up being a big-government Republican like Bush (either one) or Nixon rather than a small-government Republican like Reagan or Coolidge.

I’ve specifically complained about Trump’s approach to entitlements, his support for protectionism, his proposed childcare subsidies, and that’s just a partial list of his statist policies.

I mention all these things because I’m about to defend the President’s extended family for the practice of “selling” American citizenship and I don’t want anyone to accuse me of being a shill for Trump.

You will get a good grasp of the controversy if you read this editorial in the New York Times. Here are the key passages.
The Kushner family…has been highlighting its White House connections to entice wealthy Chinese investors and promising them green cards in return under a special government visa program. …it’s also a scandal that Congress allows real estate developers to use the American immigration system to pad their profits. …Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and special adviser…. His sister Nicole Meyer was in Beijing and Shanghai this past weekend seeking investors for a luxury apartment project her family is developing… Her sales pitch cited her brother and laid out how a $500,000 investment could provide a coveted path to American citizenship. …Ms. Meyer’s disturbing investor pitch was made possible by the EB-5 investor visa, which opens an express lane into the United States for those who can afford to invest nearly 10 times what the median American household earns in a year. …Under the program, investors have to put at least $1 million, and it has to lead to creation or preservation of at least 10 permanent, full-time jobs. But the minimum investment drops to $500,000 if applicants invest in rural areas or places with elevated unemployment.
I don’t agree with the tone, but this is an accurate description of the program. The EB-5 program is a part of America’s immigration system and it is explicitly designed to lure job-creating investment to the U.S. economy.

Yes, it’s poorly designed and presumably should be improved.
But the underlying concept is good. If we want more prosperity, America should join in the competition to attract economically successful migrants.

After all, many immigrant groups are unambiguously good for the American economy, increasing our per-capita GDP.
The EB-5 program creates a pathway for those people, and the Kushner family is simply showing them that investing in commercial real estate is one of their options.

I don’t understand why some people think this is a bad thing. All things being equal, I’d rather have rich immigrants than poor immigrants.

That’s why I defended Governor Scott Walker when he was attacked for wanting some of these people investing in Wisconsin. And that’s why today I’m defending the Kushners. I want America to become more prosperous.

Yet this rational policy rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Including some lawmakers.
Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Feinstein (D-CA), the Chair and Ranking Committee members of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced bill S. 232 to terminate the EB-5 Visa Program.
Critics tend to make three arguments.
  • They don’t like rich people benefiting – My response is that don’t care that wealthy foreigners benefit or that wealthy American developers benefit. My goal is more growth for ordinary people, and that’s what we get with rich and/or high-skilled immigrants.
  • They are upset about favoritism – I agree that the current EB-5 system is too complicated and vulnerable to cronyism, but the solution is to copy the nations cited below by creating very simple rules allowing rich foreigners to move to America and make investments.
  • They worry about bad people getting visas – There already are fairly onerous rules designed to prevent crooks, terrorists, and other bad guys from sneaking into the U.S. by obtaining an EB-5 visa. There’s no evidence that the current system is inadequate.
To elaborate, let’s focus on the first argument dealing with economic benefits. There is considerable research showing that ordinary people benefit when high-skilled and/or high-net-worth individuals can migrate to their nations.

Here are some excerpts from a recent study by the World Bank.
The number of migrants with a tertiary degree rose nearly 130 percent from 1990 to 2010… A pattern is emerging in which these high‐skilled migrants are departing from a broader range of countries and heading to a narrower range of countries—in particular, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. …For recipient countries, high‐skilled immigration is often linked to clusters of technology and knowledge production that are certainly important for local economies and are plausibly important at the national level. More than half of the high‐ skilled technology workers and entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are foreign‐born. For native workers, high‐skilled immigration means…a chance to benefit from the complementarities and agglomeration effects created by talent clusters.
And here are some additional finding from the same authors in research published by the Bank of Finland.
…many countries are launching new policies to attract high-skilled migrants. Examples include the United Kingdom’s introduction of a points-based immigration system under Tony Blair’s government and its recent programs to attract the “brightest and best” innovators and entrepreneurs. The Netherlands introduced a new “Expatcenter Procedure,” which is an entry procedure designed for “knowledge migrants.” Competing programs pop up with regular frequency—in short, the doors seem to be opening ever wider for high-skilled migrants…the four Anglo-Saxon countries that attract the highest proportions of high-skilled migrants—Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand—implement points-based systems to varying degrees… high-skilled migrants boost innovation and productivity outcomes. …longer time horizons tend to show greater gains.
Here’s a map from the study.


Last but not least, let’s look at two small nations that have reaped big benefits from their economic citizenship programs.

Starting with Cyprus, as reported by Bloomberg.
…foreigners can become citizens in less than six months in exchange for investing at least 2 million euros ($2.2 million) in Cyprus property or 2.5 million euros in government bonds or companies. Since then, the nation has issued about 2,000 passports, Finance Minister Harris Georgiades said in an interview in Nicosia last month. About half have gone to Russians, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers and other consultants who guide clients through the process. The impact has been profound, sparking about 4 billion euros of foreign investment last year — equivalent to almost a quarter of the island’s annual economic output.
And also in Malta, according to Politico.
Malta has earned €310 million through the sale of EU passports… Justice Minister Owen Bonnici confirmed the figure during a parliamentary debate on the small island’s budget for next year, local media reported. …more than 700 individuals have obtained passports since 2014 in exchange for property investments and cash donations to the government
One final point, as seen in data on top inventors and entrepreneurs, is that super-skilled people want to migrate to places with good tax policy.

P.S. Here’s another pro-immigration policy that would have universal support in a sensible world.

One Simple Map Proves Critics of EU’s Immigration Policies Right

By Onan Coca May 11, 2017

American liberals would do well to learn from the mistakes of their counterparts in Europe. Allowing the mass migration of Muslim refugees from the Middle East and North Africa is a big mistake, and i’m not saying that because i’m callous to their plight. Many of the refugees do indeed come from dangerous, war torn regions of the world (like Syria, Iraq, and Yemen). However, allowing them free access into the West is creating an untenable and dangerous situation in once peaceful and safe nations. One simple map easily proves the point:...........The map shows recorded terrorist attacks across Europe since 2012 (from Carto.com). One thing that should immediately stand out is the relative lack of attacks taking place parts of Eastern Europe – particularly in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. These four nations have suffered a total of ZERO known Muslim attacks (the Czech Republic has had 3 attacks by an anarchist group and Hungary had 1 attack stopped but no group took credit). Would you like to know the difference between these four nations and the rest of Europe?

These four nations are known as the V4 nations and they have refused to allow entry to the Muslim refugees streaming in to the rest of Europe.....To Read More.....

OPEC on Verge of Collapse; Asks US to Decrease Production (But No...)

Posted on Friday the 12th of May 2017, by Alice Greene : Staff Writer

Last December, OPEC and allied oil producers agreed to cut production by 1.8 million bpd in a desperate attempt to shrink global supply and rebalance the market.  The effort began on January 1st, 2017 and was scheduled to last for 6 months. As OPEC's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia agreed to cut production by a staggering ...More

My Take - The irony of it all.  These tyrants have had entirely too much influence on the world's economy for too many decades and we can blame the greenies and the federal government for this. 

We've known for decades there was plenty of oil in the boundaries of the United States alone to offset their machinations but the Republican party lacked the courage to tell the greenies to shove it and "just drill", and the Democrat party was - and is still - complicit with the greenies to the point of treason.  Now that's changed with fraking and the traitors in the federal government can't do anything about it because this is taking place on private property. 

Now these arrogant middle eastern manipulators are crying crocodile tears wanting the very countries they've manipulated to stop interfering with their ability to manipulate.  Well, that's not going to happen and I'm expecting to see these governments overturned by the very radicals they've been financially supporting.  And I'm expecting that within five years. 

We have to come to this a few incontrovertible conclusions: 
  • The middle east is not civilized.  
  • It's not stable.
  • It will never be stable.
  • They have no moral foundation other than Islam and that allows them to do all the terrible things they're doing and the vast majority of Muslims are in agreement with their goals and actions. 
  • These are middle age tribal societies with modern weapons, modern transportation and modern communications. 
  • These tribes, often times subscribing to different sects of Islam, hate each other as much as they hate non-believers since they consider them heretics deserving of death, which is why there's no peace in Muslim controlled countries. 
  • The only way to stop these Muslim terrorists is to keep them poor, keep them isolated, keep them unarmed as much as possible, and keep them over there. 
  • Once the Muslim world's energy revenue stops - or at the very least is seriously reduced - the world will be a far safer and better place. 
But there's one more thing we absolutely have to recognize. 
  • These so-called "radical" Islamists are only the symptom. 
  • The problem is Islam. 

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Feel the Bern: Rising use of military tribunals alarms Venezuela activists



Jhonny Reyes' son left the house to join students in an anti-government protest a few days ago, one of hundreds of thousands of angry people who have flooded Venezuela's streets in demonstrations often blocked by police and soldiers. He wound up in front of a military tribunal, accused of inciting rebellion and facing up to 30 years behind bars.

Reyes, who is blind, found himself pleading for information outside Punto Fijo naval base with relatives of 17 other young adults detained in the same demonstration in the western city of Coro. Many had obtained private attorneys, but none was allowed inside to defend the detainees, mostly students studying music and medicine. Instead, the youths were given a public defender and ordered transferred to a military jail near Caracas, a more than six-hour drive away.....To Read More....
 
My Take - Okay, once again - where are Bernie and the Hollywood loons now?  Aren't they outraged at these fascists?  Yes, fascists!  Fascism isn't a conservative or right wing concept.  Fascism is the right wing of socialism and communism is the left wing - but they're still two sides of the same coin and that coin is a statist left wing concept with total disregard for human rights. 
 
That's history and that history is incontestable - and these people are now as silent as all the fellow travellers in the U.S. were during Stalin's purges in the Soviet Union. 
 
Some time back I said Maduro would walk away rather than start a civil war he ultimately would lose - especially since the nation really is broke - there's nothing left to steal, and there's no Soviet Union to fund them as they did Cuba for decades.  But I think I may have been wrong.  Now with the military tribunals I fear the next step will be a typical leftist ploy to hold on to power - mass executions - and I think it would be a wonderful thing if all those Hollywood clowns who lauded these socialists were forced to be there and watch, but no matter what - this fascist government will not be there by year's end. 

How's That Canadian Drug Thing Working Out?

By Josh Bloom — May 2, 2017 @ The American Council on Science and Health

About two decades ago, "common wisdom" dictated that the way to control drug prices in the US was to import the same drugs from Canada for a fraction of the price. The only problem with this strategy was... everything (1):

1) Most of the time, it is illegal.

2) You never know what you're getting. For example, although Canadian pharmacies "require" a prescription, some of them employ a "rent-a doc," who will ask you a few questions online, and then OK the prescription.(See Figure 1)

3) Canada has one-tenth the population of the US. If we imported every single drug from the entire country, it would make little difference in drug prices here.

4) There are serious questions about the quality of the re-imported drugs. For example:

Following is a recent press release from the Justice Department's, Western District of Pennsylvania, which announced the filing of criminal charges against Quantum Solutions, SRL (Canada), and three pharmacies in Western Pennsylvania that could reasonably be called "ethically challenged." It ain't pretty.
"Three Canadian residents and their company have been charged by Information in Pittsburgh with conspiring to distribute wholesale quantities of misbranded prescription drugs made for the foreign market and money laundering, Acting United States Attorney Soo C. Song announced today."
Source: "Anatomy of a Fake Canadian Online Pharmacy." PharmacyChecker Blog
And, some details from the release include:
  • "Quantum Solutions, SRL (hereafter, Quantum), [is] a company registered in Barbados with offices in the Vancouver, British Columbia area. Quantum purchased prescription drugs made for foreign markets and sold wholesale quantities to three pharmacists in Western Pennsylvania."
  • "Quantum purchased the drugs from suppliers located in Turkey, Great Britain and other countries... [and] arranged for these misbranded drugs to be sent to a re-shipper in the United Kingdom."
  • "The UK re-shipper was instructed to unpack the drugs, repack them in several small packages, put misleading labeling and shipping documentation on them ...in order to create the appearance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the drugs were health care products for the personal use ..."
  • "Wholesale quantities of these misbranded drugs intended for use in foreign markets were purchased by three pharmacists in Western Pennsylvania. The wire transfers, checks and credit card payments from the pharmacists traveled from Western Pennsylvania to Canada and Barbados. None of the re-shippers were licensed in the United States to conduct this business. None of the prescription drugs met FDA approval because they were made and labeled for use outside of the United States. The information against Quantum seeks forfeiture of $4,235,000."
  • "None of the prescription drugs met FDA approval because they were made and labeled for use outside of the United States."
Well, that doesn't sound so marvelous, does it? But the actual indictment is far worse.
But let's assume that you still want to take your chances to save some money. How do know which place to trust. It's slim picking. When you take a look at Canadian pharmacies that sell products in the US, some are OK, but most are not. The table below will at least give you a fighting chance should you decide to go North for your meds.

Figure 1: How to spot phony Canadian pharmacies. Source: Pharmacy Check Blog. (3)
Even knowing this, it's not so easy. There a far more bad eggs than good ones up there (emphasis mine):
Of the more than 8,300 online pharmacies reviewed in July 2011 by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), which accredits online drugstores in addition to representing state pharmacy boards across the U.S., just over 3 percent appear to be sound. It considers the rest to be “rogue” operations.
Source: Consumer Reports, 2011.

The FDA agrees:
"In recent years, however, FDA has seen growing evidence of efforts by increasingly well-organized counterfeiters, backed by increasingly sophisticated technologies and criminal operations, intent on profiting from drug counterfeiting at the expense of American patients."
Some particularly egregious examples of fraud, which resulted in harm to patients include:
  • Samples of the life-saving drug cancer drug Avastin didn't even contain the drug
  • Rat poison has been found in imported drugs. (Source: Interpol)
  • Chemicals synthesized in China can be combined with fillers in India and then packaged in Mexico before arriving at a pharmacy in Canada. Source: Newsweek
Of course, there are the dissenters— those who are convinced that this is no more than propaganda that is being put out there by the pharmaceutical industry.

"It is evident that Canadian prescription medications are safe based on the actions of the very government that won’t legalize them." (huh???)

Source: "Why the FDA is against Canadian imports — separating myth from reality" -  eDrugSearch

"In other words, the research doesn’t suggest that Canada’s drug supply is particularly problematic.
Source: Julia Belluz, writing in Vox

"For almost 15 years big drug companies have vigorously lobbied Congress and the federal government to stop Americans from buying foreign medicines. As part of that lobbying, they have made it seem as if all medications purchased from Canada and other international sources are the same as those that come from websites that sell counterfeit drugs."

Gabrial Levitt (Vice president of PharmacyChecker.com) writing in the New York Times.
I guess they are all entitled to their opinion. Which may very well change if they end up with a vial of phony Avastin.

Note:

(1) If you're going to comment that I'm a shill for the pharmaceutical industry because I wrote this, save your breath. Not only does this display an appalling lack of originality, but it's also dead wrong, and I will just make you look stupid.

(2) It would be really nice if the Ottawa Senators stopped beating up on the Rangers.

(3) Thanks for Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch  for pointing out that I had not made it obvious that Pharmacy Check Blog is the place to go to separate the good eggs from the bad.


Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?

By Alex Berezow — May 4, 2017

Recently, I gave a seminar on "fake news" to professors and grad students at a large public university. Early in my talk, I polled the audience: "How many of you believe climate change is the world's #1 threat?"

Silence. Not a single person raised his or her hand.

Was I speaking in front of a group of science deniers? The College Republicans? Some fringe libertarian club? No, it was a room full of microbiologists.

How could so many incredibly intelligent people overwhelmingly reject what THE SCIENCE says about climate change? Well, they don't. They just don't see it as big of a threat to the world as other things. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them felt that antibiotic resistance and pandemic disease were the biggest global threats. One person thought geopolitical instability was the biggest concern......To Read More.....

My Take - The article creates a firestorm of comments about the claime  97% of scientists agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming, but that figure is a logical fallacy.....and a lie of omission. The information exposing that fruad has been available for some time so there's no excuse for touting a number we know factually to be inaccurate.   Here's my article, How Many Constitute 97%?


How Many Constitute 97%?

By Rich Kozlovich

(Editor's Note:  Originally posted here on Tuesday, December 23, 2014, but with this constantly being thrown up I felt it worth posting again.  RK)

In order to have clarity on any subject we first need it defined. From the beginning The High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, Al Gore, proclaimed in Pontifical confidence - "The science is settled"! We have been told from the beginning that "97% of scientists agree" that mankind's introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the globe so dramatically we only had months before we reached the tipping point of no return, therefore "we can't wait", we must act now.

The first thing that struck me about the phrase "97% of scientists agree" was they didn't claim 97% of "all" scientists agree. That should have triggered this question in everyone's mind.

How many constitute 97%?

The number of scientists should have been of more concern than the percentage of scientists. Why? There's a reason statistics is call the arcane science. If there was anything that generates more logical fallacies I don’t know what it is, because you can make statistics say anything you like if you leave important things out.

In July of 2012 Barry Woods wrote an article entitled, "What else did the ‘97% of scientists ’say?" he asks, "I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ‘97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite?”

He goes on to say: “Perhaps a few may say the ‘Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ‘97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.”…. “The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

Let’s take a look at this. The 97% figure they tout is in reality the views of just 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown scientific discipline. Originally a survey was sent to 10,265 scientists - a credible number - but this is where the story starts to get interesting - only 3,146 responded. It would appear that right from the very beginning they lost approximately 60% of “all” scientists by not responding.  I think it isn't unreasonable to presume they didn't respond because they didn't agree with the basic premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) that mankind was responsible. That leaves 3,146 to make up that 97% figure. Right? Well, actually no, and the story of the fabled 97% gets even better.

Now we need to ask: What did all those 3,146 scientists have to say? We don’t know! Why? Because they apparently didn’t like what almost all of them had to say since the number of “acceptable” responders was whittled down from 3,146 to 77.

Remember they lost approximately 60% of “scientists” right from the get go, and now they’ve dumped another 3,069 leaving 77, and only 75 agreed. Think about this. The percentage of scientists who actually agree (using their own base of 10,265) is only approximately .075%. One might ask why they allowed two “deniers”, or at the very least two not entirely on board with AGW? If they published a claim of 100% even the Warmists would have laughed at them.

There are a number of things we take away from this. This mythical figure of 97% of scientists isn’t even 97 scientists and consensus isn’t science, it’s politics and if you “check out the history of science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by ignoring the ‘consensus..’  We know the world officially stopped warming 18 years ago in spite of the fact CO2 levels have risen - a rise and fall has been going on all through the Earth's history - and currently only constitutes .037% of our atmosphere, of which humanities contribution to that number is infinitesimally small - we've passed virtually every tipping point they touted and the world’s still here - the oceans haven't risen, the poles haven't melted and all the models predicting a warming disaster have failed or are failing.
 
The Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be so seriously flawed it has been called fraudulent, and since he lost his SLAPP suit against scientist Tim Ball in Canada he facesMassive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.”  
 
Dr. Tim Ball used, what's called in Canada the Truth Defence, also known as the Scorched Earth Defence. All Mann had to do was to "hand over those “hockey stick” r-squared correlation coefficient numbers" to demonstrate the validity of his work.  Why didn't he in Canada and is apparently failing to do so in his SLAPP suit against Styne here in America?
 
As for the statement that "97% of scientists agree", we can now confidently say that figure along with everything else the warmists have presented is so seriously flawed they can be ignored with impunity.  It's clear from their own figures there are only .075% of "some" scientists polled who think mankind is destroying the Earth with carbon dioxide emissions and the only thing that will prevent it is to destroy our modern industrial society, return to nature and live short miserable lives.  And many of the world’s leaders think this is a good idea!  

Did I ever mention in the past you can’t fix stupid? Which in this case couples corruption and insanity

 

Comey Had Refused to Probe Illegal Spying

FBI sat on millions of pages of surveillance evidence

By Larry Klayman WND.com May 10, 2017
 
For months, I have been publicizing the failure of former FBI Director James Comey and his general counsel, James Baker, who should now also be let go, to investigate the massive illegal wiretapping and surveillance on not just hundreds of millions of Americans, but prominent Americans such as President Donald Trump himself, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other SCOTUS justices, 156 judges and others, such as yours truly, who are critical of and advocates against corruption by the government and its officialdom.

In this regard, about two and a half years ago, whistleblower Dennis Montgomery came forward, under a grant of immunity I obtained for him, to produce 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information he had taken from the intelligence agencies when he was a contractor to FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, working under the direction of Comey and Baker. The materials on these hard drives, much of which is classified and which I have never seen, allegedly proves that our so-called government, under the Obama administration in particular, had been violating the constitutional rights of not just President Trump and those around him, but hundreds of millions of innocent American citizens who have neither committed a crime nor been in contact with terrorists at home and abroad...........Continue Reading.....

Klayman: Trump Did the Right Thing as Comey Was Compromized and Buried Any Investigation of Illegal Wiretapping and Leaks! Just Ask NSA/CIA Whistleblower Dennis Montgomery! See www.freedomwatchusa.org
 
 
 

Making Social Security Worse for Rich People Won’t Change the Fact that the Program Is Bad News for Poor People

May 10, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

I’ve repeatedly argued that there are two Social Security crises. The one most people know about is the fiscal crisis. Simply stated, the program is bankrupt.

But you don’t have to believe me. Here are some excerpts from a CNBC column.
The Social Security Administration projects that unfunded obligations will reach $11.4 trillion by 2090. That’s up $700 billion from the $10.7 trillion the administration projected for its 2089 shortfall. …Despite the huge numbers, there’s even a less generous way of looking at the fiscal shortfall. A projection, known as the “infinite horizon,” takes into account all the program’s future liabilities, even those beyond the 75-year period that Social Security actuaries typically use in their calculations. Under the infinite horizon, Social Security will have $32.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities by 2090, $6.3 trillion more than last year’s projection. …The Social Security Administration projects that unfunded obligations will reach $11.4 trillion by 2090. That’s up $700 billion from the $10.7 trillion the administration projected for its 2089 shortfall.
By the way, the projections cited above are based on “present value,” which is calculated by predicting how much money would have to be set aside and invested today to finance future promises.

But that’s not how budgets work. At least not for pay-as-you-go systems like Social Security.
I prefer looking at inflation-adjusted estimates of cumulative deficits. On that basis, the 75-year
unfunded liability is $37 trillion. The “infinite horizon” number presumably would be even scarier.

Oh, and don’t be under the illusion that the “Trust Fund” will solve the problem. It’s nothing but a pile of IOUs.

The second crisis is that Social Security is a bad deal for workers. They have to pay an enormous amount of taxes into the program during their working years, yet the monthly benefits they are promised are far lower than they could get if they had been able to put the same money into personal retirement accounts.

An analysis in the New York Times correctly points out that some groups with low lifespans are particularly disadvantaged by Social Security.
 
Social Security is designed…as an equalizer between rich and poor. It is structured to give more generous retirement benefits to low-income people, given the taxes they pay during their working years. …But in reality, a large body of research shows that the rich live longer — and that the life span gap between rich and poor is growing. And that means that the progressive ideal built into the design of Social Security is, gradually, being thwarted. In some circumstances, the program can actually be regressive, offering richer benefits to those who are already affluent. …because different groups of people have different life expectancies, some groups receive more value from every dollar of payroll taxes they and their employers pay into the system. Over all, women live longer than men and African-Americans die younger than whites. … the Social Security retirement system as a whole is regressive, or more favorable to the affluent than to the poor. …the richest 1 percent of Americans gained three years of life expectancy from 2001 to 2014 alone, while the poorest had almost no gain (0.3 of a year). For anyone who believes that it’s important for the Social Security program to remain progressive, the life-span shifts have big implications that are made more acute by the program’s financial problems.
I’m not motivated by having Social Security “remain progressive,” but I fully agree that it’s bad policy to have government programs that are especially harmful for poor people.

The obvious solution to both crises is personal retirement accounts. We should copy nations elsewhere that have successfully transitioned to systems based on real savings rather than empty political promises.

But some of our friends on the left think that the answer is to make the program even worse for higher-income taxpayers, even though this doesn’t change the fact that the program is a bad deal for lower-income taxpayers. Hillary Clinton embraced this approach during last year’s campaign (as did Obama in 2008).

Moreover, many Democrats in Washington are lurching even further to the left.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Andrew Biggs dissects their latest plan.
…congressional Democrats…have embraced an ambitious but flawed policy of expanding the program’s benefits via tax increases on all workers, including doubling payroll taxes on high earners. …today’s Democrats…would boost the initial benefits Americans receive upon retirement, and pay larger cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, in the years after. Over the plan’s first 10 years, Social Security benefit payments would rise by almost $1.2 trillion, according to an analysis by Social Security’s actuaries. To fund those higher benefits, the plan would increase the Social Security payroll rate from the current 12.4% to 14.8% between 2019 and 2042. The plan also would phase out the ceiling on earnings subject to the tax, currently $127,000, so that by the mid-2030s all earnings would be taxed. For low- and middle-income workers, lifetime payroll taxes would rise by nearly one-fifth from current levels. …the effective top federal marginal tax rate on earned income (inclusive of Medicare taxes and limitations on deductions) would rise from the current 44.6% to 59.4%. State income taxes could boost the total marginal rate as high as 72.7% for California residents. Under the Democrats’ Social Security plan the U.S. would have, by far, the highest top marginal tax rate in the developed world.
And higher tax rates would be bad news.
…employers who are required to pay higher Social Security taxes would reduce wages to help cover those costs. …According to a recent analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, lost income and Medicare taxes would offset between 12% and 21% of workers’ Social Security payroll tax increases, depending on income level. …Left-leaning economists Emmanuel Saez and Jeffrey Liebman found in a 2006 study that even modest behavioral reactions could reduce the net revenue gains from a plan like Mr. Larson’s by nearly half. Assume stronger behavioral effects (specifically, an elasticity of taxable income of 0.5), and losses to non-Social Security revenue would, in the authors’ words, “swamp any benefits from the increase in payroll tax revenue.” In other words, the Democrats’ Social Security reform could increase government deficits and debt, permanently.
To augment this research by Biggs, let’s look at an academic study that estimates how government entitlements push older people out of the labor force, which is bad for them and bad for the overall economy.
Baby Boomers appear at risk of suffering a major decline in their living standard in retirement. With federal and state government finances far too encumbered to significantly raise Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, Boomers must look to their own devices to rescue their retirements, namely working harder and longer. However, the incentive of Boomers to earn more is significantly limited by a plethora of explicit federal and state taxes and implicit taxes arising from the loss of federal and state benefits as one earns more. Of particular concern is Medicaid and Social Security’s complex Earnings Test and clawback of disability benefits. …We find that working longer, say an extra five years, can raise older workers’ sustainable living standards. But the impact is far smaller than suggested in the literature in large part because of high net taxation of labor earnings. We also find that many Baby Boomers now face or will face high and, in very many cases, extremely high work disincentives arising from the hodgepodge design of our fiscal system. …we find that traditional, current-year (i.e., static) marginal tax calculations relating this year’s extra taxes to this year’s extra income are woefully off target when it comes to properly measuring the elderly’s disincentives to work. Our findings suggest that Uncle Sam is, indeed, inducing the elderly to retire.
Interestingly, there are some honest folks on the left who support personal accounts. Here’s an article on the “progressive case for privatizing Social Security in the US.”
…privatization is an underrated idea, and progressives who oppose benefit cuts should be fighting for it. …With private accounts, the system would be much more transparent. Currently, for every $1 a middle-earning couple (born in 1985) pays into Social Security, they can expect $1.01 back in benefits when they retire. That’s not a great return on investment, and it may fall in the future because Social Security isn’t on track to keep paying this level of benefits. If the government cuts benefits enough to make the program solvent they’d only get $0.80 for every $1 they pay in. …private accounts would change the conversation about entitlements. It clarifies what people expect to earn in retirement. …private accounts should appeal to those on the left who value a generous social safety net.
Amen.

Honest folks on the left should look around the world and see how personal accounts are good news, both for workers and the overall economy. Heck, just compare these two charts on the United States and Australia.

Sadly, we have too many statists who are motivated by penalizing the rich rather than helping the poor.

P.S. The United States was actually very close to genuine Social Security reform during the Bill Clinton presidency. Investor’s Business Daily opined last year on what almost happened.
The U.S. came very close to having private retirement accounts as part of a sweeping Social Security reform…under President Clinton. That surprising bit of news comes 18 years after the fact in a reminiscence by Cato Institute senior fellow Jose Pinera, who once upon a time served as Chile’s secretary of labor and social security, and who designed that country’s highly successful pension reforms in 1980. Pinera says that Clinton began thinking in earnest about privatizing part of Social Security back in 1995… According to Pinera, Clinton saw private accounts as a way to cement his presidential record as a reformer. And the model for doing so that he had in mind was from Chile, where Pinera and a group of reformers created private retirement accounts that helped fuel that nation’s decade-long growth boom. It was a rousing success. Clinton even sent his former chief of staff, Mack McLarty, to Chile in 1996 to see how private personal accounts worked. In a letter to Pinera, he talked about how impressive Chile’s program was… Three years later, in December 1998, Pinera attended a White House conference on Social Security reform. There, he outlined the simple elements of the Chilean Model… It must have struck a chord with Clinton. Just one month later, in his 1999 State of the Union address, he proposed what he called “USA accounts,”… Every American would have had a private savings account, funded by a portion of his or her payroll taxes. …But it was not to be. Clinton’s involvement in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice derailed his plans.
Having been very involved in the Social Security debates back in the last 1990s, I can vouch for this. Clinton was remarkably sympathetic to reform and almost always gave the right answers when discussing the issue (not too surprising since he compiled a remarkably pro-market record).

Unfortunately, the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment fight poisoned the political environment for bipartisan reform. Who would have thought that a sexual dalliance could have killed an opportunity for much-needed reform. That was the most expensive you-know-what in world history.

P.P.S. You can enjoy some Social Security cartoons here, here, and here. And we also have a Social Security joke if you appreciate grim humor.


'Science' Finally Retracts An Absolute Mess Of A Paper

By Julianna LeMieux — May 5, 2017

Late last year, a story emerged questioning the validity of a paper that had made a big splash when it was published in Science earlier in 2016.

The paper was high profile, in large part because of its subject — the effect of plastic microbeads on fish. The authors claimed their data showed that young fish preferentially eat plastic microbeads instead of their other food options.

Other scientists said the paper was chock full of mistakes, negligence and even potential fraud. It was such a captivating story that we wrote about it in December of last year, after Science issued an 'expression of concern."

The story was perplexing, though because, even though the paper seemed like a hot mess all around, a preliminary investigation conducted by Uppsala University (the home institution of the research team) not only found no evidence for scientific dishonesty and misconduct, they also did not recommend a full investigation.

Thankfully, that recommendation fell on deaf ears and a large investigation was launched by Sweden's Central Ethical Review Board. Well, the results are in, the verdict is guilty, and the paper will be no more. Even though it took 10 months, Science finally retracted the paper on May 3rd......To Read More.....

ACLU Lawyer says Trump’s Immigration Order would be Constitutional if Hillary Clinton Ordered It

By Onan Coca May 10, 2017

Omar Jadwat is the ACLU lawyer who has been charged with proving that President Trump’s executive order on refugee travel (from 6 particular Muslim majority nations) is unconstitutional. On Monday, he inadvertently unmasked the truth behind the ACLU’s case and proved that almost everything that liberals do is politically motivated and has no foundation in reality.

While arguing that Trump’s travel order was unconstitutional, Jadwat admitted that had the same exact order been delivered by a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, it would have been completely constitutional........To Read More....

Democrat Hypocrisy made Clear in Comey Firestorm

By Onan Coca May 10, 2017

My how the Democrat stories change depending on the weather from the White House. Just a few days ago the Democrat Party had been roundly calling for FBI Director Comey’s head on a platter, then when the President finally does what he should have done on Day 1 and fires the embattled chief, the Democrats freak out and change their tune.

Suddenly, the man that they’ve been begging to have fired should never have actually been fired! Here are just a few quotes to remind you of how the Democrats felt before Tuesday (by way of Lifezette): ........To Read More.....

No, Stephen Hawking, We Won't Have to Abandon Earth in 100 Years

By Alex Berezow — May 4, 2017

There's no doubt that Stephen Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists to have ever lived. There's also no doubt that he enjoys giving his opinion on topics of which he knows absolutely nothing.

A few years ago, Dr. Hawking got into trouble for claiming, "Philosophy is dead." It was a strange thing for a theoretical physicist to assert, not only because theoretical physics has direct implications for philosophy but because the entire scientific enterprise is predicated upon epistemology. (That's the philosophical discipline that seeks to answer one of the most important questions humanity has ever asked: How do we know what we claim to know?)

Dr. Hawking has also proposed that, if aliens exist, they're probably like the ones from Independence Day that will murder everybody and take our stuff......To Read More....

My Take - For years I've kept hearing how brilliant this man is so I started paying attention to his "pronouncements" from on high.  He might be brilliant in some way in his particular brand of science, which I'm more than happy to admit I don't understand, but it seems to me he's like a lot of over educated under smart people who need to stay in his little world and let people more interested in history, logic, facts and reality than they are speculation and the public spot light make the "pronouncements".   Personally, outside his area of expertise - I don't think he's all that bright.

11-year-old black girl suspended from school after being jumped by 8 bullies

08 May 2017 

Their charter school takes threats seriously, the principle said aftewards.  The sheriff's office and the public school officials both agreed that the threats the bullies made beforehand didn't warrant expulsion. This girl was the victim of bullying. She has been picked on. She was victimized, so the school punished her and protected the bullies. The article reports the details: ........

In Florida, according to the state Board of Education budget documents, each student was worth approximately $4,154.45 for the 2015-2016 school year (“base allocation,” see page 19). That value is multiplied by 1.0117 for Duval county, which comes to $4,203.06. If the charter school expelled those 8 bullies, it would lose approximately $33,000. That’s almost an entire teacher’s salary. But then they’d have to deal with the teacher’s union for laying off a teacher.

On the other hand, if the 11-year-old victim leaves, the school will only lose an eighth of that ($4,200)......To Read More.....

My Take - I wonder why the author made an issue of this girl being black but failed to report the race of her attackers?  Well, we know they must have been black also, because if they were white - he would have said so.  This is just one more case of the unending and unrelenting black on black crimes being white washed by the media and public officials. 

There is No Such thing as “Greenhouse Gasses”

By Adrian Vance May 9, 2017

“Greenhouse gas” is the label used to demonize carbon dioxide, CO2, methane, CH4 and all chloroflurocarbons.

The last two are not IR energy absorbers and there is no “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere as gases cannot form surfaces like the glass that is responsible for greenhouses gathering and trapping heat.

If there were a shield between the Troposphere and Stratosphere it would work both ways. Sunlight would not enter, nor would any other light. Earth would be utterly dark! If there were a partial shield we would see a much greater intensity of sunlight when our rockets leave the atmosphere, but the increase is gradual and an expected function of the thinning atmosphere.

Nonetheless, every Ph.D. scientist promoting this myth talks about “the greenhouse effect” with seeming authority. They not only know better, but use the phrase as “comity code” telling peers, “Don’t out my scam and I will not expose yours,” justifying it with “We’re getting more money for science!” Ph.D. scientists universally feel they should be getting much more money from us because they are so much smarter than us! That is not the way the world works. We reward new products, processes and services. And, they are not so damn smart.......To Read More....

The Rise of CNN 2.0?

Written by James Baxley

Now in an earlier post I alluded to the fact that James Murdoch may have been happy that O’Reilly was let go from Fox News. Of course he was, he was a donor to the Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and her past campaigns; his wife Kathryn Murdoch even worked for the Hillary Clinton. Fox News is branded as a conservative right-leaning news network, but behind the scenes is a much different story. The majority of the Murdoch clan wanted O’Reilly ousted.......To Read More.....

Cartoon of the Day

Previous Cartoon

The stark realities of Macron's French Revolution

By Vernon Roken

The adjective that was most used by the English-language press to describe Sunday's runoff election in France was "stark."  In most cases it modified the noun "choice."  After the April 23 primary results matched Emmanuel Macron against Marine Le Pen, The Wall Street Journal headlined: "France's Stark Choice." Following the fiery debate between the two candidates at the beginning of the month, the New York Times proclaimed: "In France, a Stark Debate and a Stark Choice.".........The state of emergency declared after the November 2015 terrorist attacks are due to expire after the elections.  Macron has stated that France will continue to accept refuges and seek more multicultural integration........Read more

Pennsylvania Democrat Voters say the Democrat Party is Lost and Delusional

By Onan Coca May 8, 2017

This is the focus group that the Democrat Party and the media should be paying attention to, but is probably ignoring.

A group of Democrat voters in the Keystone state were recently interviewed by CBS’ John Dickerson for Sunday’s episode of Face the Nation and what they had to say was eye-opening. The voters explained that the Democrat Party had lost its way, that they’d stopped standing for the principles they once held, and that they were refusing to accept reality. Perhaps the most cutting attack came from one lifelong Democrat voter who argued that the Party was focused on all of the wrong things, by refusing to look seriously at what had happened in the 2016 election and instead choosing to blame their problems on the Russians and Wikileaks. “What did WikiLeaks tell us by the way? Regardless of who was behind it? They confirmed that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment are liars, and they had their thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton. So what are they basically saying? ‘If we hadn’t been caught lying, we’d be running the country right now.'” Ouch......To Read More.....

Cry me a polluted non-Trumped EPA river

By Ethel C. Fenig
 
"Elections have consequences," a once triumphant President Barack Hussein Obama (D) crowed.  "I won," he also graciously replied when questioned about his decisions.  However, that was then but this is now and the Democrats don't like the consequences that their candidate lost.  As did many of their favorites in Congress and state legislatures.  So, continuing their ongoing attempts to restore themselves by any means necessary to what they see is their rightful inheritance of governing the U.S.A. as they see fit, the Democrats are attempting a coup of sorts, also known as the euphemistic "resistance."

One of the latest examples is President Trump's (R) revamp of the Environmental Protection (sic!) Agency (EPA)  to meld theoretical university scientists with scientists actually working in the highly regulated industries because "the administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community."  And so, in another "you're fired" action, Trump legally dismissed several members of EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors a few days ago.  One of those suddenly unemployed followed his loser leader Hillary by tweeting his displeasure.....To Read More......  

 

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Poland’s Reward for Good Economic Policy

May 9, 2017 by Dan Mitchell
 
Earlier today, I gave a speech about populism and capitalism at the Free Market Road Show in Thessaloniki, Greece.

But I’m not writing about my speech (read this and this if you want to get an idea of what I said about American policy under Trump). Instead, I want to share some remarkable data from a presentation by Ewa Balcerowicz of Poland’s Center for Social and Economic Research.

She talked about “The Post Socialist Transition in Poland in a Comparative Perspective” and showed that Poland and Spain has similar living standards after World War II. But over the next 40 years, thanks to the brutal communist system imposed by the Soviet Union, Poland fell far behind.

But look what has happened over the past 25 years.


Per-capita GDP has skyrocketed in Poland and the gap between the two nations has dramatically narrowed.


So why is Poland now rising relative to Spain?

For the simple reason that public policy has moved in the right direction. Here’s the data from Economic Freedom of the World, comparing Poland’s score in 1990 and today. Poland has jumped from 3.54 to 7.42, and the nation has jumped from a dismal ranking of #104 to a respectable ranking of #40.


By the way, Spain’s score also has increased, but by a much smaller amount. And because the world has become more free, Spain’s ranking has dropped. Indeed, Spain now ranks below Poland.

Which means that we shouldn’t be surprised if per-capita GDP in Poland soon jumps about Spanish levels.

Just as Poland has out-paced Ukraine because it has better policy.

Here are additional examples showing the long-run benefits of pro-market policy.
And here’s a must-watch video on the relationship between good policy and better economics performance.

All of which helps to explain why I’m so disappointed in both Bush and Obama. Their statist policies have caused a drop in America’s score and relative ranking.

 

How to Blow an Election — in Five Easy Steps

by Victor Davis Hanson May 9, 2017

 Counting the ways, and Comey is not among them. Hillary Clinton recently took “full responsibility” for her 2016 loss. Only she didn’t. Instead of explaining what the historian Thucydides once called the “truest causes” (aitiai), she went on to list at least three pretexts (prophases) for her defeat: sexism, FBI director James Comey, and the purported Russian hacking of her unsecured e-mail server and the John Podesta e-mail trove.

Clinton’s accusations also raise the larger question of why a presidential candidate wins or loses an election.

In general, there seem to be five hinges of fate: personality, positions on the issues, the general political atmosphere of the era, the quality of the campaign, and sudden and unforeseen outside events such as depression, scandal, or war. Even a biased media or lots of money pales in comparison.........Read more
 

Thought For the Day!