MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Nobel Prize’

The Nobel Prize and the Cocaine Gold Rush – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on October 14, 2021

Why do highly successful economists like Card and Levitt tend to forget major historical events that they lived through? Well, you don’t get tenure by dilettantishly following current events as I tend to do. You especially don’t get ahead in the economics trade by noticing the connections between recent history, famous movies, TV shows, and songs, and novel ways to test popular economic theories.

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-nobel-prize-and-the-cocaine-gold-rush/print

Steve Sailer

This week’s awarding of the (quasi-) Nobel Prize in economics to David Card for, in part, an immigration study that I definitively undermined way back in 2006 raises a nagging question in my mind: As cancel culture gets ever more pervasive, are my better insights tending, perversely, to dumb down the world by ruling ever larger chunks of reality off-limits to the ambitious?

Card’s celebrated research into the impact on Miami wages of the 1980 Mariel boatlift of immigrants is such a sitting duck that it’s hard otherwise to explain why nobody respectable has dared call it out in the last decade and a half.

Is my productivity and prescience keeping more respectable thinkers from later either:

—Citing me for a discovery, and thus risk being tarred by guilt with association for having heard of me, or

—Stealing a discovery of mine and thus risking guilt by association that way?

It appears that the poorly thought-out ideas, such as Card’s Nobel Prize winner, that I’ve mercilessly deconstructed have increasingly become sacralized because it’s not in anybody’s career interest to criticize what I’ve already criticized.

One exception to this growing rule I recalled last week is Malcolm Gladwell’s 2009 effort to have Steven Pinker canceled for citing data I’d compiled on the seemingly nonpolitical topic of NFL quarterback draft picks that debunked one of Malcolm’s New Yorker articles. Pinker, being Pinker, survived, and it was Gladwell’s reputation that took a permanent hit instead. But less august personages than Pinker appear to be not unreasonably worried about the career consequences of following up on one of my findings. “Why do highly successful economists like Card and Levitt tend to forget major historical events that they lived through?”

I must say…when I got started writing three decades ago, I never expected things to work out this way. I am, by nature, rather optimistic about humanity’s ability to make use of good ideas once somebody (such as me) points them out. I like to endorse, sincerely, the motto of Faber College in Animal House: Knowledge is good. I am by nature not a conquistador, but a staffer who likes explaining to the decider the trade-offs he must choose among.

When I started opining, I found that I could come up with interesting and reasonably documentable new ideas more readily than the great majority of academics.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The 2021 Nobel Prize and the Trend of Economic Thinking | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2021

The decreasing popularity of theory corresponds to the naïve belief that science, as Lord Kelvin famously put it, is all about measurement and that the data somehow “speak for themselves“—when in reality, empirical data are useful only in the way they are interpreted by thinking, choosing, acting human beings. 

https://mises.org/wire/2021-nobel-prize-and-trend-economic-thinking

Peter G. Klein

The 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Berkeley’s David Card, MIT’s Josh Angrist, and Stanford’s Guido Imbens for their work on “natural experiments,” a currently fashionable approach to estimating the causal impact of one economic variable on another. Card, of course, became famous in and outside the profession for his 1994 paper with the late Alan Krueger on the minimum wage. Card and Krueger eschewed the conventional supply-and-demand analysis of the minimum wage (which predicts that, other things equal, increasing the minimum wage leads to increased unemployment) in favor of an atheoretical, empirical exercise. They compared the change in fast-food restaurant employment in New Jersey, which increased its state minimum wage, to that in neighboring Pennsylvania, which didn’t, and found no substantial differences, concluding that—contrary to the conventional wisdom among economists—minimum wages do not price low-productivity workers out of the labor market.

While the details of the Card-Krueger study are widely disputed (to put it politely), the empirical approach they championed is not. Their work helped usher in what has been called the “credibility revolution” or “identification revolution” in applied microeconomics (also called the “design-based approach” as opposed to the older, “model-based approach”). Angrist and Imbens developed econometric techniques for estimating the “treatment effects” that are central to this approach. Unlike laboratory experiments, in which subjects can be assigned randomly to treatment and control groups, with the experimenter holding all other conditions constant, observational studies require statistical tricks to satisfy the “ceteris paribus” conditions. Developing and applying these tricks has been the main focus of mainstream applied economics over the last three decades.

Despite its popularity, this approach is not without its critics. To Austrians, causality in social science is a theoretical construct, not something that can be teased out of the data without some a priori understanding of human behavior and how it affects (and is affected by) economic and social phenomena. Experimental and quasi-experimental methods may provide some limited historical-empirical insight but tend to lack “external validity,” i.e., one never knows if the results will hold up in other settings. There are plenty of mainstream critics of the overuse of natural experiments, field experiments (randomized controlled trials), and the overemphasis on identification over importance (George Akerlof calls this a bias toward “hardness”).

More generally, the newer approaches herald a declining interest in theory in favor of what might be called crude empiricism—”crude” not in the sense that the empirical methods are unsophisticated, but meaning that the underlying questions are simple, “does this x affect this y” questions that rarely involve economic ideas, constructs, or relationships at all. I have previously written about the move away from economic questions and toward issues that are “small” in the sense that they don’t involve economic principles at all. The decreasing popularity of theory corresponds to the naïve belief that science, as Lord Kelvin famously put it, is all about measurement and that the data somehow “speak for themselves“—when in reality, empirical data are useful only in the way they are interpreted by thinking, choosing, acting human beings.  Author:

Contact Peter G. Klein

Peter G. Klein is Carl Menger Research Fellow of the Mises Institute and W. W. Caruth Chair and Professor of Entrepreneurship at Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Paul Krugman’s Bad Nightmare

Posted by M. C. on November 23, 2019

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/11/paul-krugmans-bad-nightmare.html#more

By Robert Wenzel

Paul Krugman is positively terrible when it comes to tax cuts.

He is the perfect example of someone a technician who thinks in terms of what is best for the state.

He recently posted this tweet:

The lead paragraphs of Krugman’s referenced article read:

The verdict is in on President Trump’s 2017 corporate tax cut: It didn’t work.

The tax cut’s backers said reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent would increase the average household income by $4,000, raise economic growth above 3 percent and even pay for itself by generating more tax revenue. As the Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip noted in a recent column, “Nearly two years later, none of those things have happened, and there is scant sign that they will.”

But there are only two ways that the tax cuts didn’t work. That is if you think that either at least a matching increase in tax revenue should have occurred but didn’t or that income increases should have occurred but didn’t.

This is an extremely shallow way to look at tax cuts, and Krugman should feel embarrassed that as a Nobel Prize winner he is promoting such shallow thinking.

First, let me point out that immediately after the Trump tax cuts were made, I suspected that the cuts would not result in a greater gain in tax revenue (SEE: Laughing at the Laffer Curve: The Trump Tax Reform Con). But this doesn’t mean the tax cuts were a bad thing. Money put back in the private sector is always a good thing.

As Murray Rothbard explained about tax cuts:

All business spending is investment because it goes toward increasing the production of goods that will eventually be sold to consumers. But government spending is simply consumer spending for the benefit of the income, and for the whims and values, of government’s politicians and bureaucrats. Taxation and government spending siphon social resources away from productive consumers who earn the money they receive, and
away from their private consumption and saving, and toward consumption expenditure by unproductive politicians, bureaucrats, and their followers and subsidies.

In other words, since tax cuts result in less money collected by the government that is a plus. It means there is more money in the hands of the private sector: consumers and businesses.

And if household incomes didn’t go up but households, because of the tax cuts, were able to keep more money to spend, then it was an all-around positive that resulted in an increase in the general standard of living.

Of course, to the degree the government attempts to borrow money to make up for the revenue deficit that is a bad thing. When government revenues decline, government spending should also be cut.

But Krugman’s reaction of the horror, that revenue fell, is just his bad nightmare as a statist technocrat, who measures everything from the perspective of “how much did the government squeeze out of the people today?”  For the rest of us, a tax cut is a wonderful thing.

RW

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Disproportionalities: Whose Fault? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 6, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/walter-e-williams/disproportionalities-whose-fault/

By

Jews have been awarded 40% of the Nobel Prizes in economics, 30% of those in medicine, 25% in physics, 20% in chemistry, 15% in literature and 10% of the Nobel Peace Prizes. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been just over 900 Nobel Prizes awarded. Since Jews are only 2% of the world’s population, instead having 22% of Nobel Prizes, 206, they should have won only two, according to the proportionality vision of justice. There’s an even greater domestic violation of the proportionality vision. Jews are less than 3% of the U.S. population but 35% of American Nobel Prize winners. Several questions come to mind. Does the disproportionately high number of Jewish winners explain why there are so few black or Hispanic Nobel Prize winners? Who’s to blame for ethnic disproportionality among Nobel Prize winners, and what can be done to promote social justice?

Proportionality injustice doesn’t end with the Nobel Prize. Blacks are about 13% of the U.S. population but close to 70% of the players in the National Football League. Blacks are greatly overrepresented among star players and highly paid players. While the disproportionality injustice runs in favor of black players in general, they are all but nonexistent among the league’s field goal kickers and punters. Perhaps the only reason why football team owners are not charged with hiring discrimination is that the same people who hire quarterbacks and running backs also hire field goal kickers and punters. Proportionality and diversity injustice is worse in the National Basketball Association, with blacks being over 80% of the players. Plus, it’s not uncommon to watch college basketball games and see that 90 to 100% of the starting five players are black.

Most readers know that I teach economics at George Mason University and have done so for nearly 40 years. However, that doesn’t mean the field of economics doesn’t have its problems. Many see economics as neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women or blacks. Former Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen, in addressing a Brookings Institution audience said: “Within the economics profession, women and minorities are significantly underrepresented. And data compiled by the American Economic Association’s Committees on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession and the Status of Minority Groups in the profession show that there has been little or no progress in recent decades. Women today make up only about 30 percent of Ph.D. students. Within academia, their representation drops the higher up one goes in the career ladder. The share of Ph.D.s awarded to African Americans is low; and it has declined slightly in recent decades.” Yellen says that diversity in economics is a matter of “basic justice.”

Had I been in the audience, I would have asked Yellen whether there’s basic justice in the nursing field, where less than 10% of nurses are men. What about the gross lack of proportionality in incarceration? According to 2015 figures released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the overall U.S. prison and jail population is 90.6% male and 9.4% female. The only way that I see to remedy such a gross disproportionality injustice is to either incarcerate more female prisoners or release male prisoners.

Back to Janet Yellen: It is pathetic and professionally incompetent that she can ignore decades of research — some of it by female researchers — that shoots down the idea that disparities prove discrimination. Moreover, if one carries the notion that disparities prove discrimination far enough, they’d look like true fools. According to a study conducted by Bond University in Australia, sharks are nine times likelier to attack and kill men than they are women. Despite the fact that men are 50% of the population, and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. Of those killed by lightning, 82% are men. One can only wonder what social justice warriors would do about these and many other disproportionalities.

Be seeing you

Yellen’s Self-Serving Assessment: Fed is “Doing Pretty ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: The Nobel Prize in Economic Science Awarded to Silly, Politically Correct, Technocrats

Posted by M. C. on October 20, 2019

If there was a Nobel Prize for integrity the Nobel committee would not stand a chance.

It is past it’s sell by date.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/10/the-nobel-prize-in-economic-science.html

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2019 to Abhijit Banerjee (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and to his wife Esther Duflo (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and to Michael Kremer (Harvard University).

From the Nobel committee:

Despite recent dramatic improvements, one of humanity’s most urgent issues is the reduction of global poverty, in all its forms. More than 700 million people still subsist on extremely low incomes. Every year, around five million children under the age of five still die of diseases that could often have been prevented or cured with inexpensive treatments. Half of the world’s children still leave school without basic literacy and numeracy skills.

This year’s Laureates have introduced a new approach to obtaining reliable answers about the best ways to fight global poverty. In brief, it involves dividing this issue into smaller, more manageable, questions – for example, the most effective interventions for improving educational outcomes or child health. They have shown that these smaller, more precise, questions are often best answered via carefully designed experiments among the people who are most affected.

In fact, these laureates are government technocrats who think at the government level rather than at the foundational level where an appreciation for free markets would make their work useless.

The Nobel committee:

As a direct result of one of their studies, more than five million Indian children have benefitted from effective programmes of remedial tutoring in schools. Another example is the heavy subsidies for preventive healthcare that have been introduced in many countries.

One has to ask, do these three seriously believe they have the answer for five million Indian children rather than leaving things up to the free market where multiple options would develop (without political interference)?

And political interference is not a theoretical question.

Alex Tabarrok reports on one type of interference (one of potentially many kinds):

[W]hen they tried to institute a similar program for nurses in Putting a Band-Aid on A Corpse the program was soon undermined by local politicians and “Eighteen months after its inception, the program had become completely ineffective.”

And government subsidies for preventive healthcare? That is the government is taken seriously by them to determine what is proper preventative healthcare. In other words, the vegans, ketos and paleos get to battle it out to see who gets influence over health policies rather than leaving options?

How confused are these three?

Naturally, they are concerned with politically correct questions.

Tabarrok writes:

Duflo and Banerjee have conducted many of their field experiments in India and have looked at not just conventional questions of development economics but also at politics. In 1993, India introduced a constitutional rule that said that each state had to reserve a third of all positions as chair of village councils for women. In a series of papers, Duflo studies this natural experiment which involved randomization of villages with women chairs. In Women as Policy Makers (with Chattopadhyay) she finds that female politicians change the allocation of resources towards infrastructure of relevance to women. In Powerful Women (Beaman et al.) she finds that having once had a female village leader increases the prospects of future female leaders, i.e. exposure reduces bias.

Then there are just silly, poorly constructed models.

Tabarrok again:

Before Banerjee became a randomistas he was a theorist. His A Simple Model of Herd Behavior is also a favorite. The essence of the model can be explained in a simple example (from the paper). Suppose there are two restaurants A and B. The prior probability is that A is slightly more likely to a better restaurant than B but in fact B is the better restaurant. People arrive at the restaurant in sequence and as they do they get a signal of which restaurant is better and they also see what choice the person in front of them made. Suppose the first person in line gets a signal that the better restaurant is A (contrary to fact). They choose A. The second person then gets a signal that the better restaurant is B. The second person in line also sees that the first person chose A so they now know one signal is for A and one for B and the prior is A so the weight of the evidence is for A and the second person also chooses restaurant A. The next person in line also gets the B signal but for the same reasons they choose A. In fact, everyone chooses A even if 99 out of 100 signals are B. We get a herd. The sequential information structure means that the information is wasted. Thus, how information is distributed can make a huge difference to what happens.

Does Banerjee seriously think that restaurants are just signal takers subject to the herd? That they will do nothing to signal the benefits of their restaurants? This model has nothing to do with reality.

The Prize awarded for this silly work is 9 million Swedish krona ($916,000), to be shared equally between the three.

RW

Receives Nobel Peace Prize – Drone Attacks Kill Innocent ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on the Nobel Prize in Economics – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on August 4, 2019

A combination of hysteria, ignorance of science, and where the money is coming from. Almost all the money for research comes from grants. If you want a grant you have to display the right political attitude. The whole idea of global warming is completely corrupting the science community. If you deny AGW, it’s like denying the Jewish Holocaust in Europe. They won’t even talk to you. You’re certainly not going to get a government grant. Government and foundation grants are what drive science today.

https://www.caseyresearch.com/doug-casey-on-the-nobel-prize-in-economics/

By  October 26, 2018

Justin’s note: Two Americans just won this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics.

William Nordhaus, one of the recipients, was awarded the prize for his work on climate change. Paul Romer, the other recipient, won for research on how regulations and policies can encourage new ideas and long-term prosperity.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the recipients, called these the “basic and pressing” economic issues of our time. And I believe many people would agree with that statement.

But Doug Casey isn’t one of them. I know because I recently spoke with Doug about this topic. And, as usual, he had some interesting things to say. See for yourself in today’s Conversations With Casey.


Justin: Doug, what do you think of the latest Nobel Prize in Economics winners? Do they deserve the award?

Doug: The Nobel Prize in Economics should be abolished, along with those for Literature and Peace. All three are passed out arbitrarily, to whomever is currently in fashion, or has the best political connections.

It’s all about Cultural Marxist and socialist intellectuals patting each other on the back. The prestige associated with everything from favorable book reviews to the Nobel Prize legitimizes these people in the eyes of the public. There have been exceptions—but very few, and only enough to keep the Nobels from being total laughing stocks. Left-wing intellectuals talking to left-wing intellectuals about topics of interest to nobody but left-wing intellectuals. All reported on glowingly by their minions in the lickspittle media.

These prizes have about zero relationship to those for Chemistry, Physics, or Medicine—where the achievement is quantifiable, and of objective benefit to humanity.

This year’s winners of the Economics Prize, Romer and Nordhaus, are typical. Neither is a real economist. An economist is someone who describes the way the world works, how men go about producing and consuming in a voluntary marketplace.

These guys aren’t economists. They’re political apologists, who prescribe the way they think the world ought to work, and try to enforce their notions on society. The whole study of economics is quite degraded. It’s now viewed as a subdivision of mathematics, with all kinds of arcane and irrelevant formulae. In fact, economics is a division of philosophy.

Romer, the son of a former Colorado governor, basically puts forward the notion that governments should encourage, or direct, spending to speed up progress. It’s a ridiculous notion, assuming bureaucrats are wiser and smarter than the people who actually created the wealth. It’s an idiotic and destructive view that underlies all socialist and fascist systems. The USSR was an archetype of this thinking. I’m genuinely surprised people don’t laugh and roll their eyes when they encounter these nostrums.

Justin: How about Nordhaus?

Doug: Well, his hobbyhorse is anthropogenic global warming [AGW], and what governments should do about it. This opens up several cans of worms. Number one, does AGW exist? And if it does, should the government do something about it?

Despite everything said in the popular press and in some scientific papers, my belief is that AGW is completely trivial. And what is there is going to drop as improvements in technology make all industrial and consumer processes vastly more efficient. The current hysteria has very little to do with physics, and almost all to do with aberrant psychology.

Can humans change the environment? Of course they can. We do it all the time. Humans have wiped out various species over time—everything from the dodo bird to the passenger pigeon to almost all of the North American buffalo. Humans can have a huge effect on the environment. But does that mean humans are causing AGW?

Contrary to what you hear in the popular media, the proposition is completely unproven. The temperature of the earth has varied radically throughout history, going back 4.5 billion years. This includes an epoch about 500 million years ago when the whole earth was a snowball for as much as 200 million years. Although the earth will wind up fried to a crisp in a few billion years when the sun turns into a red giant, cold is probably a bigger risk than heat. The sun is all that keeps us from approaching the absolute zero of interstellar space.

CO2 is the main focus of the current hysteria. Carbon dioxide levels have varied radically over the eons. In the days of dinosaurs, carbon dioxide levels were many times what they are today, and they’ve basically been going down since Day One.

CO2 is plant food; it is to plants what oxygen is to animals. At about 400 parts per million in the atmosphere it’s really just a trace gas. The vast majority of the so-called Greenhouse Effect is actually caused by potentially much more deadly dihydrogen oxide vapor. When the man in the street is told about this danger, about 10% of them want the government to illegalize it.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are dictated by volcanism and absorption of the gas in seawater. There are thousands of active volcanoes on the planet, spewing CO2, SO2, CH4, and numerous other greenhouse gases in massive quantity. A lot is absorbed by seawater, which has a vastly larger effect on the climate than the atmosphere.

Over the long run, however, CO2 levels are driven by rocks. What happened to all the CO2 when it was, say, 20% of the atmosphere—that’s 200,000 parts per million? It’s now the carbonate part of limestone-calcium carbonate—and other rocks.

But it’s foolish to get hung up on CO2. Many, many things drive the temperature of the earth. Part of it is cosmic rays. They have a huge influence on the amount of cloud cover, which can change temperature immensely. Part of it is the changing tilt in the earth’s axis. Part is the gradual, and cyclical, change in the earth’s orbit around the sun. Part of it may well be the solar system’s orbit around the galaxy, believe it or not.

People have completely forgotten that in the 1970s national magazines were showing images of glaciers knocking over the skyscrapers in New York because they were afraid of a new ice age. People have also forgotten that from about the 1500s through the 1800s, we actually had a little ice age. Before that was the medieval warm period, 700-1400 AD, and before that another cold snap that coincided with the Dark Ages. From roughly 200 BC to 200 AD—coinciding with the rise of the Roman empire—the world was warmer than it is today. They weren’t big CO2 emitters…

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What Universities Won’t Teach College Students About the Economics of Climate Change | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 10, 2019

projects that if governments “did nothing,” total global warming would reach about 4.1 degrees Celsius. In contrast, if governments implemented the “optimal carbon tax,” as Nordhaus would recommend in a perfect world, then total warming would be about 3.5 degrees Celsius.

And yet, Nordhaus’ own work—not shown in the figure above, but I spell it out here—clearly concludes that such an aggressive target would cause far more damage to humans in the form of reduced economic output, that it would be better for governments to “do nothing” about climate change at all.

https://mises.org/wire/what-universities-wont-teach-college-students-about-economics-climate-change

I recently gave a talk to a student group at Connecticut College on the economics of climate change. (The video is broken up into three parts on my YouTube channel: onetwo, and three.) In this post I’ll summarize three of my main points: (1) There is a huge disconnect between what the published economics research actually says about government policies to limit global warming, and how the media is reporting it. (2) President Trump taking the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement doesn’t really affect anything on the margin, even if we stipulate the alarmist position on climate change. And (3) If I’m wrong, and human-caused climate change really does pose a dire threat to humanity in the next few decades, then scientists are currently working on several lines of research of practical ways to actually deal with the problem.

The “Consensus Research” Does Not Justify Radical Political Intervention

I first clarified to the students that throughout my talk, I wasn’t going to grab results from right-wing think tanks, or from “fringe” scientists who were considered cranks by their peers. On the contrary, I would be relaying results from sources such as the work of a Nobel laureate William Nordhaus (whose model on climate change policy had been one of three used by the Obama Administration) and from the UN’s own periodic report summarizing the latest research on climate change science and policy.

To demonstrate just how wide the chasm is between the actual economics research and the media treatment of these issues, I described to the students the spectacle I observed back in the fall of 2018, when on the same weekend news came out that William Nordhaus had won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on the economics of climate change and that the UN released a “Special Report” advising governments to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The media treatment (sometimes in the same story) presented these events with no sense of conflict or irony, leading regular citizens to assume that Nordhaus’ Nobel-winning work supported the UN’s goals for policymakers.

But that is not true at all. Here’s a graph from a 2017 Nordhaus publication that I included in my presentation:

slide-2.png

As the figure shows, Nordhaus’ model—and again, this isn’t cooked up by the Heritage Foundation, but instead was one selected by the Obama Administration’s EPA and was the reason he won the Nobel Prize—projects that if governments “did nothing,” total global warming would reach about 4.1 degrees Celsius. In contrast, if governments implemented the “optimal carbon tax,” as Nordhaus would recommend in a perfect world, then total warming would be about 3.5 degrees Celsius.

Anyone remotely familiar with the climate change policy debate knows that such an amount of warming would terrify the prominent activists and groups advocating for a political solution. They would quite confidently tell the public that warming of this amount would spell absolute catastrophe for future generations.

My point here isn’t to endorse Nordhaus’ model. My point is simply that Americans never heard anything about this when the media simultaneously covered Nordhaus’ award and the UN’s document calling for a 1.5°C limit. And yet, Nordhaus’ own work—not shown in the figure above, but I spell it out here—clearly concludes that such an aggressive target would cause far more damage to humans in the form of reduced economic output, that it would be better for governments to “do nothing” about climate change at all.

With or Without the United States, the Paris Agreement Was Going to “Fail”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Worthless Junk From Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz

Posted by M. C. on January 18, 2019

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/01/worthless-junk-from-nobel-prize-winner.html#more

By Michael S. Rozeff

Joseph Stiglitz got a Nobel in economics. His award doesn’t make his ideas any less incorrect. He endorses Green Socialism via the Green New Deal. His stories and interpretations of economic and political reality are worthless junk, like this one on inequality. For one rebuttal of the latter article, see here. That author is Mark Hendrickson, “…who earned his doctorate under Ludwig von Mises.” He makes statements about that Stiglitz article like these:
“…as has happened before, Mr. Stiglitz provides a faulty explanation.”
“Joseph Stiglitz’s diagnosis is flat-out wrong when he argues that the middle class is declining because the rich are getting richer.”
“…for him to blame the rich instead of government for today’s problems reflects a partisan and ideological bias rather than objective economic analysis.”
“Because Stiglitz’s diagnosis is wrong, his prescription also is wrong.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Disparities Galore – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on December 27, 2018

There are some highly fatal sex disparities. An Australian study found that sharks are nine times likelier to attack and kill men than they are women. 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12/walter-e-williams/disparities-galore/

By 

Much is made about observed differences between sexes and among races. The nation’s academic and legal elite try to sell us on the notion that men and women and people of all races should be proportionally represented in socio-economic characteristics. They make statements such as “Though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32 percent of the US population, they (constituted) 56 percent of all incarcerated people in 2015” and “20 percent of Congress is women. Only 5 percent of CEOs are.”

These differences are frequently referred to as disparities. Legal professionals, judges, politicians, academics and others often operate under the assumption that we are all equal. Therefore, inequalities and disparities are seen as probative of injustice. Thus, government must intervene, find the cause and engineer a policy or law to eliminate the injustice. Such a vision borders on lunacy. There’s no evidence anywhere or at any time in human history that shows that but for some kind of social injustice, people would be proportionally represented across a range of socio-economic attributes by race and sex.

Indeed, if there is a dominant feature of mankind, it’s that we differ significantly over a host of socio-economic characteristics by race, sex, ethnicity and nationality. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

BURMA’S CRIMES GO UNPUNISHED « Eric Margolis

Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2018

Sadly typical US foreign policy:

They may be a son of a bitch but they are our son of a bitch.

But am I talking about Myanmar or Saudi Arabia? Apparently Hillary had it all figured out.

Another Nobel Prize committee success story.

https://ericmargolis.com/2018/09/burmas-crimes-go-unpunished/

by

As the genocidal horrors in Myanmar unfold, I am kicking myself for having risked my skin to go see then sainted leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

This event occurred in Rangoon (now Yangon) in 1996 when Suu Kyi was the revered democratic opposition leader resisting the nation’s brutal military regime. The western media loved her, as it always does third world female politicians fighting dictatorships and thugs. The saintly Suu Kyi was even given a Nobel Prize by Sweden’s always giddy liberals…

Once rich Burma was bankrupted and dirt poor after many years of dictatorial rule by eccentric army general Ne Win who terrorized his people and practiced necromancy, other black arts and socialism. Gen. Win used the large Burmese Army to battle the nation’s many ethnic secessionists: Shan, Karen, Mon, Wa, Chinese. He persecuted the Rohingya Muslims of Rakhine state. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »