MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Progressives’

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Just Who the Hell is Running Joe Biden’s Brain?

Posted by M. C. on June 20, 2020

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/06/just-who-hell-is-running-joe-bidens.html

As Joe Biden picks up steam in the presidential campaign, it makes sense to look at which economists are advising him. One problem. It’s a secret.

The New York Times reports:

Few aspects of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential campaign are shrouded in as much secrecy as the counsel he receives on the economy: which advisers have the most sway with the presumptive Democratic nominee, what ideas have the greatest currency, and what new policies Mr. Biden will ultimately embrace to address the racial inequities now animating protests nationwide.

Some broad contours have become clear. Mr. Biden plays down concerns about the deficit during this recession, aides say, and he has begun soliciting ambitious plans to bridge the gap in earnings and wealth between black and white Americans. His regular briefings are by a small group of liberal economists and others with roots in the Obama White House and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. And he sees the economic recovery as his foremost duty if he wins the presidency.

Yet the details of the policymaking process are closely held. Mr. Biden is now seeking input from more than 100 left-leaning economists and other researchers, but there is little clarity on who has true influence…A three-page document, sent last month ahead of the committee’s first online meeting, warned participants not to circulate email from committee leaders or refer to “the candidate or to the campaign” in documents.

“You are not to disclose the names of others who are involved in the committee to nonmembers,” according to the memo, which has not previously been reported.

 Members were allowed to tell friends and colleagues that they are participating, it continued, but “you should not, however, disclose your participation on social media such as Facebook or LinkedIn or in your professional bio.”

A section about press inquiries began, “Simply put, do not talk to the press.”

I am not expecting any sound economic policy if Biden gets elected but at this point, we don’t even know what bad direction he would go in. It might be very bad.

There is a hint that the secrecy may be because the advisers are radical left economists.

The Times again:

Conversations with policy experts close to the Biden campaign suggest that Mr. Biden has thus far leaned on a core group of advisers who roughly match his own ideological standing within a Democratic Party that has steadily moved left since Barack Obama won the White House in 2008. Mr. Biden appears to have widened that group to include some of the young and sharply progressive thinkers who drove the policy debate leftward during much of the 2020 Democratic primary campaign.

To wit: Asked over email if he was advising Mr. Biden, Gabriel Zucman, one of the architects of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed tax on high-wealth Americans, referred a reporter to an email address for Mr. Biden’s press office. That address matched one that campaign officials sent to members of the newly formed economic policy committee, with instructions to give it to reporters in the event of questions about Mr. Biden.

It’s clear that whoever is running Biden wants the radicals in.

More from The Times:

Mr. Biden has faced pressure from progressives who have objected to his receiving advice from Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton and top economic aide to Mr. Obama whom they fault over his record in areas like financial regulation and climate change.

Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for Justice Democrats, a progressive group, warned against relying on what he described as the “old guard” of Democratic economists.

I have written previously about the radical Zucman :

 Cal Berkeley economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez hate capitalism, free markets and the accumulation of wealth.

They are Elizabeth Warren’s two top economic advisers.

And in a post titled Krugman is Promoting Two Tax Maniacs, I wrote::

 Zucman has called for taxing private charities and philanthropic foundations, in addition to wealthy incomes.

Zucman and Saez are also the developers of Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax.

RW

Be seeing you

 

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

Progressives and the Origins of the Economic “Consensus” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 11, 2020

The London School of Economics (LSE) played a crucial role in the shaping of modern academia. A little-known fact about the LSE is that the institution was largely built and supported by the Fabian Society, a socialist institute founded in 1884. In fact, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, two of the founders of the Fabian Society, were also the founders of the LSE.

In other words, the American Economic Association would sooner elect a Soviet sympathizer president than an Austrian economist.

https://mises.org/wire/progressives-and-origins-economic-consensus?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b226582188-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b226582188-228343965

Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

There was a time when free market economists were some of the most highly praised intellectuals in the modern world. In the early twentieth century, Austrian economics was understood for what it truly is: a social science based on praxeology and human action. But from the mid-1900s through the 2000s, society replaced their appreciation for the Viennese method with a false claim that Austrian economics was an ideological, archaic pseudoscience used to justify libertarian and conservative ideas. And although the mainstream throws Chicagoan and even Austrian economists a bone from time to time, most academics have drifted toward the modern monetary theory (MMT) or some form of Keynesianism. But in order to understand why the mainstream is the way it is, we must first understand how the economic consensus came to be.

Origins of the Economic “Consensus”

The London School of Economics (LSE) played a crucial role in the shaping of modern academia. A little-known fact about the LSE is that the institution was largely built and supported by the Fabian Society, a socialist institute founded in 1884. In fact, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, two of the founders of the Fabian Society, were also the founders of the LSE.

In the Fabian Society’s infancy, it often constituted a small, tight-knit group of intellectuals who met to discuss Marxist ideas. But as the Fabian Society expanded to include the London School of Economics and the New Statesman magazine, its influence on economics underwent a sort of metamorphosis. The LSE’s reputation began to grow and few ever questioned its stances. To this day, the rapid spread of Keynesianism is largely a product of the London School of Economics and its ideologically similar neighbor, the University of Cambridge. John Maynard Keynes, after all, was an alumni of Cambridge and made notable contributions to institutions near and far, such as the LSE and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Bretton Woods system. The circulation of socialist and Keynesian philosophies between neighboring British institutions created a pseudo-intellectual echo chamber, in which the same ideas were debated over and over again among the same academics.

However, there was a major problem with Keynesianism. Many believed that the theories of demand-side economics sounded just and noble, but they were rarely backed by empirical evidence. Therefore, most schools of economics decided to abandon Keynes’s specific prescription of demand-side economics for a broader form of policy interventionism.

Paving the Way for Modern Macroeconomics

Thus, we turn from John Maynard Keynes and the Fabian Society to other significant influencers who paved the way for modern macroeconomics. The American Economic Association (AEA), one of the leading publishers of economic literature, was founded by politically progressive intellectuals such as Richard T. Ely, an activist and professor who advocated for greater government oversight and the implementation of desirable social policies. Based on his work, Ely’s views can best be summarized as moderately redistributive and highly interventionist. One of his books contains a chapter entitled “Taxation of Incomes,” in which he states the following:

It has already been stated…that all men of means should contribute to the support of government in proportion to their ability….It is universally, or almost universally, admitted that no [other] tax [than the income tax] is so just….[T]he income tax, unlike license charges, does not make it more difficult for a poor man to begin business or to continue business. Its social effects, on the contrary, are beneficial, because it places a heavy load only on strong shoulders.

Richard T. Ely was not the only interventionist who helped establish the AEA. Katharine Coman, a progressive activist who was highly critical of capitalism, also played a major role in forming the organization. Additionally, in appointing Alvin Hanson, one of the most influential Keynesians, to its presidency in 1922, the AEA is partly responsible for the rise of Keynesianism in America. To the American Economic Association’s credit, they have given similar positions to free market economists such as Herbert Joseph Davenport and Frank Fetter. But the bigger picture here is the AEA’s clear intent to draw an equivalency between Austrian intellectuals and progressive ideologues—as if the two were morally and intellectually comparable.

In later years, the American Economic Association would attempt to distance itself from the Austrian school altogether. The last time an Austrian economist was elected president was in 1966, with the appointment of Fritz Machlup. To put this into perspective, Jacob Marschak, an economist who worked with the Menshevist International Caucus, was scheduled to be appointed to the presidency in 1978. In other words, the American Economic Association would sooner elect a Soviet sympathizer president than an Austrian economist.

All in all, the impact of the anti-Austrian and, to some extent, the anti-Chicagoan biases of mainstream academia can be traced back to various instances of famous institutions either backing progressive thought leaders or dismissing certain kinds of economic methodology that fail to fit the interventionist narrative.

The Flaws of Mainstream Economics

Much of our understanding of mainstream economics is derived from econometrics—the use of mathematical modeling to predict economic outcomes. It is arguably true that econometrics is the reason why economics as a field is suffering from an identity crisis. On the one hand, economics deals with human behavior and is therefore a social science. On the other, econometrics and similar methods of study result in a field that resembles mathematics and cold calculation rather than behavioral science or the study of human action.

It should be no surprise that econometrics has become quite popular in the mainstream. After all, the aforementioned Jacob Marschak was one of the fathers of econometrics and made an undeniable impact on universities such as Yale and UCLA before catching the attention of the American Economic Association. Since its inception, econometrics has become a sort of “industry standard” for mainstream academics. However, the fatal flaw of econometrics lies in its failure to understand praxeology. In the words of Frank Shostak in his 2002 article entitled “What is Wrong with Econometrics?”:

There are no constant standards for measuring the minds, the values, and the ideas of men. Valuation is the means by which a conscious purposeful individual assesses the given facts of reality.

As for the Keynesian and post-Keynesian schools, far too much can be said about their flaws. Little empirical evidence exists that stimulus packages are particularly effective, and the idea that Say’s law ought to be completely discarded for a demand-driven approach to the economy is nonsensical. Henry Hazlitt’s The Failure of the “New Economics” provides a full perspective on the shortcomings of Keynesianism.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Will ‘Consent’ Prevent the Normalisation of Pedophilia? – Aussie Nationalist Blog

Posted by M. C. on May 25, 2020

Which is worse-the concept of drag queen story time or parents that allow their children to be exposed?

https://aussienationalistblog.com/2020/05/26/will-consent-doom-the-normalisation-of-pedophilia/

Drag Queen Storytime may be a key step towards the normalisation of pedophilia

I received an interesting critical comment on my last post, ‘WHO Advances the Pedophile Agenda’:

There’s never going to be normalisation of non-consenting relationships.

This individual is not alone: as of 26 May 2020, most leftists probably object to pedophilia on the ground of consent. More or less, their reasoning (if pressed) would go along the following lines:

Two consenting adults can do as they please in the privacy of their own bedroom. But children under the age of 16 or 18 are too young and cannot provide consent. Therefore, sex with underage children should remain illegal and unacceptable.

We on the right, however, should not place any real trust in those who only postulate a ‘consent’ objection to pedophilia. This is because left-wing opposition to pedophilia is more a matter of them being insufficiently warmed up to the prospect; rather than ‘consent’ serving as the immovable foundation of progressive morality and permanently preventing its acceptance.

Children are being sexualised irrespective of consent

Plenty has been said about Drag Queen Storytime; and the recent guidelines of WHO, which recommended that children aged between 0 and 4 be instructed on masturbation.

These developments, beyond a shadow of doubt, aim to sexualise children as soon as they are able to venture from the cradle. Obviously, such children are incapable of consenting to their sexualisation in any meaningful way.

But has this problem of consent posed any bar to Drag Queen Storytime? No, as prior to coronavirus, these events were hosted with ease worldwide.

And have progressives criticised the clear lack of consent involved in these trends? No, not even one.

Promises made by leftists are worthless

Let us revisit that critical comment, “There’s never going to be normalisation of non-consenting relationships.” It is not that acceptance of pedophilia is unlikely or unforeseeable; “never” is the claim being made. Which is, frankly, an assertion that cannot reasonably be accepted.

How many times have we heard assurances that left-wing political ambitions only go this far, only to later find out they go much further? Some issues which reveal the hollow nature of their promises include:

1. Demographic change:

Progressives have had the gall, for years, to insist the ‘Great Replacement’ is a conspiracy theory. Moreover, the marchers at the 2017 Charlottesville rally were universally decried for chanting “You will not replace us!”

But year after year, millions of immigrants from the Global South pour into Western countries; all while the West has a below-replacement birth rate. What is a conclusion of simple arithmetic, the left has vociferously and consistently denied.

And yet there are moments, when they feel emboldened enough, in which progressives openly admit that yes, they absolutely intend on outnumbering and displacing white people.

In reference to the rising tide of non-white voters that threatened to install a Democratic Governor in deep-red Georgia, Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times declared:

In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.

2. Gay marriage:

When Australians were being persuaded prior to the 2017 Plebiscite on gay marriage, any concerns over a ‘slippery slope’ were hastily denounced, the ABC describing it as one of “the five worst arguments for voting No.”

Yet the slippery slope, for reasons previously expounded on, is a very real phenomenon. Drag Queen Storytime has proceeded from the legalisation of gay marriage, despite this ghastly trend being scarcely imaginable in 2017.

3. Abortion:

A line used to placate opponents of abortion in the 1990s, was the procedure should be “safe, legal and rare.”

Well, abortion being legal has certainly not made the procedure rare: American women have aborted 50 million fetuses since Roe v Wade; it is estimated that between one quarter and one third of Australian women will have an abortion in their lifetimes.

Whereas abortion was once justified as being a “difficult decision” for women to make, undertaking one is now boasted of and trumpeted as the height of contemporary virtue:

As demonstrated through the above examples, left-wing assurances are nothing more than strategic pretences on the road to advancing their revolutionary agenda. Because of this, their assurances do not warrant any serious consideration.

Nothing limits the logical development of progressivism

It is obviously futile to trust the promises of leftists. But matters seem to go deeper than this, with nothing principally limiting the logical development and application of progressive thought.

Underriding the idea of progress itself, is there being no set limits to what individuals or society can achieve. There is thus no set endpoint to the furtherance of progressive ideas; all we can expect in the future is ceaseless agitation on grounds of equality, acceptance, individual autonomy and social justice. What all of this turbulence will ultimately lead to, no one can fully know.

As Ted Kaczynski wrote in his 1995 manifesto,

Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about.

So, suppose it is 2030, and the leftist ‘list’ of things that were wrong with society in 2015 has been completely fulfilled. It would certainly not be far-fetched to imagine their 2030 ‘list’ of matters that required correction, to entail the normalisation of pedophilia.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Citizens United Revisited – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 11, 2020

In a free society, individuals, groups, organizations, corporations, and unions would be free say or publish anything at any time about any political candidate. They would also be free to spend any amount of money in whatever way they choose for or against any candidate they choose.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/laurence-m-vance/citizens-united-revisited/

By

It has been ten years since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This being a presidential election year, it might be a good idea to revisit this case.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002—the McCain-Feingold Act—prevented corporations or labor unions funding “electioneering communications” that refer to a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was decided by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, by a 5-4 vote, the Court reversed the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that upheld the provisions of BCRA prohibiting unions and corporations from broadcasting the abovementioned “electioneering communications.” Unions and corporations no longer have to create political action committees (PACs) to spend money on “electioneering communications.”

President Obama famously condemned the Citizens United decision during his 2010 State of the Union Address:

Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

To this day, Democrats and progressives have never gotten over it. On the tenth anniversary of the decision, Elizabeth Warren maintained: “We need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.” Hillary Clinton opined: “Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into U.S. elections. The next president should propose a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.” And then there is Bernie Sanders: “Today marks 10 years since the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. We are going to overturn that decision and get corporate money out of politics.”

Although the BCRA was presumably about campaign financing, it was clearly designed to permit the government to limit who could speak and when they could speak. Clearly, then, Citizens United was a victory for free speech.

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.And as the majority opinion of the Supreme Court states: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

The problem with Citizens United is that it didn’t go far enough. Unions, charitable organizations, religious organizations, and corporations still cannot use funds from their treasuries to make contributions directly to political candidates or for independent expenditures that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate in federal elections. There are still limits on campaign contributions.

In a free society, individuals, groups, organizations, corporations, and unions would be free say or publish anything at any time about any political candidate. They would also be free to spend any amount of money in whatever way they choose for or against any candidate they choose. There would be no speech restrictions, public financing of elections, spending limits, donation limits, disclosure requirements, distinctions between hard and soft money, or campaign-finance restrictions.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Why These Five States Would Be Better Independent Countries | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on December 1, 2019

Add New Jersey. Many of us Pennsylvanians would gladly add Philadelphia as an incentive.

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/why-these-five-states-would-be-better-independent-countries/

By Joe Jarvis

Trump scares me. But progressives terrify me.

Whoever comes next will be more extreme than Bernie Sanders.

Californians may hate Donald Trump now. But you can bet Texans will hate whoever comes next.

The federal two-party system ensures a perpetually unhappy populace. Each tries to force their will on the other when it is “their turn.”

And the rest of us, who aren’t on one side or the other, constantly lose.

This is unneeded friction. Forced unity creates far more problems than it solves.

But why put up with the swaying whims of federal politics?

In America, we have a marketplace of 50 state governments lying in wait.

I moved from Massachusetts to Florida three years ago. The taxes are lower, the living is cheaper, the laws are less restrictive, there’s little traffic, and the weather is nicer.

But that didn’t allow me to escape the shadow of Washington DC.

But imagine if we could keep the ease of moving from state to state, but without the federal government following us.

States would sink or swim on their own merits. No help from DC. And no interference either…

Plus, not a single US state would even be close to the smallest country on earth, by population or land area. Much tinier countries do just fine on their own.

California has plenty of reason to become its own country. It is the most progressive state without much in common with DC or many other states.

Californians are still being prosecuted by the feds for owning state-legal marijuana dispensaries. California wants liberal immigration policy, while the US government thinks otherwise.

It’s also the most populous state. It would be the 36th largest country on earth by population. Larger than Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Poland. Slightly smaller than Spain, Argentina, and Ukraine.

California has the 5th largest economy in the world. That’s ahead of Great Britain despite having less than 2/3 the population.

Some states are net payers of federal taxes. They pay more to the federal government than they get back.

California receives $.99 in federal expenditures for every $1.00 it pays. That means it would hardly be affected financially by divorcing the US government. Overall California would keep 1% more money in the state without federal taxes and without federal programs.

Other estimates claim it is much worse, and California only gets 70 cents back on every dollar it sends to Washington DC.

An initiative Calexit wants a 2020 ballot question to ask Californians if they want to secede from the US. Louis Marinelli is the co-author of the initiative. Here’s his take:

[C]an you think of 25 red states that might like to see blue California secede? I can think of 30 that voted for Donald Trump.

Look, the United States claims to be the freest country in the world. We ought to enjoy the fundamental right of self-determination, and if we so determine, self-rule.

Then California can sign a military base agreement with the Americans to lease land for their existing bases. California will not be hostile towards them, but our immigrants will be protected from them.

Additionally, by keeping the tens (sometimes hundreds) of billions of dollars we lose each year supporting red states that hate California, we will reduce our debts, fund our liabilities, and provide every Californian with a debt-free college education and universal healthcare.

I personally think Cali’s high taxes, restrictive regulation, and overbearing laws are ridiculous.

But who am I to tell Californians that they can’t bankrupt their state? I’d prefer to have them govern themselves, especially if that meant California voters didn’t have control over me and my affairs.

California isn’t the only state where federal taxes and aid zero out. New York and Florida are also large population states with close to even return based on what they give to DC.

Florida has millions more residents than Chile or the Netherlands.

With no income tax, it is quite attractive to work there.

Plus Florida has the 17th largest economy on Earth, topping $1 trillion GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

That’s bigger than Turkey’s economy, despite having just a quarter of the population.

At just under 21 million inhabitants, Florida would be the 58th largest country on Earth by population.

New York would be 59th by population.

With the 15th largest economy, this is slightly smaller than Spain’s economy. Meanwhile, Spain has twice the population of New York. Clearly, New York is quite capable of operating as an independent nation.

Of course, New York City alone could be its own country. And then they wouldn’t be able to dictate oppressive urban laws to rural upstate New Yorkers.

Then again, NYC wealth is redistributed to other portions of the state…

This highlights the natural friction of grouping incompatible regions under one government.

 

Texas is another large state that would do just fine on its own. As a country, it would be 51st largest by population, larger than Australia.

Texas’ GDP of $1.6 trillion is also slightly larger than each of the Australian, Russian, and South Korean economies.

The size of the economy is on par with Canada. Yet Canada has almost 9 million more residents.

Only three states receive less money per person from federal expenditures than Texas. Texas takes in the fourth smallest amount of money per capita from the federal government.

Oh, and of course there’s that little fact that Texas was once an independent country.

It became its own country, called the Republic of Texas, from 1836 until it agreed to join the United States in 1845. Sixteen years later, it seceded along with 10 other states to form the Confederacy. The Civil War forced it back into the Union, where it has stayed ever since.

New Hampshire would be a relatively small country–a little bigger than Estonia in terms of population.

But New Hampshire would also be the richest country in the world.

At least among the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. This list includes 34 of the most advanced countries like the USA, UK, Australia, Japan, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada, Chile, etc.

Median income, adjusted for purchasing power, even puts New Hampshire ahead of Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland.

New Hampshire is another net payer of taxes. It gets about 70 cents back on every dollar it sends to DC.

New Hampshire also has a small secession movement. One organization is called the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence. Another calls itself NHexit.

A 2014 Reuters poll showed 23.9 percent of Americans would support their state peacefully seceding from the union if necessary, while 53.3 percent opposed the idea.

Secession

This list is far from complete.

For instance, Hawaii probably has the most legitimate reason of any state to secede. They were an independent Kingdom until 1893. The USA annexed Hawaii after the monarchy was overthrown.

Native Americans are another group who have a strong historical claim to independence.

And what’s Alaska still doing as part of the United States anyway? It isn’t even attached.

Being united by force just averages the good states with the bad. It means states can’t feel the full benefit of their good policies. It means they don’t suffer the full consequences of their failures.

It means wealth is redistributed. It means power is centralized. It means individuals have less control than they would over a smaller, more local government.

Forced unity eliminates the marketplace for the government. Let the states compete, and the best policies will rise to the top.

The American people will then truly have a choice and a voice in government.

Be seeing you

facebook_1573533085639.jpg

 

 

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

How liberals became pro-WAR, pro-GMO and anti civil rights… in just three years – NaturalNews.com

Posted by M. C. on October 29, 2019

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-24-how-liberals-became-pro-war-pro-gmo-anti-civil-rights.html

How liberals became pro-WAR, pro-GMO and anti civil rights… in just three years

Image: How liberals became pro-WAR, pro-GMO and anti civil rights… in just three years

(Natural News) It is a stunning transformation: Liberals / progressives in America have become pro-war, pro-GMO, pro deep state and anti civil rights, and it only took three years for the transformation to take place.

“Progressives” used to be opposed to wars and foreign occupation, but now they go insane when President Trump seeks to pull U.S. troops out of Syria or other countries.

Those same progressives used to care about respecting Mother Nature and the sanctity of seeds, but now when it comes to human seeds — i.e. the genetics of human reproduction — they endorse the assault on human children with castration chemicals and puberty blockers, leading to long-term infertility and the destruction of the sustainability of the human species through sexual reproduction.

Progressives used to even believe in civil rights, including due process and free speech. Now, they have abandoned any such pretense. To Leftists today, free speech is a horrible thing, and all so-called “hate speech” — which means anything that liberals don’t want to hear — should be criminalized, according to young progressives.

So if you love destroying Mother Nature’s seeds, and if you love military occupation of foreign countries, and if you love silencing people with whom you disagree, you will absolutely love what the Left has become in America today: An authoritarian cult of lunatics who no longer recognize any shred of human decency, freedom or civil liberties.

It only took three years of daily hate broadcasts from CNN, the NYT and Washington Post to pull this off, by the way, proving how weak-minded “progressives” really are. They can be brainwashed by the left-wing media almost without any effort at all.

Listen to the full podcast at Brighteon.com:

https://www.brighteon.com/b5efc472-dbbe-498c-a1aa-d59ad1e72244

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Eugenics and the Racist Underbelly of the American Left | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2019

For progressives, a legal minimum wage had the useful property of sorting the unfit, who would lose their jobs, from the deserving workers, who would retain their jobs. Royal Meeker, a Princeton economist who served as Woodrow Wilson’s U.S. Commissioner of Labor, opposed a proposal to subsidize the wages of poor workers for this reason. Meeker preferred a wage floor because it would disemploy unfit workers and thereby enable their culling from the work force.

https://mises.org/wire/eugenics-and-racist-underbelly-american-left

The New York Times has created a huge stir with its 1619 Project , which claims that the real founding of the United States was not the American Revolution, but rather slavery and racism. One might mistake the concept as one that said America’s political founders did not hold enlightened racial views, but still helped to create a country with the kind of ideals that finally led to the end of slavery and even undercut racism itself. After all, during the Civil Rights Era, Martin Luther King, Jr., himself appealed to founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in urging Americans to “live up to the ideals” of the nation.

Instead, the NYT, using academics that represent the New History of Capitalism viewpoint, is claiming that racism, brutality, and slavery were the basis of the founding of the country. This is not a case of saying that the founders were racist, but rather that the legal, social, and economic foundations of the USA were racism. Capitalism in this country, the NHC and NYT allege, came about because of slavery, and that everything related to capitalism here exists solely from slavery. Without slavery, the United States as we know it would not exist.

Double-entry bookkeeping and modern accounting methods? Forget their origins in late Medieval Italy; they were developed on the slave plantation to further the institution of slavery. Modern human resources management did not come about in the late 1800s as a way improve workplace productivity and improve worker welfare. No, human resources was born on the southern slavery plantation and without the institution of slavery, it never would have existed.

Although a number of economists and historians such as Phil Magness, Robert Murphy, and others have effectively contradicted the NYT accounts, American progressives simply are accepting the slavery-as-fundamental-to-American-capitalism as true on its face. Sojourners, for example, declared that the only reason one could disagree with the NYT narratives was racism on behalf of those taking issue with these accounts. Thus, even people who agree that slavery was immoral but question the NYT narrative do so because they are racists who “fear black power.”

While I have written my own disagreements with the NYT narrative, I propose this time of pursuing something similar to what the NYT is claiming, but changing the time and circumstances. I ask the following question: What if racism really is at the roots of the creation of modern America, and what if the NYT has played a major role in promoting structural racism? That is what I intend to show. Furthermore, I hold that the year 1896 is the founding of the America that exists today, and that includes the legacies of Jim Crow and the modern dystopian urban culture of murder and violence.

To understand the points I am making, one first must understand what we call the Progressive Era and the vast intellectual and social changes that it brought. Thomas Leonard of Princeton University writes :

American economics transformed itself during the Progressive Era. In the three to four decades after 1890, American economics became an expert policy science and academic economists played a leading role in bringing about a vastly more expansive state role in the American economy. By World War I, the U.S. government amended the Constitution to institute a personal income tax, created the Federal Reserve, applied antitrust laws, restricted immigration and began regulation of food and drug safety. State governments, where the reform impulse was stronger still, regulated working conditions, banned child labor, instituted “mothers’ pensions,” capped working hours and set minimum wages.

Academic historians (who mostly fall in the progressive camp) would present these changes as uniformly positive, the general narrative being that before the progressive reformers began to reshape the economic and social landscape, Americans – and especially American workers – lived a near-hellish existence. The historians, however, also tend to ignore the darker side of the so-called reformers, who believed that the application of science could help them do away with “inferior” races of people and transform humanity into some sort of super-race. Writes Leonard:

Less well known is that a crude eugenic sorting of groups into deserving and undeserving classes crucially informed the labor and immigration reform that is the hallmark of the Progressive Era (Leonard, 2003). Reform-minded economists of the Progressive Era defended exclusionary labor and immigration legislation on grounds that the labor force should be rid of unfit workers, whom they labeled “parasites,” “the unemployable,” “low-wage races” and the “industrial residuum.” Removing the unfit, went the argument, would uplift superior, deserving workers.

Leonard continues:

…the professional economists who wrote on immigration increasingly emphasized not the quantity of immigrants, but their quality. “If we could leave out of account the question of race and eugenics,” Irving Fisher (1921, pp. 226–227) said in his presidential address to the Eugenics Research Association, “I should, as an economist, be inclined to the view that unrestricted immigration . . . is economically advantageous to the country as a whole . . ..” But, cautioned Fisher, “the core of the problem of immigration is . . . one of race and eugenics,” the problem of the Anglo-Saxon racial stock being overwhelmed by racially inferior “defectives, delinquents and dependents.”

While academic historians tend to see the Jim Crow era, which began in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as a logical extension of the racial turmoil of the South following the end of the Civil War and the ending of slavery, history tells a different account. For example, South Carolina, which in later years produced one of the most infamous race-baiting politicians of all time, Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman, for many years was governed by Wade Hampton, a former Confederate general who also was a racial moderate.

While racial discrimination and strife existed in the South (and much of the rest of the country, for that matter) post-Civil War, racial discrimination did not become institutionalized through the vast network of Jim Crow laws until later. For example, in 1898, the Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier editorialized against a proposed law to segregate railroad passenger cars:

As we have got on fairly well for a third of a century, including a long period of reconstruction . . . we probably can get on as well hereafter without it [the proposed law], and certainly so extreme a measure should not be adopted and enforced without added and urgent cause.

The editorial went on to say that such a law probably would require “Jim Crow eating cars” and the “Jim Crow Bible for colored witnesses to kiss” and so on. In other words, a leading South Carolina newspaper declared such laws ridiculous. Yet, within a short time, there were Jim Crow eating cars on trains, Jim Crow sleeping cars, Jim Crow Bibles, and a host of other measures enforcing racial segregation until well into the 1960s.

Enactment and enforcement of Jim Crow policies were mostly the product of the Democratic Party post-Grover Cleveland, who left the White House in 1897. Cleveland was a racial moderate and one who believed strongly in individual rights, free markets, and individual responsibility , along with “hard” money. He would be the last Democrat president who believed that way, and the Democrats’ rejection of the Founders’ ideals began even before Cleveland left office, as the party in 1896 fully embraced progressivism, nominating free silver advocate William Jennings Bryan , who had electrified party delegates with his “Cross of Gold” speech at the party’s convention that year .

Bryan’s campaign would be the most radical in U.S. History up to that point. His campaign promoted progressive “reforms,” business regulation, and a silver-based monetary inflation. Had he lived long enough, he most likely would have supported Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal just as he supported pretty much every progressive legislative measure in the early 20 th Century. Likewise, the political heirs of Tillman and other southern Democrats that made race the central focus of their legislative policies became the staunchest supporters of the New Deal.

Although Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley, his campaign platform would become America’s future, and it is safe to say that modern America is much more the product of the Democrats’ 1896 progressivism than the southern plantation system that the Civil War destroyed more than three decades before.

In 1896, despite the creeping political centralism that had come with the northern victory in the Civil War, the United States still was a constitutional republic. In 20 years, thanks to progressive governance, the USA was well on its way to becoming a progressive democracy. The Democrats’ wide electoral victory in 1912 gave way to what Thomas DiLorenzo has called the Revolution of 1913 . In that year, the Democrats created the Income Tax, the Federal Reserve System, direct election of U.S. Senators, and a host of legislation that bolstered the Jim Crow system. What began in 1896 began to bear fruit with Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 election to the presidency.

Jim Crow policies and the racial purity theories behind them were at the heart of progressivism, something that few progressives today are willing to acknowledge. Leonard writes that eugenics dominated progressive thinking, and one can seriously doubt that people would impose policies that mysteriously violated their racial beliefs, something that modern progressives want us to believe. Take the minimum wage, for example, for which progressives claim that opposition to it is based in racism . Writes Leonard :

Progressive economists, like their neoclassical critics, believed that binding minimum wages would cause job losses. However, the progressive economists also believed that the job loss induced by minimum wages was a social benefit, as it performed the eugenic service ridding the labor force of the “unemployable.” Sidney and Beatrice Webb put it plainly: “With regard to certain sections of the population [the “unemployable”], this unemployment is not a mark of social disease, but actually of social health.” “[O]f all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites,” Sidney Webb opined in the Journal of Political Economy, “the most ruinous to the community is to allow them to unrestrainedly compete as wage earners.” A minimum wage was seen to operate eugenically through two channels: by deterring prospective immigrants (Henderson, 1900) and also by removing from employment the “unemployable,” who, thus identified, could be, for example, segregated in rural communities or sterilized.

He continues:…

Be seeing you

Margaret Sanger and the Forced Sterilization of Americans ...

 

 

 

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

Why Are Progressives so Bad at Governing? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 21, 2019

Not only does de Blasio call for an end to private property and the total transformation of the economy via the “Green New Deal,” but he also has pushed “egalitarian” initiatives like ending charter schools in New York. (The fact that charter schools perform better than their regular public-school counterparts galls de Blasio and he believes they must be stopped.)

https://mises.org/wire/why-are-progressives-so-bad-governing-0

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Paul Krugman declared that the Bush administration failed in its response to the flooding of New Orleans because the administration consisted of people, according to Krugman, who didn’t “believe in government.” One cannot say that about progressives who truly believe in government, and believe in unlimited government at that. Yet, it also is clear that when in power — and especially when they face no real opposition — progressives generally govern very badly. Why this is so — in direct contradiction to Krugman’s stated belief — requires an examination of the progressive mindset, something Krugman probably is intellectually and emotionally incapable of doing.

Mayor Bill de Blasio: New York’s Progressive Disaster

The first thing to understand about progressives in government is that they have a much different view of “progress” than most other people. For example, even though whatever positive changes New York made in the 1990s and 2000s has been waning during the terms of Mayor Bill de Blasio, de Blasio believes that future “progress” now must come in the form of something other than the decline of crime rates and business growth. Instead, de Blasio, who wears his socialist cap proudly declares that the real threat to New York’s future is private property. He says:

Our legal system is structured to favor private property, (but) people would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. If I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see.

Any competent (or even incompetent, for that matter) economist can tell us how such a scenario plays out in the long run, and the economic chaos that was the former Soviet Union stands as Exhibit A, while the New York of the 1970s and the 1980s is Exhibit B. Yes, even in the face of hardcore evidence against his position, de Blasio stands firm. In fact, an entire new wave of politicians in this country calling themselves “progressives” are trying to fashion a “new” economy, one based upon a “Green New Deal,” and other massive interventions into private economic activity. That the experience of socialism never matches its utopian rhetoric seems not to have changed a mind among this new generation of progressives.

If de Blasio is an example of modern progressivism (he even took his honeymoon in Cuba, taking a cue from Bernie Sanders who honeymooned in the USSR shortly before it collapsed), then his words and actions shed light on what progressives consider to be “proper” governance. Not only does de Blasio call for an end to private property and the total transformation of the economy via the “Green New Deal,” but he also has pushed “egalitarian” initiatives like ending charter schools in New York. (The fact that charter schools perform better than their regular public-school counterparts galls de Blasio and he believes they must be stopped.)… Read the rest of this entry »

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

The “Green New Deal” Debunked (Part 1 of 2) | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 27, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/green-new-deal-debunked-part-1-2

There’s a growing buzz around a “Green New Deal,” spearheaded by newly-elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although the details are in flux, currently the draft text calls for the creation of a 15-member “Select Committee for a Green New Deal” that would “have authority to develop a detailed national, industrial, economic mobilization plan” to make the U.S. economy “greenhouse gas emissions neutral.” As if that weren’t ambitious enough, the Select Committee’s detailed national plan would also have the goal “to promote economic and environmental justice and equality.” The draft specifically mentions spending $1 trillion over ten years, in addition to extensive taxes and regulations to steer the economy and society as the 15 committee members see fit. (To be clear, the draft text currently calls for the creation of the select committee, which in turn is then tasked with drafting legislation forming the “Green New Deal” itself.)

In this two-part series I will strongly critique both the spirit and substance of a proposed “Green New Deal.” In the second article, I will focus on the specific proposals in the draft legislation. But in this first piece I will give the historical context and explain why the very notion of a Green New Deal is misguided, because it relies on faulty history and bad economics.

The Original New Deal Was Implemented During the Great Depression

Perhaps the most obvious flaw with anyone proposing a modern-day New Deal—whether green or any other hue—is that we are not currently in the midst of an economic depression. Even textbook Keynesians, who think that (say) the incoming Obama Administration was justified in administering a large “stimulus package” because we were stuck in a so-called liquidity trap, now admit that there is no economic rationale for continuing to run large budget deficits. (As Paul Krugman notoriously and conveniently wrote soon after the election of Trump, “Deficits Matter Again.”)

The very term “New Deal” was chosen to appeal to the 20%+ of the unemployed in the workforce, who had ostensibly been left behind by the traditional U.S. economic system. Yes, Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters are touting the Green New Deal as (among other things) the solution to lingering economic inequities in the current system. But to call concern over a wage gap a “New Deal” is as inapt as christening a bullet train program a “Green Moon Shot.”

The New Deal Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy and Prolonged the Great Depression

Read the rest of this entry »

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

Why Do Leftists Settle for a $15 Minimum Wage? – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2018

https://www.fff.org/2018/11/16/why-do-leftists-settle-for-a-15-minimum-wage/

by 

If economic ignorance among leftists (i.e., liberals and progressives) had no adverse impacts, we could consign it to the ranks of the humorous. Unfortunately, however, such ignorance has very serious adverse consequences, especially on poor people.

The classic example of this phenomenon is the minimum wage. This week a liberal website named In These Times published an article about the minimum wage by a liberal named Marc Daalder. The title of the article is ”Why Every Democrat in Congress Should Support Bernie Sanders’ $15 Minimum Wage Bill.” In his article, Daalder sets forth the standard progressive justification for the minimum wage — to help the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.

There’s one big problem, however, with that justification: It’s false and faulty. In fact, if Daalder and Sanders succeed in getting the minimum wage increased, their success will only make things worse for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

The question that should be posed to Daalder and Sanders is this: Why settle for $15 an hour? Why not make the minimum wage equal to what Sanders receives for being a member of Congress? When broken down to an hourly basis, Sanders receives about $60 an hour. Isn’t it a bit selfish for a liberal to be receiving $60 an hour and, at the same time, arguing that workers should receive only $15 an hour? What’s up with that?… Read the rest of this entry »

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