The Downright Sinister Rearrangement of Riches

Simple Classifications
Let’s begin with facts. Cold hard unadorned facts. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at standard atmospheric pressure. Squaring the circle using a compass and straightedge is impossible. The sun is a star.
Facts, of course, must not be confused with opinions, which are based upon observations. Barack Obama throws like a girl. The Federal Register is for idiots. Two slices of chocolate cake are one too many. Are these opinions right or wrong?
The answer depends on who you ask. What’s certain about opinions, however, is that like bellybuttons, everybody has one. Moreover, unlike free drugs from the government, everyone is in fact entitled to their own opinion.
Moving on from facts and opinions, the next classification we encounter is the wholly asinine. This broadly contains the absurd and ridiculous. Take most university teachers, barring natural science professors, for instance. They’re wholly asinine. The wholly asinine also extends to editors at the New York Times, Washington Post, circus hunchbacks, and the like.
Lastly, we want to mention the downright sinister. This includes sociopaths like Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, nearly all of Congress, the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, Washington lobbyists, a good part of Wall Street, and much, much more. Clearly, such people and professions don’t represent honest work. Rather, they epitomize less than honest work that’s performed by less than honest people.

This post was published at Acting-Man on October 27, 2017.


The Chinese government has commissioned a group of scientists to look into building a manned radar station on the moon.
What began earlier this year with a 16 million yuan ($2.4 million USD) grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China has now moved one step closer to reality as more scientists have joined the project and a two-day meeting was held just last month.
The facility would be used for defense monitoring and scientific research, and South China Morning Post reported that the base’s powerful radar antenna array at least 50 metres high ‘could also produce more powerful and clearer images of earth as the high-frequency microwaves emitted by the radar station could not only penetrate cloud, but also the earth’s surface, allowing it to monitor areas on land, under the sea and underground.’
China would also be building a solar or nuclear power plant on the moon to supply the station with the amount of power needed to generate such high intensity radio beams.

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on AUGUST 22, 2016.

Scientific Scam: Temperature Data ‘Adjusted’ To Push Global Warming Lies

21st Century Wire says…
The scandals just keep coming for the now discredited and decaying ‘science’ behind climate change.
Entire news agencies have become propaganda centers for the discredited, Malthusian lie of anthropogenic global warming, while anyone who dares to suggest that the ‘science’ does not add up is slandered. Yet, the tide is turning and people are beginning to reject the ‘consensus’and question what they are being told.
What people need to understand about all areas of science is that they are not entirely disconnected from subjective opinion, bias, private interests and group-think. Natural science (physics, chemistry, biology and geology) is not the pure objective search for knowledge that it wishes to be and never can be. Moreover, any so called ‘Peer Reviewed’ work is only peer reviewed according to currently accepted standards among those conducting the review; standards which may be entirely incorrect.

This post was published at 21st Century Wire on FEBRUARY 9, 2015.

Should Economics Emulate Natural Sciences?

Economists have always been envious of the practitioners of the natural and exact sciences. They have thought that introducing the methods of natural sciences such as a laboratory where experiments could be conducted could lead to a major breakthrough in our understanding of the world of economics.
But while a laboratory is a valid way of doing things in the natural sciences, it is not so in economics. Why is that so?
A laboratory is a must in physics, for there a scientist can isolate various factors relating to the object of inquiry.
Although the scientist can isolate various factors he doesn’t, however, know the laws that govern these factors.
Hypotheses and Logical Certainty All that he can do is hypothesize regarding the ‘true law’ that governs the behavior of the various particles identified.
He can never be certain regarding the ‘true’ laws of nature. On this Murray Rothbard wrote,
The laws may only be hypothecated. Their validity can only be determined by logically deducing consequents from them, which can be verified by appeal to the laboratory facts. Even if the laws explain the facts, however, and their inferences are consistent with them, the laws of physics can never be absolutely established. For some other law may prove more elegant or capable of explaining a wider range of facts. In physics, therefore, postulated explanations have to be hypothecated in such a way that they or their consequents can be empirically tested. Even then, the laws are only tentatively rather than absolutely valid.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on DECEMBER 16, 2014.

James Grant Explains “The Forgotten Depression”

The Forgotten Depression: 1921 – The Crash That Cured Itself, by James Grant, Simon & Schuster, 2014.
To better understand the current economic environment, financial analyst, historian, journalist, and value investor James Grant, who is informed by both Austrian economics and the value investing theory of the late Benjamin Graham, analyzes the Depression of 1920 – 1921 in his latest work, The Forgotten Depression: 1921 – The Crash That Cured Itself.
Grant understands that despite the pseudo-natural science veneer of mainstream economics the fact remains that economic value is inherently subjective and thus economic measurement is also subjective. Mr. Grant confronts the subjectivity of economic measurement head-on in his book in an enlightening discussion of whether the 1921 depression was, in fact, a depression at all.
Was It a Depression? Grant concludes it was a depression, but mainstream economist Christine Romer, for example, concludes it wasnot a depression. As Grant observes, Ms. ‘Romer, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, presented her research, titled ‘World War I and the Postwar Depression,’ in a 1988 essay in the Journal of Monetary Economics. The case she made for discarding one set of GNP estimates for another is highly technical. But the lay reader may be struck by the fact that neither the GNP data she rejected, nor the ones she preferred, were compiled in the moment. Rather, each set was constructed some 30 to 40 years after the events it was intended to document’ (p. 68).
In contrast, Mr. Grant surveys economic activity as it existed prior to and during 1920 – 21 and as it was evaluated during those times. Therefore, five pages into chapter 5 of his book, which is titled ‘A Depression in Fact,’ we read that:

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on DECEMBER 15, 2014.

Keynesian Ideologue Joseph Stiglitz Opines on ‘Austerity’

The Many Errors of His Ways … An editorial by well-known leftist economist Joseph Stiglitz has recently been published in the Guardian, entitled’Austerity has been an utter disaster for the euro zone’.
Before we are taking a closer look at it, we want to stress that we also believe that the EU’s approach to economic policy is worth criticizing in many respects. Just because we believe that Mr. Stiglitz is essentially an economic crank doesn’t mean that we disagree with every criticism of the so-called ‘austerity’ policy as pursued by the EU. Below are several excerpts from his article with our comments interspersed.
‘If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the theory,’ goes the old adage. But too often it is easier to keep the theory and change the facts – or so German chancellor Angela Merkel and other pro-austerity European leaders appear to believe. Though facts keep staring them in the face, they continue to deny reality.’
The ‘old adage’ is actually a well-known bonmot by J. M. Keynes – curiously, Stiglitz doesn’t mention that. Although it has merit with respect to the natural sciences, it does not apply to economic theory, which is a science of human action and not a study of inanimate objects without volition. Theorems of economics cannot be proved or disproved with ‘empirical data’. We do e.g. not need empirical data to prove the truth of the theorem of marginal utility, or to create a price or value theory, or to prove the truth of the law of association, etc., etc..
All of these economic laws have been discovered by inner reflection and the process of logical deduction. They are only ‘empirical’ in a Thomist or Aristotelian sense (for a detailed explanation of this point of view, we refer readers to Rothbard’s monograph In Defense of Extreme Apriorism -pdf).
To put it differently: one can use economic theory to explain the facts of economic history, but one cannot use economic history to argue for or against points of economic theory. If we look at economic statistics, we see that every slice of history is slightly different, as the contingent data, which are always extremely complex and varied, are different in every case. And yet, the same economic laws have time and place-invariantly operated in every instance and will continue to do so for all eternity, or at least as long as there are human beings who can act with purpose. Stiglitz continues:

This post was published at Acting-Man on October 2, 2014.