The decline of the West – another take

I came across this article on Cognitive decline: the irreducible legacy of open borders reading the comments on a post by Captain Capitalism on the same issue with the provocative title: Who Will Pay for Everything When the White People are Gone?

Whatever you might see as the cause, there is no doubt that wealth generation in an environment of personal and political freedom was first achieved by the culture of the North Atlantic, and it is these economies that have continued to succeed where others have not. The template is there for anyone to adopt, and has been in Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and a scattered few others. But it is the North Atlantic tribes and their diaspora who have done far better than the rest. Here is the core of the message found in the first article:

A country’s economic success is causally connected to the intelligence of its people; that a nation of dimwits cannot compete with a nation of philosophers; and that between the simpleton and the savant lies a distribution of intellect that differs among peoples. Immigration from the third world will move the center of gravity of brainpower down the IQ spectrum, and in the long run, through influx, fecundity and gene flow, will have a lasting effect.

The basis of all this is described as “smart fraction theory”.

The fundamental assertion of smart fraction theory is that per capita GDP is proportional to the size of a country’s smart fraction, a proposition established empirically in The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations and also in Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag, where it was determined that a verbal IQ of about 106 sets the lower bound of the smart fraction.

The rest is math along with the four laws outlined. There to be read at the link along with the article by Captain Capitalism who provides his own projections of what this will mean for living standards as time goes by. We have been living through a Golden Age.

The Obama White House counted on the ignorance and stupidity of the media

This is how the foreign-policy media is described by the would-be novelist who manages American foreign policy: “They literally know nothing.” You don’t know about this? Maybe it’s for the best if you want to continue to sleep peacefully through the night. Just read the rest below and think how much greater the depth and professionalism of a Trump White House will be. This may be the single most astounding revelation about the abysmal Obama administration to have surfaced, although no doubt more will be revealed as the years go by.

As with almost everything else of significance, if you haven’t been following this story, it’s only because it’s almost impossible to find in your local press. But it does start at The New York Times and is about someone named Ben Rhodes: The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru. So begin with this from the story:

The Boy Wonder of the Obama White House is now 38. . . .

As the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, Rhodes writes the president’s speeches, plans his trips abroad and runs communications strategy across the White House, tasks that, taken individually, give little sense of the importance of his role. He is, according to the consensus of the two dozen current and former White House insiders I talked to, the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself.

And this is a bit more on who he is and what he does:

According to Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of staff, who is known for captaining a tight ship, “I see it throughout the day in person,” he says, adding that he is sure that in addition to the two to three hours that Rhodes might spend with Obama daily, the two men communicate remotely throughout the day via email and phone calls. Rhodes strategized and ran the successful Iran-deal messaging campaign, helped negotiate the opening of American relations with Cuba after a hiatus of more than 50 years and has been a co-writer of all of Obama’s major foreign-policy speeches. “Every day he does 12 jobs, and he does them better than the other people who have those jobs,” Terry Szuplat, the longest-tenured member of the National Security Council speechwriting corps, told me. On the largest and smallest questions alike, the voice in which America speaks to the world is that of Ben Rhodes.

And here, just a bit more, to get the full flavour of what we are dealing with, that is, an absolute policy cypher who knows nothing about foreign policy but knows a lot about how to craft a media campaign to make the policy acceptable to the ignorant and gullible:

Like Obama, Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press. His ability to navigate and shape this new environment makes him a more effective and powerful extension of the president’s will than any number of policy advisers or diplomats or spies. His lack of conventional real-world experience of the kind that normally precedes responsibility for the fate of nations — like military or diplomatic service, or even a master’s degree in international relations, rather than creative writing — is still startling.

So we proceed through the article to find this first mention of his contempt for the media, which also comes with a kind of implied contempt for Obama himself:

When Rhodes joined the Obama campaign in 2007, he arguably knew more about the Iraq war than the candidate himself, or any of his advisers. He had also developed a healthy contempt for the American foreign-policy establishment, including editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour. If anything, that anger has grown fiercer during Rhodes’s time in the White House. He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.

But what has made this profile so infamous is this passage with its direct quotes:

Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.

We ought to be terrified and sickened but we’re not because we find it so hard to believe that this is the way the US is governed. But it is. Sound policy criticism, no doubt on every aspect of the Obama administrations, is messaged to death which happens because the media is ignorant and incompetent. Once you know that, and combine it with Obama’s far-far-to-the-left beliefs, much of what you see around you falls into place.

You should, by the way, read the whole article linked to above. This is the world of virtual reality we are all living in.

As unknown to the world of politics as anyone I have ever seen

Here is one example of Trump dishonesty from a post titled Donald Trump Lies.

I once received a tip that Trump and Richard Nixon had had a lengthy meeting in Trump’s office. Trump said he knew nothing about it. I ran the story, not only because I had an excellent source, but also because a Nixon aide confirmed it.

Got it? Trump denied to some journalist meeting with the President of the United States when in fact he really had, and this is classified as a lie. My take: Trump doesn’t even care if other people know he met with the President, and second, he can keep a secret. Third, he seems to have been dealing at a very high political level for quite a long time. Trump is as unknown to the world of politics as anyone I have ever seen.

Meanwhile, back in the world of Republican politics and the idiots who end up in Congress, we have Paul Ryan. Does he not have even the most basic irony-detection device?

House Speaker Paul Ryan is refusing to support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president, insisting Thursday that the businessman must do more to unify the GOP.

And just what is the bit that Ryan is doing towards achieving this unity? You might well ask since no answer is at all obvious to me.

Trump and economic policy

Most businesspeople don’t have the ability to convert their understanding of the corporate world into a coherent set of policies that will work across the economy and particularly on the supply side. They know what might work for them, but not necessarily across the board. I hadn’t even known Trump had even begun to develop a coherent approach to economic recovery, and it certainly does look to me as if he has had some very clued-in assistance in putting it together. It is in part outlined here: Beyond All the Bluster Trump’s Economic Plan Focuses on Growth, Jobs. This is the sort of thing that will work:

  • slash the corporate tax rate to 15%, down from the current 40%, the highest rate in the industrialized world
  • a one-time 10% repatriation tax on profits American companies made overseas and kept there to avoid the 40% rate
  • allow companies to write off the purchases the year they’re made, rather than over several years, as current law requires
  • the lower 15% rate business rate would also apply to small businesses that usually get taxed at individual income tax rates
  • his “make America rich” plan targets impoverished cities like Baltimore with incentives for companies to move there
  • convert the current State Department program that brings about 100,000 young foreigners into America to work in restaurants, camps, and seaside resorts under J-1 visas into a jobs bank for American inner city youth.

Meanwhile Hillary:

Compare Donald Trump’s blueprint with Secretary Clinton’s nightmare scenario: Higher taxes, more tax complexity, and an avalanche of new regulations. Over-regulation has depressed growth for the last fifteen years. The Obama administration suffocated business with 81,000 pages of new regulations in 2015 alone. Hillary Clinton is pushing for even more – with controls on hiring, pay, bonuses and overtime to promote “fairer growth.” Translation: gender and racial preferences, plus meddling in how much you get paid.

Remember President Obama’s statement, “You didn’t build that.” Well, Mrs. Clinton assumes “you don’t own that.” Government will run your business. Mrs. Clinton wants companies to stop maximizing quarterly earnings for shareholders – what she derides as “quarterly capitalism.” She wants “farsighted investments,” as defined by government, of course. Companies that can get out of the U.S. will rush for the exits. She’s even promising an end to “the boom and bust cycles on Wall Street.” As plausible as ending rainy days.

Infantile versions of fairness seldom mix well with sound economic policy. Trump has nevertheless put together a package that will work, although the cuts to spending and the scaling back of programs will also at some stage have to be included as well. But what we find above is very good, and about time.

And for what it’s worth, the article was written by Elizabeth “Betsy” McCaughey, who was Lieutenant Governor of New York from 1995 to 1998, during the first term of Governor George Pataki.

FURTHER REPORTS: It’s Reuters reporting on what CNBC is reporting, which is remarkable in itself: Trump wants to help U.S. businesses by lifting slew of regulations: CNBC.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Thursday that if elected he would scrap a slew of federal regulations that he said are even more of a burden on American business owners than high taxes, and would try to refinance longer-term U.S. debt.

Not much detail in the story but you may be sure these are the kinds of things he means to do and will know which regulations ought to go.

And so it begins

The relentlessly anti-Trump media “analysis”, even here in Australia with virtually no one voting in the US election. The Murdoch Press is anti-Trump to the furthest extent it can go, and this is the supposed right-side of the media. The free, independent writers at The Australian will do what they are told, and what they will be told is that they are to do all they can to ensure Hillary becomes president. Today’s screed is by Caroline Overington, the Associate Editor in Sydney, who has written the first of what will no doubt be many similarly hysterical pieces by many others of their hysterical columnists. Her column is titled, US Election 2016: Donald Trump is rising on a wave of anger. It’s not very good, but at least she tried.

As absurd as that idea once seemed, Donald Trump is the last man standing, and therefore — bar the most extraordinary revolt — he’s the Republican candidate for president.

They have only themselves to blame, of course. The Republicans, I mean. They’ve had eight years to get their gear together, and this is what they’ve come up with.

A guy who got rich by putting up buildings shaped like special-edition Zippo lighters.

Such depth! Such analysis! You can feel the lifetime of study that has gone into this. And etc etc etc ad nauseam. Here, however, are the 16 top comments – I went all the way down to Number 16 because I liked it so much. And I left out not a single one. Quite a different perspective.

1) Overington’s insulting remarks and Greg Sheridan’s equally condescending piece today in some measure explain why Americans are lining up in droves to vote for Trump. Paid political commentators and their taxpayer-supported informants in Congress and the bureaucracy make up the establishment elites that detest the people who put them in office, pay their inflated salaries and keep journalists in jobs.

The members of this arrogant class believe they have a monopoly of knowledge to which their inferiors in the world of business, commerce and the professions, cannot hope to aspire, hence the spurious claim that Trump voters are uneducated and ignorant. It is anathema to them that ordinary people have the audacity to reject the candidate chosen for them by their superiors and vote instead for someone outside that narrow and insular elite group.

2)I cant wait for Trump to win, and then proceed to actually make a positive difference. Methinks journalist are frightened stiff he will succeed and make them irrelevant in policy direction and outcomes. If there is one grain of uniformity among journalists its that they think they know better and are better than the average joe/jill citizen. Time to kick the media to the curb

3) Bring it on. I have no idea what sort of a president he will make but I REALLY want to see the leftist backlash when he gets in. It’ll be the most entertaining thing we’ve seen in years!

4) The elites are desperate now. Overington is an intellectual wet lettuce.

5) It is articles like this that ensure Trump will be President. The media sneer and belittle him yet at the same time reveal what is actually wrong with society…that is the Media think only their opinion count and the voters are too stupid. By the way, Obama sure didn’t go to War – but he has stood by and allowed millions to die in Syria and create the worst humanitarian crisis since World War 2 – and yet you think this makes him great!!! Oh the humanity.

6) Oh, the lefties are getting so scared. Including the writer of this blog! The anxiety of the ABC interviewers is palpable, one could taste it. Go for it Donald . Stick it up the PC self-righteous bike riding, tofu sucking, sandal wearing idiots!

7) The more the chatterers complain, the more I like Trump. Anything is preferable to more of the same.

8) Not only hopelessly jaundiced as a piece of political journalism, is it possible that the chatterati have not yet realised it is quite precisely articles like these that have been fuelling the Trump phenomena? Are they seriously so clueless?

9) How does a piece like this end up in a quality paper like The Australian?

10) The writer is obviously looking for a job with the ABC and will produce this article in the job application.

11) If Socialists like you hate Trump he would have my vote.If only we had him here.

12) Keep up the sneering, the condescension and the mockery, Caroline. It only makes him stronger, and his supporters more resolute.

13) “Who ran because he thought it might be a good advertisement for his new casino.” Shallow and untrue. Trump set out to make a full, frontal attack on the political elites, both sides, and he’s succeeded. He also awakened the nation. The man, if elected a president, will morph into a statesman like person. He’s too intelligent and competent to not know that.

Remember, too, that when Ben Carsons endorsed him and was asked about all the ugly things he’d said about Trump, Carsons replied, “Oh, that’s just politics,” or words to that effect. Apply the same thinking to Trump’s outbursts.

14) You journalists just cannot stand it that people do not think as you tell them to.

15) “Obama (who, for the record, has endured not one scandal involving his marriage or his kids, nor embarked upon a single unnecessary war.)” that’s right, he just did NOTHING.

16) We should build a hall of journalism, wallpapered with all the articles saying Trump can’t win, leading to a feature about the election of the 45th President of the USA. It will be a tourist attraction, and a reminder to future generations that the job of journalists is to report the news, not make it up.

If this keeps up, The Australia will either have to stop allowing comments or find some other way to rebalance the opinion in a more correct direction.

An unfortunate story

The story is not about the incredible use of our taxpayer funds enforced apparently by the Federal Court, but about the fact that this Beau Abela chap seems to have become a car thief.

He’s the boy who sued Victoria and won, because he left school unable to read.

But, despite a secret private payout and a free car, Beau Abela has turned to a life of crime, complaining he can’t get work.

Abela, now 22, sued the Education Department for $300,000 in 2007 for failing to teach him properly. He said he couldn’t get an apprenticeship because he lacked life skills such as using a bus timetable, reading a menu or counting money.

After eight years of litigation Abela last year reached a near million-dollar private settlement with the government. . . .

Signing off on the agreement, Federal Court judge Anthony North said Abela’s story was unfortunate.

‘The unfortunate situation of Beau, a citizen of Victoria, with very considerable learning difficulties, is something that should be addressed by a sympathetic State,’ he said.

‘He has had a very unfortunate education experience and is in a position where he needs assistance to develop whatever capacities he has.’

It is, of course, excellent that the Federal Court is filled with such compassionate and far-seeing judges who are able to bring a million dollar’s worth of justice to someone without the life skills to read a bus map but who is, nevertheless, still capable of stealing cars.

Do American “conservatives” even know what a conservative is?

Let me therefore tell you what a conservative is: someone who wishes to preserve the best things from our past even while accepting the necessity of change. Going further, it is to learn from our own past about how to negotiate the future.

The question for the day is whether the following is or is not a “conservative” policy: ‘They’re destroying Europe – I’m not going to let that happen to the United States’ Trump doubles down on non-citizen Muslim ban.

On the Muslim ban, which is likely Trump’s most controversial position, he’s not budging.

‘I don’t care if it hurts me,’ he told hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. ‘I’m doing the right thing.’

‘I’ve been guided by common sense, by what’s right,’ he continued.

‘We have to be careful. We’re allowing thousands of people to come into our country,’ he said. ‘Thousands and thousands of people being placed all over the country that, frankly, nobody knows who they are.’

‘We don’t know what we’re doing,’ he added.

He may be wrong about what he’s doing, but the policy is the very essence of conservative.

The snow job of Kilimanjaro

From An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate of which there is more along the same lines as this:

One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.

And even then when the film came out I recall being told that the snow levels had been affected by the felling of trees at the base of the mountain. Al Gore is himself the very embodiment of why the scam keeps going. Whatever may be the truth, what is undeniable is that he has made an absolute fortune from it.

Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.

As for the rest of us, Denmark Slashes Wind Power Subsidies to Curb Runaway Power Costs. Australia, much of which is built on a foundation made of coal, has energy prices at near enough the same level. For a bit more, you can go here.

Here is something governments don’t seem to know: corporate revenue funds capital accumulation, innovation, and economic growth

An interesting article by Stephen MacLean on Government Greed Axes the Golden Goose that got me thinking. The way you hear governments tell the story, there is a much larger amount of tax these corporates should pay than they actually do pay, which coincides with some fictitious number related to the amount of money they wish they could cream off for themselves.

But looked at another way, it may well be that the most socially beneficial outcome is for corporates to pay as little tax as possible so that their earnings can be ploughed back into their firms. The role of business is not as a means through which governments can raise money, but as a mechanism through which material welfare is provided to a community. The higher are the business taxes paid, the worse off the community ends up. As MacLean writes:

Middle-class Americans would be among those most hurt by Washington’s tax grab, as it is corporate revenue that funds capital accumulation, innovation, and economic growth. Tax away profit, and you tax away employment opportunities.

Thus, the most socially responsible approach to taxation by corporates may be to avoid paying taxes to the largest extent they are legally able. They are doing these governments a favour, but, as with so much, political greed far exceeds common sense.