This is picked up from Andrew Bolt under the heading, Global Warming, The Quiz. How much ignorance must go into the belief in AGW is one of the most bizarre experiences, even more incredible than the belief in socialism or Keynesian economics which not so oddly affects almost exactly the same people. The quiz is originally from The UK’s Daily Mail, one of the few sane newspapers left in the world.
A memo sent by Roger Ailes, the Fox CEO, to his newsroom following the revelations that the telephones at Fox had been bugged by the American government under the explicit direction of the Attorney General.
Dear colleagues,
The recent news about the FBI’s seizure of the phone and email records of Fox News employees, including James Rosen, calls into question whether the federal government is meeting its constitutional obligation to preserve and protect a free press in the United States. We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a ‘co-conspirator’ in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.
I am proud of your tireless effort to report the news over the last 17 years. I stand with you, I support you and I thank you for your reporting with courageous optimism. Too many Americans fought and died to protect our unique American right of press freedom. We can’t and we won’t forget that. To be an American journalist is not only a great responsibility, but also a great honor. To be a Fox journalist is a high honor, not a high crime. Even this memo of support will cause some to demonize us and try to find irrelevant things to cause us to waver. We will not waver.
As Fox News employees, we sometimes are forced to stand alone, but even then when we know we are reporting what is true and what is right, we stand proud and fearless. Thank you for your hard work and all your efforts.Sincerely,
Roger Ailes
He says the right things but you know what has now been done will have a chilling effect just as it was intended to do.
The note has been reprinted from an article by Erik Wemple in the Washington Post
An interesting story about market reforms in China but this particularly caught my eye:
China’s leaders, including a group of pro-market bureaucrats who seem to have gained in the leadership shuffle this year, seem to think that more government spending could worsen economic conditions and that the private sector needs to step in. . . .
The new leaders, who took office in March after a once-in-a-decade leadership transition, seem more determined to change course. In his speech this month, delivered to party officials nationwide by teleconference, Mr. Li, the prime minister, said, ‘If we place excessive reliance on government steering and policy leverage to stimulate growth, that will be difficult to sustain and could even produce new problems and risks.’
‘The market is the creator of social wealth and the wellspring of self-sustaining economic development,’ he said.
He spoke of deregulation and slimming down the role of government.
‘Li Keqiang thinks like an economist,’ said Barry J. Naughton, a professor of Chinese economy at the University of California, San Diego. ‘He wants the government to get out of the way.’
He actually doesn’t think like an economist, at least not an economist of the modern generation. But this is a tide that is rising. Watching the effects of regulation and the stimulus has been a very clarifying experience at least for some. The obstacles must be immense but at least there is recognition at the top about what now must change.
By the way – this kind of thing has – just to remind everyone – been happening in Israel and against the Jews for a very long time.
Just in case anyone forgot, the Jews are THE canary in the coal mine for Western civilization whether you like it or not.
Anything-and everything terror that has happened in Israel is happening now in other places in Western Europe, North America and Australia (coincidentally following patters of Muslim emigration).
And every despicable terrorist act that has happened in Israel – or against Jewish targets in other parts of the world will happen elsewhere as well.
Think a murder such as the Fogel family couldn’t happen elsewhere? Just a Jewish ‘settler’ thing. Just a bunch of dead Jews – no biggie. Like my brother-in law?
Picked up from Five Feet of Fury.
Julie Novak, from whose all-seeing eyes nothing remains hidden, came across this article by Martin L. Mazorra with the perfect title, “Goods Buy Goods“. This is, of course, the classical definition of Say’s Law. I reproduce the entire blog post below:
One day last week, on CNBC’s Kudlow and Company, Larry gave his expert guest the last word: she justified her optimism for stocks by the fact that consumer spending appears to be trending higher and that ‘consumer spending is 72% of the economy’. Larry closed the evening’s show by telling her she had it ‘almost right’. That (words to the effect) what this economy needs is more saving, and business investment, as opposed to more consumer spending. I don’t always agree with Mr. Kudlow, but in this instance I believe he was spot on. Although I had no idea where she had it ‘almost right’. She was at least 72% wrong. Of course her assertion that ‘consumer spending is 72% of the economy’ comes straight from the GDP equation, and is an oft-quoted justifier for policies aimed at boosting demand. Once upon a time, I fell prey to the same misconception.
Here, in my (evolved) view, is a more sensible description of what grows the economy: From page 26 of Steven Kates’s Say’s Law and the Keynesian Revolution:
If one takes the annual produce of a country, writes Mill, and divides it into two parts, that which is consumed is gone. On the other hand, that portion which is used in the production process returns in the following year, with a profit. The more of the produce of a country that is devoted to productive uses, the faster that country grows.
And (from page 40) on the cause of recessions:
The basis of the law of markets is that goods buy goods, but only if the right goods are produced. If the wrong goods are produced, then they cannot be converted into the universal equivalent (i.e. money). If a proportion of goods cannot be sold, then their owners cannot buy. If one set of producers cannot buy, then a second cannot sell. The result is a general downturn in the economy and warehouses filled with unsold goods. But the cause of recession is not demand deficiency or over-production but the production of the wrong assortment of goods and services. The adjustment process thus required is the redeployment of capital from areas where there is too little demand into areas where there will be demand for the goods produced. There is no reason that the process of readjustment will be rapid, but there is no reason to believe that the downturn will be permanent.
So, under whose command should we expect the greatest likelihood of producing the right assortment of goods and services; a self-serving producer of goods and services, or a self-serving politician? Certainly the market, all on its own, can, for a time, produce the wrong assortment of goods and services. However, left to its owns devices—and to natural consequences—the market will adjust accordingly and purge its excesses. The politician, on the other hand, has a professional interest in circumventing the suffering of his supporters, and is adept at neutralizing the natural consequences for the producers of the wrong goods by spreading the loss among the entire population. And, alas, he in effect neutralizes the redeployment of capital from areas where there is too little demand into areas where there will be demand for the goods produced. Hence, a very slow recovery…
When one thinks about the last recession, housing comes to mind. Government-(explicitly)-backed mortgages (Ginnie mae), government-sponsored enterprises (Freddie and Fannie) and a variety of tax incentives are the brainchildren of politicians incentivizing the production of a particular good. Plus, the Fed had flooded the financial sector with liquidity enough to fund the manufacture of trillions of dollars worth of derivative securities designed to leverage—many times over—the housing market. In the end we had the definition of resources diverted to the production of the wrong good, and, thus, the greatest recession since The Great Depression…
This is exactly right and a perfect restatement of the classical explanation of the recession we continue to refer to as the Global Financial Crisis. The notion that consumers drive 70-plus percent of the economy is just one of the many Keynesian idiocies bequeathed to us today. When it comes right down to it 100% of the economy is devoted to raising consumption. Why else would anyone produce anything unless it eventually led to higher personal living standards. Retail is, however, less than ten percent of total economic activity if one looks at the value added data rather than at C+I+G. Most people across an economy are in the inputs industry, every one of which is directed towards satisfying consumer demand eventually, but only eventually. In the meantime they are producing iron ore and concrete, lumber and nails, factories and 747s, none of which are bought as consumer items. And this only begins the story of why the focus on consumer demand is absolutely misplaced if you want to understand how an economy actually works.
The first law of media is that everyone on the left must be protected at all times and to the greatest extent. There is therefore nothing that Obama can do – not a single thing – that will put the mainstream of the American media offside. The IRS scandal goes direct to the White House. The previous Commissioner of Taxation of the United States, Doug Shulman, visited the White House 118 times. Got a good reason for that. He doesn’t nor can there be.
But if they are going to run the protection ring they require, the media need a story that will work, cover enough of the facts on the ground and protect their president from being implicated in this sordid story of political criminality and worse. So here is how it will unfold in the news as orchestrated by the White House, or it will if they are allowed to carry the narrative. From the PJ Media Tatler.
It’s also an indication of just how worried the White House is, and how it intends to contain the scandal. First, get reliably friendly bloggers and columnists on board with a story that focuses attention away from the White House. Then, isolate and target someone who has already become a central figure in the scandal and, more importantly, who does not work directly for the White House. Finally, make it appear as if these reliably friendly bloggers actually take the IRS scandal seriously, so they become voices in the larger media advocating for a strong response — just strong enough to look decisive, while keeping the White House outside the main storyline.
We shall see.
Update from a former presidential adviser: A different president obviously and this is how things really work and why the stories being told by Obama and his enablers are a complete fabrication. The most interesting part of what he wrote:
My personal favorite of all the new revelations from the Obama IRS scandal is that White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough about the impending IRS inspector general report, but of course the White House chief of staff did not tell the president.
I sat in a White House chief of staff’s office every day for more than two years. The only reason the legal counsel would tell the chief of staff about an impending report or disclosure would be so the chief of staff could tell the president. The legal counsel would assume the chief of staff would know how and when to bring up the matter. The chief of staff would be expected to know if there were additional factors surrounding the issue that needed to be considered before the president was told, or whether or not others needed to be included in the conversation when the information was shared with the president. There are many valid reasons why the chief of staff would tell the president, but I can’t think of a reason why he and the legal counsel would both agree that this news nugget would go no further. It’s very odd.
The legal counsel would never assume that information shared with the chief of staff would not go to the president. In my experience, a legal counsel never would believe that there was information that was appropriate for the chief of staff to know but that was inappropriate for the president to know. Out of all the news that has emerged regarding the Obama IRS scandal, this is the most curious whopper I’ve heard so far. I can’t wait to hear the real story.
I have just posted this for my students so why shouldn’t I share it here. For anyone doing a conventional course in economics, specially one which does not include any history of economics, they would find what’s going on in China almost incomprehensible. It is an excerpt from a story in the Australian Financial Review by Angus Grigg published on Wednesday, May 21, 2013. I have added the bolding:
The key for China watchers will be how the new leadership, led by Premier Li Keqiang, plans to allow private enterprise to play a greater role in the economy. In a speech last week Li indicated this would begin by reducing red tape, which he labelled “informal barriers” and “glass doors”.
Li described how one company needed 50 separate administrative approvals across 27 different government departments before being able to begin a project.
“We need to get rid of the controls which are not needed,” he said.
Speculation is mounting that China will abolish one of its five layers of government to help achieve this.
But the market won’t be satisfied with cutting red tape. Economists are looking for reforms that will drive productivity gains over the next decade and allow China to keep growing at elevated levels.
That means the pressure is on the leadership to articulate how it will reduce the role of state-owned enterprises, which control more than one-third of the economy and are given preferential access to the most lucrative areas, such as energy and financial services.
“Private capital has money but nowhere to invest, it can’t invest,” Li said in his speech last week.
This was interpreted as strong support for markets, which the Premier said had a “self-adjusting mechanism”.
“The market is the creator of social wealth, it’s the internal source of economic development,” he said.
While Li’s comments were likened to Adam Smith, they are also perhaps an acknowledgement that China’s system of state-sponsored capitalism has run its course. This can be seen in how the government has been unable to significantly boost the economy in recent months, despite directing state-owned banks to massively increase new loans.
At the end of last year China’s credit to GDP ratio topped 180 per cent – up 60 percentage points in just four years – but it is having less and less impact.
Fitch Ratings estimates that each new yuan of lending between 2009 and 2012 only generated 0.3 yuan of additional GDP. This is less than half the figure achieved between 2005 and 2008. This supports theories that China is like a junkie that needs increasingly larger hits of credit to have the same impact.
And it’s leading to dire warnings on the state of China’s banking system.
The latest to join to throng was famed short-seller Carson Block of Muddy Waters Research, who says China’s financial institutions hold more toxic assets than Western banks did before the 2008 financial crisis.
The IRS official in charge of the division accused of improperly targeting conservative groups will invoke her Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination at a committee hearing Wednesday, a sign of concern that the political controversy is heading into the criminal arena.
That is, she will refuse to answer questions on the grounds that her answers might tend to incriminate her. A jury is not supposed to take pleading the fifth into account in reaching a verdict during a trial. We, on the other hand, are not on a jury and this is not a trial so we are well within our rights to draw an inference that there is criminality involved. And no doubt there is. The question now is whether the Republicans (and media) will go all out or go quiet.
It’s satirical but it is also dead on the money. Obama builds his rhetoric around the idea that he is going to protect everyone else from government. From Alan Borowitz at the New Yorker
President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has ‘played no role whatsoever’ in the U.S. government over the past four years.
‘Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,’ he said. ‘Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.’
The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he ‘recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.’
‘The more I learn about the activities of these individuals, the more certain I am that I would not want to be associated with them,’ he said. ‘They sound like bad news.’
Mr. Obama closed his address by indicating that beginning next week he would enforce what he called a ‘zero tolerance policy on governing.’
‘If I find that any members of my Administration have had any intimate knowledge of, or involvement in, the workings of the United States government, they will be dealt with accordingly,’ he said.
[Via Powerline]
Watching the IRS story unfold in the US gives me the creeps. Right before your eyes the true face of a tyrannical government emerges from behind the curtain in the form of nice Mr Obama and those nice Democrats and their friends in the media and universities. This guy, however, gets it. His title, Is the IRS scandal the worst political scandal in American history? I say ‘yes.’. Here is a large segment outlining why he has come to this conclusion:
Here’s thumbnail sketch of just a few of the other politically-motivated attacks the IRS has made against American citizens. We can expect many more revelations to come:
1. The IRS official who over saw the agency’s effort to stifle political dissent is now in charge of enforcing ObamaCare, which will account for up to one-sixth of the American economy.
2. The IRS gave confidential financial documents from conservative non-profit organizations to a far-Left political activist group.
3. The IRS (which will police ObamaCare) stole 10 million medical records, including the records for all California judges.
4. The IRS blocked applications for or otherwise harassed almost 500 conservative non-profit groups – and there’s every reason to believe that this number will continue to rise.
5. The IRS insisted that, for a pro-Life group to obtain tax-exempt status, it would have to promote abortion.
6. The IRS has been mining Facebook for private data about people who dissent from Obama’s party line.
7. The IRS tried to force a conservative non-profit education group to turn over the names of students (mostly minors) who benefited from its services.
As for those who say that the whole IRS affair becomes irrelevant if no one can prove that Obama is not directly involved, that’s completely wrong. Of course, if the president was involved, it shows that he is the most corrupt, tyrannical leader in American history, and that every branch of the executive division in our government has been tainted and must be cleaned out. And as far as Obama is concerned, if he wasn’t involved, he is a man too incompetent and weak to hold the job of national chief executive.
But think about what it means if Obama wasn’t involved, and the IRS, an agency that has the power to destroy every person in America, did all of this on its own initiative. What we’re seeing in that case is the fall-out of a complete Leftist takeover of American institutions. We will have become a tyranny by bureaucracy (in no small part due to the fact that federal agencies are heavily unionized, and always with a Leftist slant), with the entire federal government irredeemably corrupt.
Law of Markets 