Capitalism always prevails: everything else is either a prop up or an obstacle. An
obstacle is expected to be either ignored or destroyed. In this context, there's only so
much Asian hive mind culture (fascism) can do.
Oh, and wages are also at historical lows. The Phillips Curve is a farce, neoclassical
theory is a fraud
Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate
educational training
Seems rather typical of those making policy, not knowing much about the area they're
assigned to. If a person did know Arabic and had an understanding of the culture they
wouldn't get hired as they'd be viewed with suspicion, suspected of being sympathetic to
Middle Easterners. How and why these neocons can come back into government is puzzling and
one wonders who within the establishment is backing them. Judging by the quotes her father
certainly seems deranged and not someone to be allowed anywhere near any policy making
positions.
Flynn also seems to be a dolt what with his 'worldwide war against radical Islam'. Someone
should clue him in that much of this radical Islam has been created and stoked by the US who
hyped up radical Islam, recruiting and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin
Laden was there, remember? Flynn, a general, is unaware of this? Islamic jihadists are
America's Foreign Legion and have been used all over the Muslim world, most recently in
Syria. Does this portend war with Iran? Possibly, but perhaps Trump wouldn't want to go it
alone but would want the financial support of other countries. They've probably war-gamed it
to death and found it to be a loser.
"... There are some who parrot Big Pharma vested interests in ridiculing and denigrating hydroxychloroquine, despite the very notable positive results several countries such as China, Russia, Iran and Turkey have had with it, while vainly spouting the benefits of smoking despite complete lack of quality research papers supporting it and abundant quality papers against. ..."
"... Research is not created equal. There is good research (some, not so much) and there is bad research (bundles of it), mostly funded by vested interests, who where necessary direct the desired results. In general, research from China and Russia arguably tends to be higher quality and more reliable because those countries place the emphasis on health for society, not on profits for the corporations. ..."
But with regard to anecdotal/unverified [touch'e] claims of nicotine benefits in covid,
one should not reflexively ignore the evidence to the contrary that conflict with one's
pro-nicotine bias/belief system:}
"Smokers more likely to express ACE2 protein that SARS-COV-2 uses to enter human cells"
"Tobacco smoking increases lung entry points for COVID-19 virus"
Posted by: gm | May 19 2020 16:13 utc | 129
Touché again gm!
It is indeed desperate grasping at straws to believe that smoking will protect against
Covid-19 when far higher quality research clearly indicates increased risk from smoking that
the disease will be more severe (the latter also being the more plausible result).
As I commented the last time B raised this issue, there is one genuine effect of a
past history of smoking that statistically reduces risk of death from Covid-19 -
namely smoking significantly reduces expected lifespan, and therefore reduces the risk of
living long enough to reach the highest risk age groups for severe Covid-19. Alternatively
expressed - smoking kills you off first before you get a chance to be killed by Covid, if
that is what you want. Post-hoc nicotine patches at a late stage deny you even that
advantage.
There are some who parrot Big Pharma vested interests in ridiculing and denigrating
hydroxychloroquine, despite the very notable positive results several countries such as
China, Russia, Iran and Turkey have had with it, while vainly spouting the benefits of
smoking despite complete lack of quality research papers supporting it and abundant quality
papers against.
At this point it is worth reminding of criticism of the untrustworthiness of modern
medical science from the editors of some of the top medical journals:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is
published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical
guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly
over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine"
Angell M. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books
magazine.
More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that "The case against science
is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and
flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of
dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness" Horton R.
Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? www.thelancet.com.
The first of these two commentaries on clinical research publications appeared in 2009, the
second in April of this year. These statements are being taken seriously, coming as they do
from the experiences of editors of two of the world's most prestigious medical journals.
The first article showed how the relationships between pharmaceutical companies and
academic physicians at prestigious universities impacted certain drug-related publications
and the marketing of prescription drugs. Potential conflicts of interest seemed to abound:
millions of dollars in consulting and speaking fees to physicians who promoted specific
drugs, public research dollars being used by a researcher to test a drug owned by a company
in which the researcher held millions of dollars in shares, failure of university
researchers to disclose income from drug companies, company subsidies to physician
continuing education, publishing practice guidelines involving drugs in which the authors
have a financial interest, using influential physicians to promote drugs for unapproved
uses, bias in favor of a product coming from failure to publish negative results and
repeated publication of positive results in different forms. The author, Marcia Angell,
cited the case of a drug giant that had to agree to settle charges that it deliberately
withheld evidence that its top-selling anti-depressant was ineffective and could be harmful
to certain age groups. ...
Richard Horton's statement was part of his comments on a recent symposium on reliability
and reproducibility of research in the biomedical sciences and addresses a broader area of
concern. Some of the problems he identified are seen in the veterinary literature. They
include inadequate number of subjects in the study, poor study design, and potential
conflicts of interest. He notes that the quest for journal impact factor is fuelling
competition for publication in a few high reputation journals. He warns that "our love of
'significance' pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale" ...
Research is not created equal. There is good research (some, not so much) and there is
bad research (bundles of it), mostly funded by vested interests, who where necessary direct
the desired results. In general, research from China and Russia arguably tends to be higher
quality and more reliable because those countries place the emphasis on health for society,
not on profits for the corporations.
@Flatulus @16 "sources"
Christian Drosten, chief virologist Charité Berlin in his podcast no 31. Available
with transcript here.
Posted by: b | May 18 2020 16:42 utc | 32
B, have you looked into the Big Pharma vested interests of Drosten yet? I suggest you do
so.
"Lifting all boats" was always a lie. It was simply a way to sell trickle down by claiming
that the objectively observable inequality it produced would somehow help everyone,
eventually, sort of. There was not and has never been a plan by the Conservative Movement to
lift all boats. Only a plan to feign interest in doing so.
I see the current situation more like the sinking of the Titanic (whether caused by the
virus or shady financial dealing, it doesn't matter). The rich passengers get the lifeboats
and the rest of the passengers get the ice water. A few survived in the water, so it's time
to look to the future. Crony capitalism in a nutshell.
or search Google Scholar for: "van Creveld" Parameters 1996 "Fate of the State"
Classic article, and first mention of the "hollowing out". Current crackdowns are by a
government that has lost most real power (e.g. can't even suppress retail theft and has given
up by making it legal), and is trying to get public submission again by over-enforcing
quarantine / isolation rules. The facade of even this level of control is cracking. The
problem is not an overly controlling government, it is of a government that lacks legitimacy
even from its supporters (one doesn't hear POC or even the Jewish establishments praising the
American form of government, even when they control it; none of them regard it as legitimate.
That's what Postmodernism, for example, is about.
The coronavirus reminds us that the gap between what we think we know and what we
actually do know is enormous.
Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response
coordinator, shows off charts with members of the coronavirus task force during a briefing in
response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the
White House on Tuesday, March 31, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
May 13, 2020
|
12:01 am
Matt
Purple St. Louis Federal Reserve watchers, rejoice! And yes, I'm talking to both of you. The St.
Louis Fed is freshly relevant this week thanks to a paper it
published back in 2007 that examined the economic effects of the 1918 Spanish flu. Drawing
on old newspaper articles, local surveys, and other studies -- national data back then was
scarce -- the report found that the damage done to businesses by the outbreak was both severe
and short-lived. The impact on the next generation, however, was longer-lasting. Those in utero
during the pandemic went on to attain less education and lower incomes than had previous
generations.
What we wouldn't give for that kind of glimpse from the future today. The coronavirus has
killed hundreds of thousands while sledgehammering the economy, leaving close to a quarter of
working-age Americans either unemployed or
underemployed. And we still have no idea how it will end. It may be that this recession is
similar to the one in 1918, cutting deeply but easing rapidly. Or it may be that we're in for
another lost decade of stubborn unemployment and stagnant growth. It may be that the virus is
seen off this summer, remembered as a frightening but ultimately brief ordeal. Or it may be
that it lurks into the autumn, whereupon it comes roaring back.
We don't know, and we hate that we don't know. Consequently a cottage industry has sprung up
around our uncertainty, hawking models, projections, expert opinions. These things have valid
scientific purposes, of course, but thrown down the rabbit hole of our popular discourse,
they've taken on a kind of hysterical clairvoyance, supposedly able to tell us what's coming
and how we should respond. With climate change, we grew accustomed to the idea that scientists
could see into the future. Now we're demanding they do the same with the coronavirus. That's
despite the fact that so far, none of these projections have demonstrated any greater
predictive ability than your average call to Miss Cleo.
Take the government's official death toll projections. Back in January, the White House was
largely complacent over the coronavirus, with President Trump comparing it to the seasonal flu
and his health secretary
saying that Americans need "not worry for their own safety." Then in late March, the
pendulum swung towards apocalypse. Actually, the White House said,
200,000 Americans could die. Two weeks later, the death toll projection fell
to a far rosier 60,000 , and the country breathed a sigh of relief ahead of Easter weekend.
Then the projections ticked upwards yet again. Today, IHME, the White House's principal
modeler, predicts that 147,000 Americans will be killed
by August 4.
Some of the issue here may be the choice of models. IHME has been
criticized by epidemiologists , as have the Imperial College modelers in Britain (who have
lately been distracted by, er, more
extracurricular activities ). But the bigger problem is best summed up in a quote
to Politico by the head of IHME, explaining why his organization's projections
were so wrong. "We had presumed, perhaps naively," he said, "that given the magnitude of the
epidemic, most states would stick to their social distancing until the end of May." In other
words, the models are premised on assumptions that can be scrambled by real-world events,
whether political decisions or acts of God or the caprices of the virus itself. They aren't
showing us the future so much as extrapolating off of a snapshot, one that can easily change.
Yet we treat them as practically mystic. "200,000 could die!!" scream the headlines, with
"could" ever the weasel word.
We don't just do this with the death toll. On the economy, too, we seem hopelessly confused.
Here's a smattering of headlines from the past two months: "Unemployment rate could exceed 20%
by June, top White House adviser says." "Economists see uneven jobs recovery, high U.S.
unemployment through 2021." "Top JPMorgan investment advisor: It will take '10 to 12 years' for
U.S. employment levels to return." "The coronavirus recession will be deeper and faster than
the financial crisis." "Economists say quick rebound from recession is unlikely." "Trump's
baseless claim that a recession would be deadlier than the coronavirus." "U.N. warns economic
downturn could kill hundreds of thousands of children in 2020."
Stare into this blurry puddle long enough and you might conclude that no one has any idea
what the hell they're talking about. Or you might fall back on your own biases, choosing to
believe stories that buttress your political beliefs and speak to your own personal
circumstances. Either way, this kind of confusion can have long-reaching effects. Consider, for
example, a new study that was released last week, which found that there could be 75,000
so-called deaths of despair -- meaning suicides and drug and alcohol overdoses -- as a
result of the coronavirus recession. It called to mind another
social science finding , one of the most consequential of the last decade: that life
expectancy among less educated, middle-aged, white Americans was declining, driven primarily by
those deaths of despair.
That claim, courtesy of researchers Anne Case and Angus Deaton , made
its way around the internet. It fed into the narrative of the populist right and Donald Trump.
It provided an empirical grounding for "American carnage." But wait: a less noticed study a
year later, which took Case's and Deaton's data and adjusted for age, found a more mixed
picture. According to research from
Columbia University , while middle-aged white women had indeed seen increased mortality
rates, middle-aged white men had reversed this trend back in 2005. And then came another study, in the
American Journal of Public Health , that challenged the very concept of "deaths of
despair," warning that "the gap between deaths of despair as a claim and deaths of despair as a
rigorously tested scientific concept is wide."
There is a Grand Canyon-sized gap between what we think we know and what we actually know.
How to navigate this chasm? Two maxims can help.
The first comes from Friedrich Hayek: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to
men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." Hayek was concerned
with what he called the "fatal conceit," which he defined as the belief "that man is able to
shape the world around him according to his wishes." We might add a corollary: that man is able
to anticipate the world around him according to his wishes. Because knowledge is
complex and dispersed, Hayek argued, no one can ever marshal enough of it to centrally plan an
economy. Likewise even a sophisticated model can't have enough data to foresee how a pandemic
will play out. There are simply too many variables, drawing on too many areas of life.
The second maxim comes from a very different source: John Dickinson, perhaps our most
conservative founding father. "Experience must be our only guide," Dickinson said. "Reason may
mislead us." Of course, by reason, he didn't mean vast computer algorithms struggling to track
contagion across seven continents; he was thinking of 18th-century rationalism, which he
contrasted with the more reliable yardstick of historical experience. While what seemed
philosophically sound in the abstract could be tainted by personal bias or disconnected from
real life, precedent was far more settled. How something had worked in the past was a good
indication of how it would work in the future.
Unfortunately we have very little precedent when it comes to the coronavirus, though the
Spanish flu can perhaps offer some clues. The 1918 influenza, like the current pandemic, began
in the spring, only to enter a second wave in the fall that killed more people than the first.
A third wave then began that winter and stretched into the summer of 1919. That's chilling, yet
there's good news too: the recession that followed was short and quickly blossomed into the
1920s, one of the most dizzying economic expansions in our history.
So top hats and flapper dresses all around? Who knows? It's called the novel coronavirus for
a reason. The awful truth is that we have very little idea how long this will go on and how it
will ultimately turn out. And the reason for that is that we know so very much less than we
think we do.
But while today's medical and social science experiments do not appear to be overwhelmingly
biased in favor of a single theory, policy, or, in the case of medicine, cure, neither are they
completely random. For no matter what these investigations conclude, they all somehow manage to
shine a favorable light on the federal government, state government, or government-affiliated
nonprofit sponsors.
Whatever knowledge is actually gleaned from the annual $40
billion investment that Congress and state legislatures make in scientific research, the
subsequent study write-ups always leave two impressions. The first is that the results are so
promising as to justify "further investigation." In other words, more public funding next year.
The second is that those outside the academy who have the education, experience, and authority
to implement what has supposedly been learned thus far -- in others words, the government
officials who subsidize the research -- are, as a result, even wiser and more trustworthy than
before.
These impressions are reinforced by an army of college and university administrators, which
grew by over 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, and which, not coincidentally, is supported by
overhead fees collected from government research grants. (The base
rate averages 52 percent nationwide. At elite institutions like Yale, it goes up to 67.5
percent.) As New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has observed ,
when college presidents are called on the fact that modern scientific research is not nearly as
advanced as government grants to their schools would suggest, they all fall back on the same
answer: "Give us even more money."
The idea of a tacit alliance between scientists and government bureaucrats is not new. As
far back as the early 1970s, the late cultural philosopher Irving Kristol coined the phrase "
New Class " to
describe the rising number of economists, environmentalists, health care workers, policy
analysts, and other professionals with a common need for increased public funding.
Kristol was not suggesting anything as blatantly corrupt as a deliberate conspiracy. He was
simply acknowledging the natural human tendency of federal and state officials to see the most
value in those studies that promise to validate their authority.
More recently, at least a few academics have gone public with their concerns about slanted
research, even at their own universities. In theory, faculty have an objective "truth finding"
and "truth telling" role, says University of
California-Berkeley law professor Stephen D. Sugarman. But "because of their own financial
interests, [they] may be dishonest in what they say they have discovered and/or how they
describe the state of knowledge in their field." Musa al-Gharbi, a Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in
sociology at Columbia and a research associate at Heterodoxy Academy, has similarly
suggested that nearly every academic paper touching on "how society should be best
arranged" has likely been subject to "prejudicial design" based on how the outcome would end up
profiting the author.
Nowhere has the opportunistic embellishment of study findings been more blatant in recent
years than with cancer research, funded with $6 billion annually from the federal National
Cancer Institute and with even more from other government agencies and related nonprofits.
Indeed, not a day goes by without a breathless headline that some investment led to "incredible
progress" and millions of "cancer deaths averted." A 2016 report by
Kaiser Health
News found that cancer experts often describe questionable treatments with terms such as
"breakthrough," "game changer," "miracle," "cure," "home run," "revolutionary,"
"transformative," "life saver," "groundbreaking," and "marvel."
Unfortunately, the reality of what's been achieved, writes John Horgan, director of the
Center for Science Writing at Stevens Institute of Technology in a recent issue of
Scientific
American , is far less impressive. While there have been some improved therapies for
childhood cancers and cancers of the blood, bone-marrow, and lymph systems, Horgan reports that
most highly publicized advances are statistically unimpressive. Indeed, "the current
age-adjusted mortality rate for all cancers in the U.S., 152.4 deaths per 100,000 people, is
just under what it was in 1930, according to a recent analysis."
Without condemning every academic researcher -- some of whom are undoubtedly committed to
the advancement of knowledge -- it is not an exaggeration to say that a good percentage of
contemporary scientists have, consciously or unconsciously, allowed short-term self-interest to
distort their pursuit of truth. Nor is it an exaggeration to say that their actions have been
enabled by equally self-interested experts in government, nonprofit organizations, and
professional associations.
Perhaps this situation will be corrected in the wake of the growing scandal over
experimental irreproducibility. But clearly we have no reason to give credentialed elites a
veto over what is available on the internet, even in their own fields. In the end, every
argument about online censorship boils down to a debate over which is more likely to benefit
society: trust in the collective integrity of the average end-user or in the collective
interests of credentialed experts.
Nothing we know about scientific research gives us any reason to opt for the latter.
Dr. Lewis Andrews was executive director of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy at
Trinity College from 1999 to 2009. He is author of the new book Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis
Books).
>Medical doctors are not well trained in statistics.
They are not trained in conducting research either, or even how to read it. They are not
trained very well in diagnosis or critical thinking. They are good at memorizing stuff and
following "guidelines" - cookbook medicine. The abusive training regime (do you really want a
newbie who has been working 30 hours straight to make medical decisions? Me neither.) seems
designed to crush curiosity. Instead of treating the actual patient, they treat test
results.
The whole medical industry has been fiancialized and it is all about status and wealth.
Corruption and fraud are everywhere and medical research is just as bad. Forget about "peer
review". It is often "pal review" and reviewers seldom look very close. Some journals publish
reviewer comments, and they are instructive to read, although its rather depressing to see
comments that are mostly about grammar and spelling.
The scientific publishing industry is a real racket that would impress even our fellow
worker Wally. Investigators often have to pay the journal, while reviewers work for free.
Meanwhile they charge outrageous fees to university libraries. It is an extremely profitable
industry, but their greed will do them in, as more and more people use Sci-Hub for free.
The sad fact is that most medical research is actually marketing; they are dialing for
dollars. Researchers start with uncertain observations which are massaged into unsupported
conclusions with a bunch of qualifiers like "perhaps" and "maybe". Conclusions always include
"send more money".
Next the uni press office takes the qualified conclusions, removes the qualifiers and
inflates the whole mess to the breaking point. This is passed on to no-nothing "science
journalists" and editors who add click-bait headlines not supported by the article. By the
time the research gets to the popular press it bears little resemblance to the original
observations. But as long as everyone along the way get their cut, it's all good, right?
The scientific knowledge base is fast filling up with shit. Good luck getting past the
stink to try to figure what is true and what is bad gas.
" i listened to about 3 mins of some bill gates ted talkish thing, wondering, will these dim
bulbs ever assume responsibility for anything?
all the msm talking heads have been revealed for what they are: state propagandists. not
one krugmanian friedmanite will ever say, "I didn't see this coming and I pimped myself out
for the last 40 years selling snake oil and getting nobel prizes for it and have revealed
myself to be unqualified to turn on a light switch no matter how much money I have made and
recognition I have received. Clearly I know nothing". why would anyone listen to an msm
personality that's been sold to them as some kind of "expert"?
Gladly. The book makes an interesting comparison between New Thought writers like Reverend
Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote a book in 1952 titled The Power of Positive Thinking, and
those who practice chaos magick. Both operate under the principle that there is real power to
effect one's environment through directing one's will, manifesting what you want if your
belief and willpower is strong enough (Peale had a big influence on Trump's dad and Trump
himself).
This concept is like meth to a malignant narcissist .
the author also discusses how post-modernism fits in to creating the condition we have
today. here's an excerpt:
Postmodernism is a philosophical perspective that developed in the late twentieth century,
having its sources in earlier philosophers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger, both of whom
cut away at the notion of a stable, "objective" truth, the kind we use in everyday life and
in science. Simply put, the essence of postmodernism -- although it would deny that it
has an "essence"--can be summed up in the phrase "anything goes." For postmodernism the
kind of scientific, rational certainties that built the modern world, as well as
traditional values such as truth, no longer apply; at least they are seen to be much less
certain than was believed.
Well before it became a political buzzword, postmodernism knew all about being
"post-truth," and was aware of the "alternative facts" and "fake news" that accompany that
condition.
It could even be said that postmodernism and related schools like deconstructionism
prepared the ground for the epistemological skepticism pervading western consciousness
today, which Trump both abets and profits by.
Rarified notions of a pliant, flexible, relative "truth" trickled down from the
metaphysical heights, and infected the popular mind with what the philosopher Paul Ricoeur
called the "hermeneutics of suspicion," a kind of cynical nihilism that we take for granted
as part of everyday life, and which Nietzsche, more than a century ago, predicted was on
its way. Hence our conspiracy ridden world, to which Trump himself contributes.
For postmodernism, the dictum "Nothing is true, everything is permitted," attributed
to Hasan bin Sabbah, "the Old Man of the Mountain," leader of the ancient Islamic sect of
Ismailis called the Hashashin, or Assassins, is taken as given. The same goes for chaos
magick.
A definition for predatory publishing is problematic, as there is much overlap with
legitimate but new or smallish publishers. She looked at necessary and sufficient conditions for
a definition, but found that while deceit is necessary, sufficient conditions are vexing to try
and capture.
PP cheat and deceive some authors charging publishing related fees without providing
services; PP deceive academics into serving on editorial boards; PP appoint editorial board
members without knowledge; no peer review; refuse to retract or withdraw problematic papers;
etc.
It's 2020 and
I'm still bogged down, not finished with my notes from half a year ago on the ENAI conference.
What can I say? Life and all....
So let's start the new year with a discussion on predatory publishers. Deborah Poff gave a
keynote speech at the ENAI conference 2019 on the topic, and as COPE chair she has now
published a discussion paper
on the topic. There are a number of irritating points, as Elisabeth Bik points out in a
Twitter thread, but on the whole this is a good paper to get this very important discussion
going in the new year.
How can we tell whether or not a journal is legitimate or not? Legitimate in the sense that
rigorous peer-review is not just stated, but actually done? We are in a current world situation
in which certain groups attack science because it is informing us of uncomfortable truths.
Predatory publishers offer a welcome point of attack, as the weaknesses of the "science" they
publish are immediately assumed for all science. The "self-regulation" of science has been
shown in recent years to not actually do the work it is supposed to do, despite the efforts of
so many to point out issues that need attention.
Researchers need guidance about publication venues. Beall's list was taken down for legal
reasons, but there is a web site that
publishes an archived copy of the list that was taken on 15 January 2017. That was soon
after the 2017 list was
published.
There is a checklist available at thinkchecksubmit.org that is useful, but not a list of
problematic publications, probably for legal reasons.
We can't keep putting out heads in the sand about the problems of academic misconduct. If we
only look away, we let people get away with bad science, and that then reflects on us all.
Posted by Debora
Weber-Wulff at 10:52 AM
After lunch we had the Plenary session on Predatory publishing and other challenges of new models to share knowledge
I was really looking forward to this session and it didn't disappoint!
Deborah C. Poff , the new COPE chair and a philosopher from Ottawa titled her talk
"Complexities and approaches to predatory publishing"
She spoke at lightning speed, getting faster as time began running out. It could have been
at least a two-hour lecture, so jam-packed it was with really good stuff. I could barely keep
up, so I hope I get the highlights right.
A definition for predatory publishing is problematic, as there is much overlap with
legitimate but new or smallish publishers. She looked at necessary and sufficient conditions
for a definition, but found that while deceit is necessary, sufficient conditions are vexing to
try and capture.
PP cheat and deceive some authors charging publishing related fees without providing
services; PP deceive academics into serving on editorial boards; PP appoint editorial board
members without knowledge; no peer review; refuse to retract or withdraw problematic papers;
etc.
The list goes on: Misleading reporting, language issues, lack of ethical oversight, lack of
declarations of conflicts of interest, lack of corrections or retractions, lack of qualified
EiC (if any), made-up rejection rates, false impact factors, false claims of being indexed in
legitimate indexes, falsely claiming membership in publication ethics organization including
forgery and falsifying logos of such organization. COPE apparently had to fight a forged COPE
logo.
What should we call them, anyway? Arguments against the term "predatory": It is not
descriptive or instructive, so some suggest using fake, rouge, questionable, parasitic,
deceptive, etc.; predatory suggests victims, powerless people who are acted upon without their
full knowledge, while a number of studies have shown that some scholars knowingly publish in
such journals; Calling the issue "predatory" obviates or mitigates the personal responsibility
for choosing where to publish.
The best argument for using the term: Since Jeffrey Beall coined the term, why not use
it?
COPE is undecided on what name is best.
I particularly liked Deborah's stakeholder analysis of who or what is harmed by these
publishers:
The innocent author who is duped into paying for services without receiving them.
They may lose status when peers discover that they have published in such a journal, and it
can even lead to investigations. Since many such publishers refuse to retract, the damage
done may be long-term.
Legitimate Open Access Journals are easily confused with predatory Open Access
Journals
Legitimate journals which are not top ranked or may not follow best practice are
also easily confused with them.
Research and funding sources : This depends on whether the research published is
legitimate or not. If the research is shoddy and gets published by a PP journal, it may be
cited and thus pollutes the scholarly record. If a scandal arises, the scandal may tarnish
publicly funded research.
Universities and their role in knowledge creation.
Citizens who pay taxes.
She pointed out that predatory publishers make a great business
ethics case. In closing, she sees only two things that can be done:
Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) - use Think / Check / Submit : do you read the journal
yourself? Do you cite research published there? Do your colleagues? Who is the
editor-in-chief?
Addressing and pursuing predatory publishers as businesses committing criminal acts. The
USA Federal Trade Commission won a court case agains the owner of OMICS and the company
itself. The courts fined OMICS $50.1 million.
... ... ...
Then Matt Hodgkinson , Head of Research Integrity @ Hindawi Ltd., London, took
the stage to give "A view of predatory publishing from an open access publisher". He first
gave a bit of a historical overview and told us a bit about Hindawi. It was founded in
Cairo in 1997, publishing the first subscription journals in 1999. In 2007 all journals
were flipped to Open Access. In 2016 they created their Research Integrity team that
handles all issues that arise at their journals. The headquarters of Hindawi moved to
London in 2017.
He spoke of the impact that predatory journals have on legitimate, Open Access journals:
they are tarred with the same brush. They also create false impressions for authors, who
now expect undue speed in legitimate publishers, and out of impatience (Matt called it
"gazumping") dual submissions to see which journal publishes first. They have had so many
instances of this, Matt told me over coffee, that they check for text similarity online
twice: once at submission, and once more just before publication. Many times they have
caught double dippers this way.
He expanded the concept of predatory publishers to what he called the " Cargo cult "
publishers (ones who publish unedited theses or the Wikipedia as "books"), paper mills, the
selling of authorship and faked peer-review. He also noted that the subscription model is
not immune to fakery - there are subscription journals that closely mirror the titles of
legitimate publishers, something called hijacking.
He closed with some scandals (publications about elephant autism or space octopi) and
then listed some of the newest ideas, the various pre-print server. The question arises,
however, how sustainable such initiatives are.
Although I was planning on visiting another session, Jenny Byrne insisted that the
session on checking data and images would be very interesting, and she was right. I
had thought that Elisabeth Bik was the only person around perusing doctored images, but it
turns out there are quite a number of initiatives.
The money-driven institutions long ago hijacked America's health agencies–the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC), FDA, Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of
Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Mental Health, and the
USDA– authentic scientific inquiry of any sort is virtually impossible in this climate.
During the past two decades the lines dividing the pharmaceutical industry and the federal
health agencies has become increasingly blurred to put it kindly. The revolving door between
private interests and top government employees at these agencies is well documented. One
example is former CDC director Julie Gerberding who left government to become president of
Merck's vaccine division, a move that earned her upwards of $3 million in stock options.
Keep in mind that CDC members own more than 50 patents connected to vaccinations.
Each of the 12 members of the CDC's ACIP Committee has a significant influence on the
health of nearly every member of the American population. These are the people who are
responsible for adding to and/or altering the national vaccine schedule. Does anyone believe
for a second that given that these CDC members have a direct financial interest in this
matter that they can remain objective and unbiased in creating vaccine policy, for
example.
A significant number of ACIP committee members receive direct financial returns when more
vaccinations are added to the current schedule. Many own vaccination related patents.
Some examples of patents owned or shared by members of the CDC and/or ACIP committee
are;
1) Nucleic acid vaccines for prevention of flavivirus infection"
2) Various vaccination testing methods
3) Adjuvant patents
4) Assays that assist vaccine development
5) Vaccine quality control
Members of the CDC also own stock shares of the pharmaceutical companies responsible for
supplying new vaccines to the public. Others receive research grant money, funding for their
academic departments, or payments for the oversight of vaccine safety trials.
In 2007 the WHO changed it's definition of what qualifies as a pandemic. That needs to
considered in the context of how the WHO changing it's funding mechanisms in 2005- meaning
they went from a member states funded entity to a "private/public" partnership (PPP's).
As you might imagine the pharmaceuticals became primary donors and began to influence and
now control policy decisions that come down from the WHO. Let's also keep in mind that when a
"global pandemic" (again this is now defined by a decision-making body tied to large Pharma
companies) is officially declared, certain powers now become "legal" for governments.
One of THE main outcomes in these PPP's is that virtually all funding for medical research
gets funneled into certain spheres- meaning towards research that is ultimately going to
benefit those companies funding it- Big Pharma.
I also remember some of early estimates of Mad Cow disease in humans in UK and they
turned out to be very exaggerated.
When the political class was trying to de-gay HIV/AIDS in 1987, they had Oprah tell
everyone that 20% of heterosexual people would be dead before 1990.
The first I learned of Oprah's jaw-droppingly sensationalist remarks, was in a piece a
couple of days ago on AmericanThinker (which sounds like a rare bird indeed, if not an
outright oxymoron – but it has good stuff from time to time).
Anyhow, it was an interesting piece – entitled
" Reflections on a Century of Junk Science " by the author of " Hoodwinked: How
Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture ", which I will acquire today. (The
book's 11 years old, but sounds like it will be along the same lines as Kendrick's "
Doctoring Data: How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense ", which was
excellent).
Neoliberal v Neoclassical economics – what's the difference?
By Claire Connelly
Economics & Finance |
Bookmark to dashboard
Neoliberalism and neo-classical economics are often terms that are used
interchangeably by various economists and financial writers, but actually, there are important differences between
the two. We've had some requests from readers to make that distinction more obvious, so here goes
Neo-classical economic theory puts 'man' as a rational human being at the heart of the
economic system, extrapolating the functions of the economy based on optimised behaviour of rational, well-informed
individuals trading with one in another in what is effectively a barter system (which as I'm sure we all know by now,
never actually existed
).
It is based on the
general equilibrium model
pioneered by late 19th century economist
Leon Walras
, of the
Lausanne School. Ironically, neoclassical economics guarantees full employment because it models a system with no
frictions or inconveniences like trade unions, minimum wage laws or imperfect information. Also false.
It also guarantees that society will find an optimal allocation of resources on its
own, so long as markets are competitive, and there are no externalities, like pollution, which go unaccounted for.
Neoclassicists are concerned about monopoly power, neoliberals are not. Neoclassicists
believe it merits government intervention and regulation. Neoliberals, do not.
It is possible to be a neoclassical without being a neoliberal.
The most important thing to understand is that neoliberalism is a post-war political
movement that grew out of
the Mont Pelerin Society
, a
thought collective that formed a consensus not to put the market at the centre of the state, but to take it over
completely. Its entire objective is to co-opt economics and subvert the public interest to suit the needs of powerful
capitalist institutions and the politicians, economists, financiers, philosophers, bankers, think-tanks and media
organisations that support them.
Neoliberalism is associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and was pioneered by
economist Milton Friedman & Friedrich Hayeck, but as the economic historian, Philip Mirowski points out, this is a
deliberate deception to trick people into thinking it is concerned about market equilibrium.
It is the doctrine by which white collar crime has been allowed to prosper unprosecuted
while governments of wealthy nations like the US and UK have abdicated their responsibility for employment, health
care, education and the general well-being of the populations they are supposedly elected to serve. In their minds,
government exists only to maintain property rights, defend capitalists and maintain price stability, (which
apparently doesn't count as intervention when it works in the favour of the wealthy).
We
are what we eat, well, in free market terms anyway
Whilst
90% of the US media (film, TV and radio) is controlled by only 6 companies.
Unlike neoclassicists and neoliberals, heterodox economists and other post-Keynesians, reject the notion of general
equilibrium. They believe the economy evolves through non-equilibrium states over time. Heterodox economists believe
governments need to introduce instability-thwarting mechanisms to stabilise the economy, maintain full employment,
and retain social equity.
"Free-market economists may want you to believe that the correct boundaries of the
market can be scientifically determined, but this is incorrect," writes institutional economist, Ha-Joon Chang, in
his book
23 Things They Don't
Tell You About Capitalism
.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/J7m9wfFnH6o
"If the boundaries of what you are studying cannot be scientifically determined, what
you are doing is not a science," writes the Cambridge University economist.
"Recognising that the boundaries of the market are ambiguous and cannot be
determined in an objective way lets us realise that economics is not a science like physics or chemistry, but a
political exercise."
In other words, a strong economy requires constant time, attention, assessment, and
when it is called for, intervention. The rules will not always be the same, nor the causes. But it helps to start
with an understanding
of the role and purpose of
government spending
and
taxation
.
Further Listening
Listen to this interview economic historian Philip Mirowski who delves into the further
nuances of these economic mindsets.
Claire Connelly
Claire Connelly is the lead writer of Renegade Inc. An award-winning freelance journalist, speaker, and
founder of subscription journalism experiment, Hello Humans.
Specialising in economics, technology and policy, Connelly is working on her first book due out in 2018.
With more than a decade of experience under her belt, Claire has written for leading publications
including The Australian Financial Review, The Saturday Paper, ABC, SBS, Crikey, New Matilda, VICE &
others. She is the co-host of The Week In Start-Ups Australia, and features regularly as a commentator on
TV and radio shows including Radio National's Download This Show, ABC's The Drum, Ten's The Project, and
more.
Latest posts by Claire Connelly
(
see
all
)
What were Hayek's contributions to capital theory? Just wondering. I have never
encountered a single person who speaks of "neoliberalism" (a term we ourselves never use to describe what we
believe) who has read a single word of Hayek's economic work. Or who even knows who Ludwig von Mises is.
(Whenever the two economists mentioned are Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, I know
I'm dealing with somebody who hasn't read anything.)
Reply
But of course you have read everything and know all, right Tom ? What
specifically is wrong with this account ? If you can't dispute anything within the piece why do you attempt
to dismiss it out of hand by implying without a shred of evidence what someone has or hasn't read ? How
could you possibly know what someone has read or hasn't ?
Reply
What actually is "capital theory", Tom. Why don't you use the term
'neoliberalism?
Why do you think Claire hasn't heard of Mises and why would it be important anyway? Mises and the Austrian
School are part of the problem that the article refers to.
Reply
Sorry. I just don't believe even smart people can manage markets. That's the
nature of markets: they are individual. If you haven't read Von Mises or Hayek, you're missing out on the
thinking of two very smart people. It is hard for me to embrace the idea that – because a market doesn't seem
to function as a person might want it to – persons should be given authority to govern those markets in a way
that suits them. That, in itself, distorts the market.
Reply
I am responding to an article by you in today's The Automatic Earth about the
vengeance of capitalism. I could not get the response area to work so that is why I am coming to you this way.
You write eloquently and I see the creation of increasing suffering due to a form
of capitalism and class privilege in America and globally. I have read and listened to Keen, Hudson and Kelton.
From my review they all approach the ability of a nation that controls their own currency as an ability to
create an unlimited amount of money to use to reduce human suffering with no discussion of the ultimate end
game if we continue to do so.
There is a lot of suffering now and because of climate change, increasing
usurping of jobs by technology and global resource depletion and more a lot more suffering may be coming our
way.
How much money are they (and you) thinking of creating?
What are the implications of creating money at a much more rapid pace than we
have been with no upper limits in sight?
What are the upper limits of money creation? How would we know?
Our present system of capitalism and privilege is like a drug. It feels good at
the start but kills us in the end,
I am fearful that an addiction to the unlimited or substantial and on going use
of money created from thin air will do the same.
What say you?
PS: Please accept with compassion all the typos that are probably in this note.
Reply
You keep forgetting that having the ability to create money also gives you the
ability to destroy that same money. What is collected in tax revenue is destroyed. More money is issued to
create infrastructure. The deficit in a country that can create it's own currency is really just a ratio of
what is collected(destroyed) and what is created(spent).
Now ask yourself what happens when you quit destroying money and keep right on creating it
Reply
The aim of distinguishing neoclassical and neolilberal is of merit. The interview
with Mirowski makes clear, however, that that are numerous strands of neoliberalism that overlap with each
other, with some drawing on neoclassical arguments, and others having a different starting point. But it is not
clear to me that all of them agree on the market fundamentalism, which is generally regarded as the defining
characteristic of neoliberalism. Was Joseph Schumpeter a neoliberal? His ideas about entrepreneurship have
probably done more to make monopoly respectable than the parallel work of von Mises. Schumpeter's thought has
entered the mainstream in the U.S. via Peter Drucker, who thought the modern corporation was the engine of all
forms of human progress. In Germany, Ordo-liberalism was another form of neoliberalism that called for a strong
state. Was this self-contradiction? What I find frustrating in most discussions on the Left of these thinkers
is the inability or unwillingness to recognize the ***partial*** validity of their ideas. On the particular
subject of government interference to protect against monopoly power, it was Gabriel Kolko, a socialist, who
first showed in 1962 that Progressives were responsible for the national monopolies that emerged around 1900.
Even now, progressives fail to comprehend the many ways in which regulation benefits big business and stifles
small business. Designing regulations that do more social and environmental good than harm is much harder than
most progressives seem to recognize. Analyzing the sociology and politics of neoliberal organizations, as
Mirowski does, gets us no closer to finding way to create effective government programs that do not
simultaneously feed the leviathan of an expansive state. I would very much like to know which heterodox
economists are actually addressing the tough problems we face rather than defining the boundaries between
neoclassical thought and their own domain..
Reply
There are a very large number of errors in this piece. Fundamentally, what is
described as "neoclassical economics" is actually just one model, Walras' circa 1870 general equilibrium model.
If one defines neoclassical economics as equivalent to that one model, then there has never been a single
neoclassical economist, as absolutely no one limits attention to that one model.
The body of research most actual economists would describe as "neoclassical
economics" encompasses an enormous body of work which posits that some social phenomena can be understood as
emergent results of individual, intentional behavior. That research includes literally thousands of papers
studying the phenomena the author wrongly believes are simply excluded by assumption, such as unemployment,
unions, minimum wage laws, and imperfect information. There is an entire field, Public Economics, devoted to
the study of "the role and purpose of government spending and taxation."
The idea that government can and should "introduce instability-thwarting
mechanisms to stabilize the economy, maintain full employment, and retain social equity" is also, contrary to
the article's assumptions, very much part of mainstream, neoclassical thought, and has been for almost a
century.
After having implicitly defined mainstream economics as solely the study of a
single 1870 model, the article then also misrepresents heterodox economics. Notably, the Marxian economist
(less than 1% of all economists) such as Chang do not "reject the notion of general equilibrium". Marxian
analysis is explicitly grounded in general equilibrium, both in Marx's work and in modern neo-Marxian form, and
can be expressed in the same analytical framework as the Walrasian model (see for example:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1911113?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
).
The article is correct that neoliberalism is a strain of political thought, and
not economics at all: they're not even the same type of thing, much the same thing. That's all the article
ought to say -- it gets everything about what economists think, and what neoclassical economics is, really, really
wrong.
Chris Auld
Department of Economics
University of Victoria
Reply
Most though not all mainstream economics is neoclassical economics.
Neoclassical economics is based on marginalism, or optimising behaviour,
expected utility theory, and either implicit or explicit general equilibrium analysis. The economy, in the
absence of frictions, would behave like a stable equilibrium system. In a macroeconomic sense, this is the
basis of all versions of the neoclassical synthesis, including second generation dynamic stochastic general
equilibrium models.
These models all have Walrasian and Wicksellian roots. They all assume
optimising behaviour. They always adopt the ergodic hypothesis and these days adopt rational expectations
formation. Not only that, they have all been constructed in defiance of what we know about the history and
nature of money; they all ignore ontological uncertainty, in the Keynesian sense; they all exclude genuinely
endogenous financial instability and crisis; they are biased towards an essentially technological
explanation of income distribution; they all incorporate a natural or non-accelerating inflation rate of
unemployment; they all exhibit long run money neutrality; they all incorporate an efficient markets approach
to financial markets.
There are of course elements of what some would regard these days as
mainstream economics which don't fit under the neoclassical banner. However, for the most part, mainstream =
neoclassicism.
The greatest divide between neoclassical economics and genuine (i.e. not
'new') institutional economics, is the F-twist of Milton Friedman – the notion that unrealistic axiomatic
foundations in some sense don't matter, and neither does an approach which does not naturally incorporate
realistic institutions.
Of course, economists using a neoclassical frame have things to say about
unemployment, minimum wages, etc. But, as Hyman Minsky put it, "The game of policy making is rigged; the
theory used determines the questions that are asked and the options that are presented. The prince is
constrained by the theory of his intellectuals."
You accuse the author of errors, and I think you are ungenerous – and, more
importantly – incorrect. My advice to you is to read Steve Keen's best-seller 'Debunking Economics'. You
could even read my 'Economics for Sustainable Prosperity'. If you read these two books, you will be much
more aware of the limitations of neoclassical economics, and the rich insights available from the many
economists who have worked, and who are working today, outside the neoclassical frame.
Reply
Perhaps you will find them useful in understanding why it's questionable that
neoclassical economics has anything useful to say about financial stability.
Steve Payson, an US economics practictioner of long standing, will talk about his
book 'How Economics Professors Can Stop Failing us' which provides an eye-opening expose on economics
professors that will surely shock anyone who is not familiar with the topic, and even some of those who are
familiar with it. Ellen Quigley has recently completed her research into economics education in the UK and will
provide a perspective on our local profession.
Our mission is to explain how we reached this moment in history to prevent it from
repeating itself. Again. By considering options not previously considered, readers, creators, entrepreneurs, business
and community leaders can make better, more informed and empowered decisions, so we can all begin to think differently
about our personal and public financial stability.
"... The eventual point of neoliberalism, then, is to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are superior. ..."
"... Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core ..."
"... The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the regime in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with high death tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it. ..."
Cassiodorus
on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 5:00pm The neoliberals' cultural stuck is in decline. When they had
that suave dude Barack Obama telling everyone he was like Gandhi or Mandela, that was totally a
thing. Cultural neoliberalism was rockin' da house as every branch of government, both state
and Federal, was being
awarded to Republicans . Then they put all of their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket,
waging a rather nasty campaign to get everyone to step in line while Clinton was and is very
much about money and about the society of her John Birch Society daddy. (She and Bill did make
great-looking hippies in the Sixties though, but you only see that in old photos.) Vote for her
because Trump is Hitler or something.
Now they have what? Pete Buttigieg, who is smarter than you and who reeks insincerity from
every pore of his skin as he delivers wooden imitations of Obama speeches? Michael Bloomberg,
who brags about what he can buy? Grandpa Joe Biden, with initial-stage dementia? Hallmark card
cop Amy Klobuchar, who will work with Republicans while helping maybe five or six people as she
promised? Elizabeth "I'm in it for me" Warren? It's not like these people come naturally to
cultural efflorescence -- they, after all, ran John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis -- but
this has got to be a new low for them, expanding the field to twenty-plus candidates only to
find themselves facing Super Tuesday with only this.
Philosophically, neoliberalism is a form of antihumanism . In an
article in "American Affairs" (which I suggest you all read from beginning to end) the
economist Philip
Mirowski suggests several principles common to neoliberal thought. I'll just post one
through four so as not to freak anyone out while making the point just as effectively:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated
by the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
This then, is the core of neoliberal culture. The eventual point of neoliberalism, then,
is to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are
superior. It took a rabid nationalist like Donald Trump to end the war in Afghanistan , whereas
faithful neoliberal Barack Obama kept the war around because it provided "markets" for weapons
corporations. Neoliberals hate Bernie Sanders because he wants to get rid of some of the
markets for health insurance -- as long as people are buying health insurance, the neoliberals
don't care if anyone dies because they can't afford to use it.
... ... ...
Neoliberalism has been the dominant doctrine throughout the world's universities since the
Eighties. Academic vogues such as "postmodernism" can serve as Trojan Horse concepts for
hegemonic neoliberalism. Postmodernism, to own a definition, is an aesthetic concept involving
the juxtaposition of radically differing aesthetic concepts and celebrating surface
observations over "deeper meanings." The postmodern essence of visual art is in collage; the
postmodern musical form is the medley. Postmodernism is innocuous when it combines medieval
architecture with Frank Lloyd Wright, or when it combines classical music with rock and roll.
Neoliberalism, however, sees in postmodernism a market, something to create new products and
separate people from their money. Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core
.
The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the
regime in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real
September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the
University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to
help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about
democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with
high death
tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or
if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it.
The task of replacing neoliberalism with something else will be a daunting one. Neoliberals
rule the planet today. It appears at this point that our primary weapon is the fact that the
neoliberals don't really have any specific culture; instead, they speculate in culture for the
sake of the fetishes of markets and money and property through which they destroy the planet,
us, and ultimately themselves.
From the issue dated September 10, 2004 by MICHAEL P. LYNCH<
Notable quotes:
"... To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth may be good, but why not sometimes take untruth if it gets you where you want to go? ..."
"... These are important questions. At the end of the day, is it always better to believe and speak the truth? Does the truth itself really matter? While generalizing is always dangerous, the above responses to the Iraq affair indicate that many Americans would look at such questions with a jaundiced eye. We are rather cynical about the value of truth. ..."
"... what we call truth is just another name for power. ..."
In early 2003 President Bush claimed that Iraq was attempting to purchase the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. Although
White House officials subsequently admitted they lacked adequate evidence to believe that was true, various members of the administration
dismissed the issue, noting that the important thing was that the subsequent invasion of Iraq achieved stability of the region and
the liberation of the country.
Many Americans apparently agreed. After all, there were other reasons to depose the Hussein regime. And the belief that Iraq was
an imminent nuclear threat had rallied us together and provided an easy justification to doubters of the nobility of our cause. So
what if it wasn't really true?
To many, it seemed naïve to worry about something as abstract as the truth or falsity of our claims when we could concern ourselves
with the things that really mattered -- such as protecting ourselves from terrorism and ensuring our access to oil.
To paraphrase Nietzsche, the truth may be good, but why not sometimes take untruth if it gets you where you want to go?
These are important questions. At the end of the day, is it always better to believe and speak the truth? Does the truth itself
really matter? While generalizing is always dangerous, the above responses to the Iraq affair indicate that many Americans would
look at such questions with a jaundiced eye. We are rather cynical about the value of truth.
Politics isn't the only place that one finds this sort of skepticism. A similar attitude is commonplace among some of our most
prominent intellectuals. Indeed, under the banner of postmodernism, cynicism about truth and related notions like objectivity and
knowledge has become the semiofficial philosophical stance of many academic disciplines. Roughly speaking, the attitude is that objective
truth is an illusion and what we call truth is just another name for power.
Consequently, if truth is valuable at all, it is valuable -- as power is -- merely as means.
"... The rundown is that a pseudointellectual retreat from rationalism invited its well-deserved ridicule too late, and may have been responsible for the needless and terrible demise of a great world civilization's halcyon era, for which the whole world suffers to this day. We need to learn from that. ..."
"... If you're wondering why you're suddenly being barraged with Orwellian jargon, charged with crimethink, seeing the issues you've been harping on for years suddenly turned against you as though you've never even heard of them, get aggressively assigned identities you've never had in your life and told that the person you've always been can't possibly exist, and that the consensus, however flawed and incomplete, of the past 50 years on many hard-fought issues is quite suddenly being treated as though it was all a nefarious lie (a la 9/11-flashback), here's the root of who and what to blame: ..."
"... "Postmodernism" as sociology, on the other hand, with its denial of the very existence of the individual, and obscene redefinitions of such sacred words as "Justice", is just all but explicitly totalitarian, and would have us believe that the entire 20th Century, with all its hard-fought, bitter-bought victories and miracles, was all for nothing. ..."
"... I don't think the establishment Democrats - spineless, capitalist, militarist, insular, and ultimately authoritarian - deserve to be let anywhere near the label "liberal". ..."
The rundown is that a pseudointellectual retreat from rationalism invited its well-deserved ridicule too late, and may have
been responsible for the needless and terrible demise of a great world civilization's halcyon era, for which the whole world suffers
to this day. We need to learn from that.
Everyone here needs to be aware of this, I'm afraid: The modern Western equivalent of The Incoherence . It explains so,
so much.
If you're wondering why you're suddenly being barraged with Orwellian jargon, charged with crimethink, seeing the issues you've
been harping on for years suddenly turned against you as though you've never even heard of them, get aggressively assigned identities
you've never had in your life and told that the person you've always been can't possibly exist, and that the consensus, however flawed
and incomplete, of the past 50 years on many hard-fought issues is quite suddenly being treated as though it was all a nefarious
lie (a la 9/11-flashback), here's the root of who and what to blame:
The fact that institutions of higher learning have been coddling this for so long, despite the special treatment it could not
survive without, and despite the fact that it bears the mantle and exploits the public clout of science, education, liberalism, and
diversity, just to destroy all those things, is particularly shameful. They might as well allow Dianetics as a legitimate
alternative to psychology.
Below is what I personally maintain is the Greatest Political Cartoon In American History. Though it refers to only one issue,
it elegantly explains nearly everything wrong with American political thought.
When in doubt, scream and shout, run around in circles, and panic! Uh-huh. Postmodernism was the solution to an academic problem
which arose in the Eighties with the proliferation of Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in the humanities. Nobody wanted to read another
thesis or dissertation on Shakespeare, and all of the academic work had to be strictly original and pass increasingly onerous
originality tests of the type employed by turnitin.com . Meanwhile the authors
had to write these damn things if they were to receive diplomas and move on to teaching jobs. Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism
as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition of everything in an era in which everything
was a commodity. Postmodernism is the Hamburger Helper of the academic humanities, a solution to a purely practical matter.
But Pluckrose continues to panic. Here she is characterizing the postmodern perspective:
Therefore the author of a text is not the authority on its meaning.
So? Perhaps Pluckrose needs to read more undergraduate papers, in which their authors evoke an eternal authorial struggle.
"Say what you mean!" my teacherly red ink continually shouts at these undergraduates. Of course this is a problem when one's undergraduates
write run-on sentences or sentence fragments. But does anyone really say what they mean? I suppose we can at least try harder.
Meanwhile original meanings get lost in the procession of history. A prima facie example of this is "originalism" in Constitutional
jurisprudence, which claims ultimate reliance on an "original meaning" of the Constitution -- you know, that one and only one
original meaning the Founders intended. Never mind that said Founders were walking contradictions. Take for instance Thomas Jefferson,
that eloquent waxer upon the virtues of freedom. Now ask
Sally Hemings about him.
Let's skip to Pluckrose's conclusion:
In order to regain credibility, the Left needs to recover a strong, coherent and reasonable liberalism.
I don't see why. How about if we figure out what sort of utopian dream would be appropriate for our world in our day and age,
and then decide afterward if we want to call it "liberalism"? Isn't the point of the "science" which Pluckrose regards
so highly to put the conclusion at the end of one's research, rather than at the beginning?
I could go on, but this is long enough for a comment in a diary. up 0 users have voted. --
"The only possible good outcome for most Americans is a Sanders win. No other path leads anywhere decent." -- Ian Welsh
Postmodernism to the rescue! Postmodernism as such was an aesthetic movement, revealing with drab uniformity the juxtaposition
of everything in an era in which everything was a commodity.
That's a different kind of "Postmodernism" altogether, the kind associated with (if I'm not mistaken) such Chaotic gems as
MAD Magazine, Monty Python, The Far Side , and the vibrant, innovative weirdness of a wide array of 1990s art, literature,
and pop culture. My very bones are built on such things.
There's also "postmodern architecture", best known for being boring (my mother has been known to call it "post-architecture").
This, though? This is something entirely anathema. The aesthetic we call "postmodern" is liberating and innovative (at least
as long as it stays in the hands of people who "get it"); it teaches that there are no rules, that life is a strange and beautiful
carnival, that we can be whatever we want to be, and the world can be whatever we want it to be.
"Postmodernism" as sociology, on the other hand, with its denial of the very existence of the individual, and obscene redefinitions
of such sacred words as "Justice", is just all but explicitly totalitarian, and would have us believe that the entire 20th Century,
with all its hard-fought, bitter-bought victories and miracles, was all for nothing.
At any rate, to deal with the objections to postmodernism: it's a performative contradiction to be an academic writing against
the idea of the individual, for higher-level academia exists to adorn the resumes of self-proclaimed individuals. I just don't
see postmodernism, of whatever kind you care to distinguish, as anything but harmless, useless, and pointless outside of its obvious
role in contributing to the resume-building efforts of professors in the humanities, and I haven't seen anything here to change
my mind about that.
Rather, the problem is that the liberals have run out of new mechanisms whereby the liberal utopia might bear fruit. The liberal
trend peaked a long time ago. And, in the meantime, liberal objections to the neoliberal utopia, the utopia of total market existence
for everyone as enforced by government diktat, have become toothless. In the US context the liberals appear either blind to or
despairing of the fact that the best they had for politics was Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that their hero Bernie
Sanders nullified himself by endorsing Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the French contest the best they had was Macron. I suppose that
there are a few islands of sanity elsewhere. But liberalism does not contribute substantially to the longevity of such islands.
@Cassiodorus
To me it just means...well, kind of just being a good, intelligent, and independent-minded person who learns from history and
builds on it. If, as I've read the claim, "conservatism is the negation of ideology", I'd venture to describe liberalism as the
absence of externally-derived ideology.
I don't think the establishment Democrats - spineless, capitalist, militarist, insular, and ultimately authoritarian -
deserve to be let anywhere near the label "liberal".
The difference, of course, is that the postcapitalists want to jettison capitalism whereas most of the liberals want to "build
on it."
"A well-regulated capitalism," they tell us, is the way to go, because history declares "Communism" anathema. Now perhaps not
all liberals agree with this well-recited dogma, but its primary problem is that it does not touch capitalism's commodification
of everything including governments. Thus liberals who believe in this dogma claim that they seek the best-possible accommodation
with capitalism, and "well-regulated" means "regulated enough to look good." Politicians with the endorsement of liberals must
keep the air and water clean in areas where the residents are rich enough to buy politicians.
Now of course the liberals will protest this characterization of them, proclaiming once again that they are "good, intelligent,
and independent-minded." But where can they be seen imagining the world after capitalism? Kim Stanley Robinson at least tries:
My attitude has since spread to much of the rest of that which bills itself as "social science" - sociology's one thing, of
course, and so is modern psychology, having dumped Freud, but I think the notion of "social science" is finally revealing itself
to mostly be just another disastrous 19th-Century conceit. Free will is kryptonite to science. "The economy", "society", "culture",
people labor under these things because they believe they're unavoidably real, but it's really all just a game , and the
rules can be almost whatever we want them to be.
You can try to make anything into a "science" - but not everything can or should. Case in point: After World War II, the Soviet
Union decided that military strategy and tactics were a science, and that it had natural laws or whatever that could be honed
to the same degree of precision as the laws of physics; with time, they believed, they'd be able to predict the outcome of a battle
before a single shot had been fired. This "science" crashed and burned when they invaded Afghanistan.
As to the question of "what do we replace capitalism with?", my honest answer is: Nothing. Stop believing in "economics", and
just do what makes sense based on situational necessity and a long-term vision of what we want. A "mixed economy" like those of
Norway, 1970s Britain, or (arguably) New Deal America is really just an economy that has broken free of the religion of "economics,"
and plays by its own, common sense/common morality rules. The best economic policy MO I've ever heard of is Finland's: "Let's
do what makes our people HAPPY!" (I read a dandy article about that a while back, but I can't seem to find it now).
The best economic policy MO I've ever heard of is Finland's: "Let's do what makes our people HAPPY!" (I read a dandy article
about that a while back, but I can't seem to find it now).
TLM, if you recall that article, I'd be interested in reading it. You can shoot me a PM here.
I have seen his books for a long time, but never was that interested. Now that I know he is a politically active sci-fi writer
- who is not a screaming libertarian fuckhead like Neal Stephenson or Vernor Vinge - I will pick up one of his books.
He says some very radical things (nationalize the banks, end austerity, stop burning fossil fuels), but he does so in such
a droning, sophorific manner that you don't quite appreciate how extreme his stance is. Perhaps that is an intentional tactic.
I enjoyed a museum visit in Sharza, where one section of the complex had displays of incredible scientific contributions I
had never associated with this part of the world.
When I left that section, everything became examples and displays of Islam. Korans, proper clothing, a few weapons. Thinking
back, the science section pre-dated this philosopher.
I saw his influence, just didn't know it until today. Very interesting essay.
I never could understand Postmodernism. Is this because I am a white male or because I find Enlightenment concepts more coherent
and more useful in my everyday life and politics ?
Whatever, I remain happily stuck in the late 18th century.
Good to see a mention of Alan Sokal in the linked
article.
And other literature courses was that the classes were about the schools of literary criticism on Shakespeare, rather than
about the students doing a close reading of Shakespeare. And then of course, critiques on the schools of literary criticism.
"... Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of mainstream economics. ..."
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash. ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest. ..."
Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of
mainstream economics.
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it
denotes a preference for markets over government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and
private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe a wide range of
phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the
Clinton Democrats and the UK's New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of
the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation,
privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of
our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash.
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and
disseminators – the neoliberals themselves? Oddly, you have to go back a long time to
find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor of
the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the
neoliberalism it describes bears little resemblance to today's target of derision. The
politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher and Reagan,
but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned
with unions and big government and dropped their prejudices against markets and the
military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated
with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was
financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic
globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious
type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt
manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders,
does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a
decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians –
Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted
some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation,
financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion
remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo
economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who
always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the
mark. There is nothing wrong with markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when
deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant economic
achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of
neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining
the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper
understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify –
and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it
would help us to develop the institutional imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for
the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic
science. To see those tenets without the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A
well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited and knows
nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country
is in trouble," they tell him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no
growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us what we should do to make our
economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to
make any recommendations. He would need to study the history of the economy, to analyse the
statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically
adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for
all that," they tell him. "But isn't economics a science, and aren't you one of its most
distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy, surely there
are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic
policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long
criticised for peddling their favourite policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question.
Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical
determinant of the economy's performance, he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the
incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives faced by
entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic
growth. Growth needs a system of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure
those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the economy must be open to
ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must
therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in
nominal money demand at reasonable inflation. They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that
the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry out
prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system
from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds.
Economic principles also carry over to equity and social policy. Economics has little to say about how
much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as
broad as possible, and that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not
encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal
agenda. A critic in the audience will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives,
property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal principles that the
economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one
in which investment decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much
beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising variety of
institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so,
and our mistake would consist of associating each abstract term – incentives, property
rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic
principles map on to a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style
agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An
optimal system would distribute property rights to those who would make the best use of an
asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns. Property
rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they
protect them from competition. Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the
appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style regime of private
property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal
economic success is largely due to its orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned
to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms produced
market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better
adapted to the local context. Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for
example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing legal structures, the
country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for
entrepreneurs in practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese
economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned and controlled by local governments.
Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did
not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order
economic principles in unfamiliar institutional arrangements. For instance, it shielded its
large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where foreign
firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such
departures from orthodox blueprints, describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal –
as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call this
neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps
it will have to converge on western-style institutions to sustain its economic progress. But
this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements that still
prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy
discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries
varies, from a third of the economy in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of
workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland is just 16%. In the
US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first.
Stock markets have grown to a total value of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in
Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices ... '
Photograph: AFP/Getty
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial
organisation is inherently superior to the others is belied by the varying economic fortunes
that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in
Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth
and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism. We might even go a
step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what
might be possible, and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the
principles he has enunciated need to be filled in with institutional detail before they become
operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but how? It would perhaps
be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a
neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that
managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate the utility of those principles once they are properly
adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin courtesy of
political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical
significance of sound money, fiscal sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much
of the work of economists consists of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence.
Economists tend to think of what they do as progressively refining their understanding of the
world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested and revised over
time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely
manmade, highly malleable and operates according to different rules across time and space.
Economics advances
not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our
understanding of the diversity of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary
remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in
economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really
competitive and employers have no control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but
not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic growth? Yes, if it
increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes
place; but not otherwise. Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is
slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise. Does monopoly harm innovation?
Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
that have produced growing economic inequality and precipitated our current populist backlash'
Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model
dating back to Adam Smith has been modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical
order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric information,
irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful
as ever. Understanding how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at
different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are highly
stylised representations of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from
many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction also implies that we need a
different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a
map of bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is
constructed, we will need a subway map – but we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most
suited to the task at hand. When confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting
economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour the
laissez-faire approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of
the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard Keynes once defined economics as the "science
of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for
his view on whether free trade is a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the
affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the professor's advanced
graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This
time the professor is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?"
The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a
heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are
satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has
the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing." If he is in an expansive mood, the professor
might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not clear
either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On
the record, he exudes self-confidence, not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is
one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned, and there is a
single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that
he imparts to his advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public.
Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one
important motive is the zeal to display the profession's crown jewels – market
efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to
shield them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the
other side of the issue – financiers and multinational corporations whose motives are no
purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction,
in favour of more trade, more finance and less government. That is why economists have
developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics is very
far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run
wild are in fact not being true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of
neoliberal practices? We must begin by understanding the positive potential of global markets.
Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an important role in
virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful
reminder of this historical truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles
were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian countries such as Mauritius
. All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they
benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when
globalisation comes into question. What they will fail to say is that almost all of these
countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and Taiwan,
for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and
the latter through tax incentives. All of them eventually removed most of their import
restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the
neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up to imports. Chile's
neoliberal experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin
America. While the details differ across countries, in all cases governments played an active
role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited
in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the
mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed. Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were
sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a particularly sad example. Following a series of
macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and
signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce
macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment. But
where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth – the
experiment failed . Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has
stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the undemanding standards of Latin
America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet
another manifestation of the need for economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which
markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each country. No single
blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably
over time as the label has acquired harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation,
financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects all versions of
neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because
growth is essential to all our social and political ends – community, democracy,
prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way
(such as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar
neoliberal manifesto were penned today, it would no doubt make the same point.
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other
important values such as equality, social inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those
political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts they matter
the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic
policies; politics must play a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more
likely to be attained when our economy is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is
in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic performance, to
which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the
economics right. It must be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad
economics.
A version of this article first appeared in Boston
Review
"Last year, the faculty at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government voted to offer Mr.
Zucman, 33, a tenured position. But Harvard's president and provost nixed the offer, partly
over fears that Mr. Zucman's research could not support the arguments he was making in the
political arena, according to people involved in the process." NYT
He subsequently got a post at the University of California, Berkeley.
The tell tale sign; debt rises much faster than GDP in the US in the 1920s.
(Japan 1980s; US, UK and Euro-zone before 2008; China after 2008)
The bankers were inflating asset prices with bank credit.
Bank credit effectively brings future prosperity into today.
The 1920s boomed on borrowed money and the 1930s were impoverished as they made the
repayments.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth
and therefore does not add to GDP. The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by
GDP.
Inflated asset prices aren't real wealth, and this can disappear almost over-night, as it
did in 1929 and 2008.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the
economy.
Henry Simons was a founder member of the Chicago School of Economics and he had worked out
what was wrong with his beliefs in free markets in the 1930s.
Banks can inflate asset prices with the money they create from bank loans.
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability
to create money.
"Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term
bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw
this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of
"bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of
secondary forms of money."
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." Irving Fisher
1929.
This 1920's neoclassical economist that believed in free markets knew this was a stable
equilibrium. He became a laughing stock, but worked out where he had gone wrong.
Banks can inflate asset prices with the money they create from bank loans, and he knew his
belief in free markets was dependent on the Chicago Plan, as he had worked out the cause of
his earlier mistake.
It was those bankers inflating the US stock market with margin lending.
It's not quite the same this time.
Let the bank's collapse for a Great Depression
Save the banks, but leave the debt in place for Japanification .
How did this old belief set come back again?
A new ideology, neoliberalism, was wrapped around 1920s neoclassical economics, to make it
look brand new.
The reckless bankers and robber barons had made a lot of money in the 1920s and they
rather liked the way things had been before, but after the reckless bankers and robber barons
had run riot in the US in the 1920s, beliefs in economic liberalism and the markets were in
short supply.
Just a few diehards, like Hayek, were left and they were hiding out at the LSE in the UK
in the 1930s. He was looking to put a new slant on those old ideas.
In the 1940s, Hayek put together his theories of the markets being a mechanism for
transmitting the collective wisdom of market participants around the world through pricing.
It was never going to get into the mainstream until nearly everyone had forgotten what
happened last time they believed in the markets.
At last, in the 1980s, the people were ready to believe in the markets again.
Before 1980 – banks lending into the right places that result in GDP growth
(business and industry, creating new products and services in the economy)
Debt grows with GDP
After 1980 – banks lending into the wrong places that don't result in GDP growth
(real estate and financial speculation)
Debt rises much faster than GDP
2008 – Minsky Moment
After 2008 – Balance sheet recession and the economy struggles as debt repayments to
banks destroy money. We are making the repayments on the debt we built up from 1980 –
2008.
What happened in 1979?
The UK eliminated corset controls on banking in 1979 and the banks invaded the mortgage
market and this is where the problem starts.
This is the UK, but everyone has made the same mistake.
One economics, one ideology.
Global groupthink.
At 25.30 mins you can see the super imposed private debt-to-GDP ratios.
What Japan does in the 1980s; the US, the UK and Euro-zone do leading up to 2008 and China
has done more recently.
The tell tale sign of neoclassical economics; debt rises much faster than GDP
The PBoC saw the Chinese Minsky Moment coming and you can too by looking at the chart
above. The Chinese bankers had been loading their economy up with their debt products and it
was just about to crash.
Our experts look at public debt and consumer price inflation, but the problems develop in
private debt and asset price inflation so the "black swan" flies in under their radar.
Davos 2018 – The Chinese know financial crises come from the private debt-to-GDP
ratio and inflated asset prices
thatcher was a neoliberal. neoliberalism is both nationalism (for the long con game) and
globalist (the goal)
The Mont Pelerin Society's (Austria 1940's) favorite "economist" F. v Hayek proposed path
of "liberty" and "freedom" [only for the inbred 1% (Neoliberalism)] (Friedman, Buchanan,
"Chicago School", were later disciples)
1) Deregulate global financial markets - DONE
2) Deregulate global trade - DONE
3) Create the illusion and urgency of national bankruptcy with fake (fiat) debt (thereby
neuter a nation's capability to enforce laws - eliminate the people's ability to defend
against being overwhelmed and consumed by the 1%) - DONE
this manufactured illusion of bankruptcy is critical path for the inbred 1%'s agenda. the
"debt" is used to justify austerity measures for the people, and to tee up, the privatization
plan, which is about transforming the public debt, into private debt, where the 1% can
extract usury, ad infinitum.
#AusterityIsCode4Looting - austerity measures are plain evidence, the system has already
been looted by generational globalist wealth.
then lastly, the kill shot:
4) Privatize Everything. recreate us ALL as permanent rent payers of even the most basic
necessities of life (Air, water, food, shelter, health care). the public debt of a ntion has
been effectively eliminated, transmuted into private debt; the service of which (usury) is
FOREVER- Almost COMPLETE
#PrivatizationIsTheft - privatization today is STRICTLY about prioritizing national
productivity (work) away from the commons and general welfare, extracting and transferring it
to the inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites (Extreme Redistribution of wealth from the people TO
the Billionaires, NOTHING for the people)
"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize
necessity when crisis is upon them."
Same old process...Problem, Reaction, Solution
They corrupt the current system and advance their agenda as far as they can (gaining
public support using the process above). When they detect growing resistance and distrust of
the system...they then encourage and use that trend to advance their agenda further using the
same Problem, Reaction, Solution process. The crash/destruction of the current status quo and
the fear and chaos that comes with it will be blamed on populism/nationalism. The people (in
chaos and fear) will seek safety and security...and will willingly accept the solutions
offered up to them. Rinse and repeat.
The bottom line is they know that acceptance of global centralization of power and
control...is a bottoms up process (the people must willing accept/demand it). It must be
accomplished in evolutionary stages through gradualism. However, when they have reach a
certain point and want to take the next major step, they undermine the peoples trust in the
current system and encourage and use the people's blow-back. Blow-back will be blamed for all
the chaos and fear.
"... Yet it took until 1860 for the UK to fully embrace free trade, and even then the unpalatable historical record is that during this 'golden age', the British: Destroyed the Indian textile industry to benefit their own cloth manufacturers; Started the Opium Wars to balance UK-China trade by selling China addictive drugs; Ignored the Irish Potato Famine and continued to allow Irish wheat exports; Forced Siam (Thailand) to open up its economy to trade with gunboats (as the US did with Japan); and Colonized much of Africa and Asia. ..."
"... Regardless, the first flowering of free trade collapsed back into nationalism and protectionism - bloodily so in 1914. Free trade was tried again from 1919 - but burned-out even more bloodily in the 1930s and 1940s. After WW2, most developed countries had moderately free trade - but most developing countries did not. We only started to re-embrace global free trade from the 1990s onwards when the Cold War ended – and here it is under stress again. In short, only around 100 years in a total of 5,000 years of civilization has seen real global free trade, it has failed twice already, and it is once again coming under pressure. ..."
"... Of course, this doesn't mean liked-minded groups of countries with similar-enough or sympathetic-enough economies and politics should avoid free trade: clearly for some states it can work out nicely - even if within the EU one could argue there are also underlying strains. However, it is a huge stretch to assume a one-size-fits-all free trade policy will always work best for all countries, as some would have it. That is a fairy tale. History shows it wasn't the case; national security concerns show it can never always be the case; and Ricardo argues this logically won't be the case. ..."
"When I used to read fairy tales, I fancied that kind of thing never happened, and now here I am in the middle of one!" (Alice
in Wonderland, Chapter 4, The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill)
Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank
2020 starts with markets feeling optimistic due to a US-China trade deal and a reworked NAFTA in the form of the USMCA. However,
the tide towards protectionism may still be coming in, not going out.
The intellectual appeal of the basis for free trade, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, where Portugal specializes in
wine, and the UK in cloth, is still clearly there. Moreover, trade has always been a beneficial and enriching part of human culture.
Yet the fact is that for the majority of the last 5,000 years global trade has been highly-politicized and heavily-regulated . Indeed,
global free-trade only began following the abolition of the UK Corn Laws in 1846, which reduced British agricultural tariffs, brought
in European wheat and corn, and allowed the UK to maximize its comparative advantage in industry.
Yet it took until 1860 for the UK to fully embrace free trade, and even then the unpalatable historical record is that during
this 'golden age', the British:
Destroyed the Indian textile industry to benefit their own cloth manufacturers;
Started the Opium Wars to balance UK-China trade by selling China addictive drugs;
Ignored the Irish Potato Famine and continued to allow Irish wheat exports;
Forced Siam (Thailand) to open up its economy to trade with gunboats (as the US did with Japan); and
Colonized much of Africa and Asia.
As we showed back in '
Currency
and Wars ', after an initial embrace of free trade, the major European powers and Japan saw that their relative comparative advantage
meant they remained at the bottom of the development ladder as agricultural producers, an area where prices were also being depressed
by huge US output; meanwhile, the UK sold industrial goods, ran a huge trade surplus, and ruled the waves militarily. This was politically
unsustainable even though the UK vigorously backed the intellectual concept of free trade given it was such a winner from it.
Regardless, the first flowering of free trade collapsed back into nationalism and protectionism - bloodily so in 1914. Free
trade was tried again from 1919 - but burned-out even more bloodily in the 1930s and 1940s. After WW2, most developed countries had
moderately free trade - but most developing countries did not. We only started to re-embrace global free trade from the 1990s onwards
when the Cold War ended – and here it is under stress again. In short, only around 100 years in a total of 5,000 years of civilization
has seen real global free trade, it has failed twice already, and it is once again coming under pressure.
What are we getting wrong? Perhaps that Ricardo's theory has major flaws that don't get included in our textbooks, as summarized
in this overlooked quote
"It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England [that] the wine and cloth should both be made in Portugal
[and that] the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose." Which is pretty
much what happens today! However, Ricardo adds that this won't happen because "Most men of property [will be] satisfied with a low
rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations," which
is simply not true at all! In other words, his premise is flawed in that:
It is atemporal in assuming countries move to their comparative advantage painlessly and instantly;
It assumes full employment when if there is unemployment a country is better off producing at home to reduce it, regardless
of higher cost;
It assumes capital between countries is immobile , i.e., investors don't shift money and technology abroad. (Which Adam Smith's
'Wealth of Nations', Book IV, Chapter II also assumes doesn't happen, as an "invisible hand" keeps money invested in one's home
country's industry and not abroad: we don't read him correctly either.);
It assumes trade balances under free trade - but since when has this been true? Rather we see large deficits and inverse capital
flows, and so debts steadily increasing in deficit countries;
It assumes all goods are equal as in Ricardo's example, cloth produced in the UK and wine produced in Portugal are equivalent.
Yet some sectors provide well-paid and others badly-paid employment: why only produce the latter?
As Ricardo's theory requires key conditions that are not met in reality most of the time, why are we surprised that most of reality
fails to produce idealised free trade most of the time? Several past US presidents before Donald Trump made exactly that point. Munroe
(1817-25) argued: " The conditions necessary for Free Trade's success - reciprocity and international peace - have never occurred
and cannot be expected ". Grant (1869-77) noted "Within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer,
it too will adopt free trade".
Yet arguably we are better, not worse, off regardless of these sentiments – so hooray! How so? Well, did you know that Adam Smith,
who we equate with free markets, and who created the term "mercantile system" to describe the national-protectionist policies opposed
to it, argued the US should remain an agricultural producer and buy its industrial goods from the UK? It was Founding Father Alexander
Hamilton who rejected this approach, and his "infant industry" policy of industrialization and infrastructure spending saw the US
emerge as the world's leading economy instead. That was the same development model that, with tweaks, was then adopted by pre-WW1
Japan, France, and Germany to successfully rival the UK; and then post-WW2 by Japan (again) and South Korea; and then more recently
by China, that key global growth driver. Would we really be better off if the US was still mainly growing cotton and wheat, China
rice and apples, and the UK was making most of the world's consumer goods? Thank the lack of free trade if you think otherwise!
Yet look at the examples above and there is a further argument for more protectionism ahead. Ricardo assumes a benign global political
environment for free trade . Yet what if the UK and Portugal are rivals or enemies? What if the choice is between steel and wine?
You can't invade neighbours armed with wine as you can with steel! A large part of the trade tension between China and the US, just
as between pre-WW1 Germany and the UK, is not about trade per se: for both sides, it is about who produces key inputs with national
security implications - and hence is about relative power . This is why we hear US hawks underlining that they don't want to export
their highest technology to China, or to specialize only in agricultural exports to it as China moves up the value-chain. It also
helps underline why for most of the past 5,000 years trade has not been free. Indeed, this argument also holds true for the other
claimed benefit of free trade: the cross-flow of ideas and technology. That is great for friends, but not for those less trusted.
Of course, this doesn't mean liked-minded groups of countries with similar-enough or sympathetic-enough economies and politics
should avoid free trade: clearly for some states it can work out nicely - even if within the EU one could argue there are also underlying
strains. However, it is a huge stretch to assume a one-size-fits-all free trade policy will always work best for all countries, as
some would have it. That is a fairy tale. History shows it wasn't the case; national security concerns show it can never always be
the case; and Ricardo argues this logically won't be the case.
Yet we need not despair. The track record also shows that global growth can continue even despite protectionism, and in some cases
can benefit from it. That being said, should the US resort to more Hamiltonian policies versus everyone, not just China, then we
are in for real financial market turbulence ahead given the role the US Dollar plays today compared to the role gold played for Smith
and Ricardo! But that is a whole different fairy tale...
In my golden days, I did manufacturing throughput analysis, cost modeled parts, and
reviewed component and transportation distribution. I am curious. Forget all that
neoliberal stuff . . .
Ohh, those golden days
Measurement has its place and is the cornerstone of science, but it is not equal to
pattern recognition. And when applied to social phenomena with their complexity it is
more often a trap, rather then an insight.
You need to understand that.
Deification of questionable metrics is an objective phenomenon that we observe under
neoliberalism.
A classic example of deification of a questionable metric under neoliberalism is the
"cult of GDP" ("If the GDP Is Up, Why Is America Down?") See , for example
For example, many people discuss stagnation of GDP growth in Japan not understanding
here we are talking about the country with shrinking population. And adjusted for this
factor I am not sure that it not higher then in the USA (were it is grossly distorted by
the cancerous growth of FIRE sector).
So while comparing different years for a single country might make some limited sense,
those who blindly compare GDP of different countries (even with PPP adjustment) IMHO
belong to a modern category of economic charlatans. Kind of Lysenkoism, if you wish
That tells you something about primitivism and pseudo-scientific nature of neoliberal
economics.
We also need to remember the "performance reviews travesty" which is such a clear
illustration of "cult of measurement" abuses that it does not it even requires
commentary. Google has abolished numerical ratings in April 2014.
Recently I come across an interesting record of early application of it in AT&T at
Brian W Kernighan book UNIX: A History and a Memoir at late 60th, early as 70th.
Something is really fishy here. Dynamic IP address is reassigned only if you do not switch on you computer on for several days,
which is not very probable for Krugman. Otherwise it is glued to this device and is difficult to highjack without installing
malware on the computer or router. and he should have static IP anyway, he is not some poor shmuck and can
afford extra $10 a month to have.
Two devices with the same IP on the network are usually automatically detected and it is
difficult to use them for download, as during this time the second device will lose Internet connection completely and the
problem will be detected by the ISP support.
So the only option is that somebody installed backdoor malware on Krugman computer and used his harddrive for storage. That's
an extremely improbable scenario, unless he visited some grey site himself.
34,216 views
Jan 2, 2020, 12:08pm
How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg
Corrupted Climate Science
Roger Pielke
Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Energy
I research and write about science, policy and politics.
Share to facebook
Share to twitter
Share to linkedin
Tom Steyer, co-founder of NextGen Climate Action Committee,
smiles during the Global Climate Action
... [+]
Summit in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Friday, Sept. 14, 2018. The Global Climate Action Summit brings
together industry and political leaders working on improving the conditions and concerns facing climate in the world
today. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
This is a story of American
democracy. In one sense, it's a noble story. People with shared values have come together to petition the government
and the public on their political aims, just
as envisioned by James Madison
in
Federalist 10
.
In another sense it's a story of privilege and conceit – the privilege in American democracy that accompanies
being mindbogglingly wealthy and the conceit that climate politics could be best pursued by corrupting the scientific
literature on climate change.
At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future
(called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved
from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions. You can read more about how that happened and
its consequences in my previous columns
here
and
here
.
Today, I will add further details to this incredible story by explaining the important roles played by Tom Steyer
and Michael Bloomberg, both billionaires and current Democratic presidential candidates. (Disclosure: I have endorsed
publicly one of their Democratic opponents, Amy Klobuchar, but I will vote for whomever the Democrats select this
November, including Steyer or Bloomberg.)
Following this meeting, Steyer invited two collaborators and co-funders to join him, to give the appearance of
being non-partisan. One was
Michael Bloomberg
, then a political independent who was completing 12 years as the mayor of New York. The other
was
Hank Paulson
, a Republican who was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and who had also served as Secretary of the
Treasury under George W. Bush.
But in generating large economic impacts, the approach of the
Risky Business
report made two significant
methodological mistakes. First, they improperly characterized the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario as "business as usual"
reflecting a world without future climate policy. Second, they improperly presented the scenarios of the IPCC as
representing different policy outcomes, suggesting that we could "move" from one scenario to another: "
Moving
from RCP 8.5 to RCP 2.6 (as well as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0) will come at a cost
."
Both of these methodological choices were contrary to the appropriate use of the scenarios,
according the modeling experts who created them
: "RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario
["business as usual"] for the other RCPs because RCP8.5's socioeconomic, technology and biophysical assumptions
differ from those of the other RCPs." The scenarios are completely independent from each other, and policy cannot
"move" us from one to another. Consider that
RCP2.6 represents a world with 3 billion less people than RCP8.5
. The
Risky Business
methodology ignored
such critical details.
Dodgy science published by climate advocacy groups is certainly not uncommon and it is usually not that
interesting. But the genius of the
Risky Business
project was that it did not stop with a flashy report
aimed at the daily news cycle. It undertook a far more sophisticated campaign focused on introducing its methods into
the mainstream scientific literature, where they could take on a life of their own.
For instance, soon after the initial
Risky Business
report was released in 2014 the
Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson funded work was
the basis for 11 talks
at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, which is the
largest annual gathering of climate researchers. The next step was to get the analyses of the project published in
the scientific literature where they could influence subsequent research and serve as the basis for authoritative
scientific reviews, such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment.
For instance, a
2016 paper published in the prestigious journal
Science
from the
Risky Business
project
introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing "business as usual"
(RCP 8.5) and "strongent emissions mitigation" (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited 294 times in other
academic studies,
according to Google Scholar
. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has
received little or no criticism.
In another example, a more comprehensive study from the
Risky Business
project was
published in
Science
magazine in 2017
, where the abstract brazenly announces its methodological error:
"By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of
county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5)." The most
extreme conclusion of this analysis was that the United States would see a 10% hit to its economy under the most
extreme version of RCP8.5 (specifically its 99th percentile), projecting an incredible 8 degree Celsius temperature
change from 2080 to 2099. This paper has been cited 285 times in other studies,
according to Google Scholar
. The 10% GDP loss figure would become
the top line conclusion of the U.S. National Climate Assessment the next year
.
Publishing papers in the academic literature based on the flawed methods was a formula that would be repeated time
and time again. Like the introduction of a virus, the misleading reinterpretation of climate scenarios has
subsequently expanded throughout the climate science literature and into leading assessments.
Many experts well know that such methods are fatally flawed
, but only a few have
raised concerns
.
The 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment offers a particularly notable example. The work initiated by the
Risky Business
project was cited almost 200 times in that report, including direct references to the project's
reports as well as the work of its lead consultant, the
Rhodium Group
. One of the
lead researchers for
Risky Business
was also
a lead author of the NCA
. His research supported by
Risky Business
(and that of his main collaborator),
was
cited more than 150 times in the NCA
. Yet, nowhere that I have seen has it been disclosed by the US government
that this NCA lead author is
under contract
with the Rhodium Group
from 2015 to 2022.
Imagine the reaction if a lead author of the U.S. National Climate Assessment with funding from a Republican
billionaire and working with consultants opposed to climate action had their research, that of their funder and their
colleagues cited some 200 times in the NCA – and that research was fatally flawed and the researcher's financial
connections with the consultants was undisclosed. I'd wager that it would receive some attention.
More recently, the work begun with Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson initial investment
has been taken up
by a group called the
Climate Impact
Lab
. This effort involves the project leaders from the
Risky Business
report and is a collaboration of
several universities and the continued involvement of the
Rhodium Group
. It is
unclear if Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson continue to provide funding via the Rhodium Group.
The Climate Impact Lab has thrived on exploiting RCP8.5 to generate a steady series of media-friendly studies
focused on projecting extreme climate impacts. Among them:
All of these reports are based on the misuse of scenarios, and especially RCP8.5.
Just last month the co-director of the Climate Impact Lab
testified before Congress
and argued that the "social cost of carbon" was far higher than previous estimates. In
doing so he introduced a further methodological error by
improperly pairing
the extreme RCP8.5 scenario (again used as a baseline scenario in the
underlying analyses
) with the most pessimistic socioeconomic pathway (called
Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3
).
Let me be clear about what is going on here. There is no hidden conspiracy, all of this is taking place in plain
sight and in public. In fact, what is going on here is absolutely genius. We have a well-funded effort to
fundamentally change how climate science is characterized in the academic literature, how that science is reported in
the media, and ultimately how political discussions and policy options are shaped.
Of course, the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson investments are not solely responsible for the misuse of scenarios in the
scientific literature, but they are clearly a significant part of the story.
The corruption of climate science has occurred because some of our most important institutions have let us down.
The scientific peer review process has failed to catch obvious methodological errors in research papers. Leading
scientific assessments have ignored conflicts of interest and adopted flawed methods. The media has been selectively
incurious as to the impact of big money on climate advocacy.
This is a story of how wealth and power have corrupted science in pursuit of political goals. Climate change is
important, there is no doubt. But the importance of climate change does not mean that we should abandon high
standards of scientific integrity. We are going to need good science in the future -- so it is best to keep it that
way, no matter what cause it is enlisted to support.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Bookmark to dashboard
Claire Connelly Claire Connelly is the lead writer of Renegade Inc. An award-winning freelance journalist, speaker, and founder of subscription journalism experiment, Hello Humans.
More
Dave
says:
John Giles
says:
Alan Luchetti
says:
Hoobert Herver
says:
Bob Kaufman
says:
Youri
says:
Cliff Cobb
says:
Steven
says:
Claire
says:
