Mar

21

 Sobering article: "The Rise and Fall of the American Farmer"

Stefan Jovanovich writes: 

As Tennessee Williams' best line from Camino Real puts it, "you can file this under C - for crap".

"As early as the 1830s, American cash crops had arrived as a powerful force in international markets."

American grain exports had a brief honeymoon during the Crimean War. As soon as that ended, imports from Russian resumed; and the U.S. exports collapsed. Before the Civil War any surplus produced by the U.S. "farmer" (sic) went to the internal market; and that was slow to develop. Chicago did not develop its first trading exchange for grain until 1848; the second active market - in New York - only developed because of the demand from the Union armies and it waited until the second year of the war to open. The international trade in grain came after the war; Kansas City opened its exchange in 1869, Duluth in 1870 and then Minneapolis in 1881.

"By the time the Civil War began, US imports were so pivotal to European economic stability that Britain and France considered the possibility of sacrificing decades of moralistic opposition to slavery and openly intervening on behalf of the slaveholding confederacy. King Cotton was responsible for the existence of millions of European jobs at the time, especially in the industrial sector."

There were no "decades of moralistic" opposition to slavery in France; the French looked to the Confederacy to join them in turning Mexico into a latifundia. Britain's policy towards the U.S. was determined entirely by their calculations of how much of a threat the Union armies would be to Canada. If the Confederacy had a chance to win quickly, then support for them would - theoretically - help protect Canada. (Some wiser heads suggested that it might, in fact, do the opposite; that, having lost the South, the North would do its best to compensate by swallowing Ontario and Quebec and the plains provinces.

Cotton had been King, but the Confederates had terrible timing. The textile business in the Midlands suffered a collapse in 1861/2; merchants there were selling their raw cotton inventories to the New England mills, which were busy handling war orders - not just for uniforms but for gun cotton. Grant, who understood these things, was furious with his father and the Jews who had the monopoly on cotton broking in the South because they were selling the contraband to American buyers, not European ones. By the time textile manufacturing revived in Britain (and France and Germany) the American blockade had taken hold; and the Europeans had found other sources for their fiber - in Egypt and India.

Mar

17

This IBD article proves how easy it is to manipulate the press with hyperbole and misdirection.

"Theranos Founder Known as Next Steve Jobs' Pays $500,000 to Settle 'Massive Fraud Charges'"

"The next Steve Jobs"

Uh huh.

One should be less biblical in their retorts when another person questions the next tech craze or the sanity of capital pouring into an idea that is too good to be true on the surface, and transparency issues around data make it impossible to reach a solid conclusion.

I find this one especially close to another big name in the tech space whose promises continue to under deliver… yet his moonshot ideas allow him to burn through other peoples money…

Thanks, CNBC.

Henry Gifford writes: 

I don't think Theranos is a scam.

As soon as I heard about the company's plans to sell blood tests that are much less expensive, and easier to do, and maybe better in other ways, I thought about all the companies that would be hurt by them, and how heavily regulated those companies are, and how hard those companies will fight back, presumably using regulations as part of their defense.

Then I looked and saw the founder has three strikes against her: she's female, she's good looking, she's young. This shouldn't make any difference, but when combined with being an industry outsider, the jealousy factor can be expected to go up, and the ease with which entrenched companies can create doubt and negative publicity is I think greatly increased.

An early battle the company lost was when the regulators declared that the small container they collect blood samples in is a "medical device," and therefore subject to all sorts of regulations, thus they are not allowed to use it. Sure smells to me like regulators looking for something to start a fight about – how many years could the regulators cut off the company's cash flow while they consider the regulatory merits of a small plastic container which will not contact the body? I didn't hear anything about blood collection containers having previously been regulated, so this is extra perfect – it will take a few years to write the regulations….

When the gloves came off and the regulators cut the company down to being allowed to sell one test only – for herpes – I thought that was perfect – the company from Stanford and Palo Alto with the young founder is now associated with a sexually transmitted disease, but barred from testing for glucose, etc.

Looking at the recent press gives me many reasons to be skeptical that the recent reports of fraud are accurate, or have any merit at all.

One article entitled something like "Patients get different test results with Theranos vs. hospital labs" quoted one patient as claiming a potassium test was about 11.3 with Theranos and 9.6 (or so, as far as I remember) with a hospital lab (implied as being the gold standard). Nothing about what they normal variation is, which I understand is significant, or what period of time elapsed between tests, or what the results might have been with 10 or 100 tests done with each technology. The other patient quoted said she got a glucose reading of 103 in a hospital, and 96 (or 99?) from Theranos. Glucose levels in blood can be expected to change by at least that much after a patent walks across a parking lot, even if every test was going to give the same result every time. No article I saw had any other "bad" numbers quoted, but they still made this sound horrible.

The actions of the regulators were described in one article as "State and federal authorities started investigations into the accuracy of the company's blood testing work. In 2016 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees blood testing labs in the U.S., banned Holmes from operating a lab and revoked Theranos' blood testing licence." The first sentence describes the beginning of the process, and the second sentence described the end of the process. There was no mention of anything in the middle – did they find anything? If so, what did they find? Was the suspension of the blood testing license related to anything they found other than non-compliance with the declaration that the sample container was a medical device that should be regulated? If they found anything wrong, why was this not mentioned in this article or any other I've seen?

The company, in their defense, claimed to have offered to demonstrate the machine in the offices of The Wall Street Journal, and provided or offered to provide thousands of test results and etc. evidence that their technology worked, but reportedly got no response.

Most recent articles quoted several people as not having been able to find out anything about how their new machine works. Neither journalists at The Wall Street Journal nor anyplace else could find out anything, or find anyone who knew anything. This is consistent with the box the company came up with being a hollow cardboard box, or some other fraud. But, I know how to find out what is inside the box, and what is inside the company's labs. With a quick search I found about 190 patents assigned to Theranos, all for technologies related to what they claim they are doing. I know a thing or two about patents, and a couple of years ago I read some of the patents assigned to Theranos, including some whose inventor was the company founder (there are many of those). The patents are complex but I think mostly well written – this I think says a lot in a field where I think most patents are so poorly written they are worthless. Theranos hired an expensive law firm that specializes in bio patents – a good sign. The US Patent and Trademark Office makes about as many mistakes as any other large organization, but probably not more, and is not quick to grant patents that do not meet the standards, including not being anticipated by prior art – someone else's idea that came first. Getting patents means they probably came up with something. The patents are mostly different enough from each other to not be minor variations on the same theme. Getting about 190 patents, a huge number, means they are apparently working hard and really coming up with things. Many things, probably very valuable. But, most importantly, anyone who works in bio or writes regularly about bio and claims they have no idea what Theranos is doing, and has no way of finding out what Theranos is doing, is not making any mistake – they are lying. They are surely lying because bio is a field that is very dependent on patents. All the articles I've read are consistent with 100% of the people quoted knowing the company has many patents in their core area, but playing dumb and lying by claiming to have no idea what is going on. The existence of the patents means that if they are good patents, which I expect they are, Theranos really has a lock on much better blood tests for years to come. I think it is quite possible that Theranos came up with much, much better blood tests, so much better that they could dominate the field for decades to come (as old patents expire then-current and evolving technologies are covered by newer patents). All evidence I have seen points to this being possible, and not unlikely. If this is the case, then the real story is as follows:

Young dropout comes up with much better blood testing methods, gets strong patents, raises money and actually brings the technology to market fairly quickly – patents, company, and sales, the unusual dream come true, actually done at lightning speed in an industry where patents are almost expired when products come to market (drugs, frequently). Founder stacks the board with powerful people that are not industry insiders, to help defend against the inevitable attacks from the entrenched competitors. Regulators and competitors in one of the most regulated industries can't find any real problem, so they invent a technicality related to exactly what makes the company special – the small collection container. Then they allow the company to test only for a sexually transmitted disease. Fill in the details after this.

Then they find the founder guilty of fraud – but no news reports explain the nature of the fraud, or mention any law or regulation that was broken. Perhaps the fraud was using the small sample container without approval before the approval was required?

I don't know the real story, but none of the stores I've read ring true.

I suspect the real fraud is what the regulators have done, and what the competitors continue to sell while better technologies exist.

anonymous writes: 

I always love a good contrarian position, so thanks for posting yours. Here is what I don't get:

She wasn't doing this on a shoestring budget. She has hundreds of millions.

If the thing works, couldn't she just show the world?

If the thing works, wouldn't Walgreens be out there saying "no wait, this thing works everybody, we of course tested it before we entered into an agreement with Theranos"?

David Lillienfeld writes: 

I'll go beyond that: Not everyone in the valley was pushing to get into the company. There were many who weren't. That's in contrast to, say, 23andme a decade ago or Gilead a couple of decades ago.

The first BoD was stocked with major names in American politics–with absolutely little if any healthcare expertise. Maybe that makes sense to some, it doesn't to me. George Schultz may have been a great SecState, but I fail to see the value add for healthcare. Maybe because it's simply not there. It's not always a matter of hearing the right answer as even knowing what are the right questions to ask.

As for shoestring budget, the office bldg. (I pass it every day) sits on a commanding bluff on Page Mill and Porter. It's hardly low-cost. The company may not have spent like drunken sailors, but low budget doesn't seem to have been its thing either. Not Brooks Brothers, not Jos A Banks, maybe Paul Stuart. I guess the finance people could be grateful it wasn't Savile Row.

Now, let's look at the founder. She has little knowledge of the deeply regulated environment that is healthcare in the US. Rage against those regulations all you want, they define much of the marketplace. Her age means she hasn't lived through the inevitable crises in the healthcare world, for which knowledge of FDA, EMA, ECs, IRBs, etc is invaluable. Think it's an accident that there are very few young CEOs in the biotech world–start-ups or otherwise?

Think surgeons. Do you want the surgeon who just finished her training to do your Whipple procedure, or the chief of surgery? I'll take the latter, just as I'd prefer the former for my appendectomy. Theranos was a Whipple–high risk, big potential reward. Age wasn't in her favor. Enough said.

I'll leave aside the scientific basis for Theranos's products–it simply wasn't there.

As I put it to someone else on the list who asked me for an evaluation of Theranos a few years back when this person had been approached about making an investment in the company, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

May

7

16-Year-Old Man Warns of Next Financial Crisis: "Crisis will happen again, but not like 2008: Geithner"

Aug

19

 On the way to my graduation from Purdue two weeks ago, I headed to the light rail to travel to the airport.

As I awaited the train, a slew of grown men dressed up in My Little Pony garb were on their way to a conference about four blocks from my apartment. Baltimore in successive biweekly periods has hosted a My Little Pony convention for adult men, Comic-Con (sp?), and soon a Grand Prix race that annually loses millions. But it is the former that was so bizarre to me, that I was very pleased to reach this article, which may be one of the most random, insightful, odd, and funny analyses of academia, counterculture, and exercises in wearing random costumes in public.

Enjoy or shake your head… this is a step into the weird…

"The Dread Pony"

Aug

19

 The following is a short review of the Jobs film. Mild spoilers ahead.

For the better part of my swim yesterday, I was trying to put some things into perspective. So it was fitting that I ended up going and seeing Jobs last night, as it offered the type of message I sought.

The biopic, starring Ashton Kutcher, provides insight into Steve Jobs' life from his time at Reed College until he reassumes control of Apple in 1996. Kutcher provides a solid-B performance as Jobs, never quite catching the man's tone but certainly perfecting his gait. It isn't exactly a polite portrayal either, as it highlights Jobs' mean streak toward members of his own family, his indifference to friends, and his master obsession with perfection.

But the major theme of the film, what it takes to be good versus what it takes to be great, shines. And Jobs' vision of changing the world and making computers and other devices an extension of his customers lives is outstanding. Jobs' challenge to create a marketplace for something that doesn't exist (the Apple II personal home computer/iPod/Macintosh) is evidenced in the challenges of short-term minded stockholders and blunt media criticism, against his vision of the long-term and his products' impact on the world.

I found the film more enjoyable than the Social Network, as it's far more human and void of Aaron Sorkin dialogue spoken at a 100 MPH (though Sorkin vehicles remain a guilty pleasure if only for the writing and neurotic characters). Jobs provided a reminder of some of the startups that I've worked on in the past, when some people want it to be a business and others want it to be a hobby, and the divide that occurs. It's evident that Jobs' philosophy has rubbed off on Ashton Kutcher, who has really taken Jobs' message of "being great" and spread it to the masses (though his audiences are too ignorant to hear him). Kutcher has actually been a very successful and vocal tech investor in recent years, and the Jobs portrayal appears to have realigned his thinking.

The film begins with the announcement of the iPod, but immediately back tracks to his time as a dropout at Reed College. From the onset, he's shrewd, a master negotiator, and insanely detailed to the point it drives his small staff crazy in his father's garage. Overtime, we see Apple grow, and with the appointment of John Scully, the Fortune 500 CEO mindset competes with Jobs' disregard for costs or compliance. Lots of long-shot hallway walks set up nearly every termination or ousting from the company.

The film was well written, though the tensions between Jobs, Scully, Ronald Wayne, and even Gil Amelio were a bit soft. I think Amelio, despite his small, small part might have been missed cast. But Matthew Modine plays an outstanding John Scully, and seems to have found a niche as in the CEO role like he did as John Thain in Too Big to Fail.

In the end, this is a simplistic biopic of Jobs, catering to the masses. It's a simplistic view of Jobs' rise to prominence told in a Save the Cat style format of rising and falling. This isn't a tale of great hope — but it highlights the extraordinary achievements of Jobs as best it can, and provides a fantastic last two minutes that offer a subtle reminder of when you leave the theater… What path will you lead?

May

14

 I have seen more and more of this story reiterated over the last few months… That hi-tech and robotic innovation are leading to greater displacement of the middle class in the United States and around the world.

"Think Your Job is Robot Proof? Think Again"

A Stanford professor recently commented that technology and scale are greater drivers of job displacement than previously expected. They are also the strongest drivers of significant wealth. The Forbes 400 is now dominated by innovation and those who have perfected scale.

I am surprised that so many economists have been commenting on this so often so recently, as if it's new news.

Ricardo noted this trend in technological unemployment long long ago, but it completely seemed to have disappeared as a story for 190 years.

Even Krugman admitted that if technology is such a significant driver of the divide between the rich and the poor, then surely it makes a mockery of any attempt to balance wealth in this nation since you cannot tear down innovation in the pursuit of balanced distribution.

How did economists ignore this? For fear of being labeled Marxist?

This reminds me of my first three minutes at Hopkins. I asked a professor who had worked at the DOE what would happen if a radical green innovation displaced oil…

He replied… "You don't want to go down that road…" Innovation has its downside, and to him, it was millions of angry young men in the middle east without a source of income from oil.

Stefan Jovanovich comments:

The principal argument of the intellectuals who supported slavery was that economics itself was an inherently "dismal science". Carlyle genuinely believed that a system of accounts based on money prices was far more vicious than any lash. His spoken corollary was that black people needed slavery because they could not otherwise compete. The unspoken corollary of his intellectual successors was that many other groups of people needed protections from the market because they, too, could not compete. That unspoken corollary became spoken when Progressives discovered Marx.

No believer in liberty in 19th century (the people who called themselves "liberals") had any doubt that machines could do it better, faster and cheaper. That was the point of inventing them in the first place. Those liberals also had no doubt that, in a world of scarcity, "better, faster and cheaper" was a good thing because savings and costs were more important than incomes. That is the same reason why they wanted Money to be made only out of the 16K tons of the one metal that was indestructible and, in milled coinage, impossible to fake. If prices had their unit of account determined by the supply of something that could only be produced with great ingenuity and industry, then the implicit fraud of government (we take money from you as an individual at the point of a gun so people you do not choose can receive benefits) would be limited;and thrift would be rewarded.

The liberals' faith was the presumption that, over time, thrift and family virtue would outrun the machines because accumulated capital would profit from the ever-lower costs that machines always produced. The Progressive/Marxist answer was that we could all speed up economic evolution if we just let the government keep the capital and define the costs. What is truly dismal about much of current academic economics is that the basic argument that produced the science itself is now considered to be a fully-settled question. Meanwhile, the economists on the street are filing for disability with the help of the friendly lawyers they found on TV, highly-penalized work (the stuff classified as "wage and hour" employment remains scarce, and yet per capita discretionary retail sales (what people buy after they pay for food, energy, communications and shelter) are once again rising.

As the Lackey would say, "Hah!"

The principal argument of the intellectuals who supported slavery was that economics itself was an inherently "dismal science". Carlyle genuinely believed that a system of accounts based on money prices was far more vicious than any lash. His spoken corollary was that black people needed slavery because they could not otherwise compete. The unspoken corollary of his intellectual successors was that many other groups of people needed protections from the market because they, too, could not compete. That unspoken corollary became spoken when Progressives discovered Marx.

No believer in liberty in 19th century (the people who called themselves "liberals") had any doubt that machines could do it better, faster and cheaper. That was the point of inventing them in the first place. Those liberals also had no doubt that, in a world of scarcity, "better, faster and cheaper" was a good thing because savings and costs were more important than incomes. That is the same reason why they wanted Money to be made only out of the 16K tons of the one metal that was indestructible and, in milled coinage, impossible to fake. If prices had their unit of account determined by the supply of something that could only be produced with great ingenuity and industry, then the implicit fraud of government (we take money from you as an individual at the point of a gun so people you do not choose can receive benefits) would be limited;and thrift would be rewarded.

The liberals' faith was the presumption that, over time, thrift and family virtue would outrun the machines because accumulated capital would profit from the ever-lower costs that machines always produced. The Progressive/Marxist answer was that we could all speed up economic evolution if we just let the government keep the capital and define the costs. What is truly dismal about much of current academic economics is that the basic argument that produced the science itself is now considered to be a fully-settled question. Meanwhile, the economists on the street are filing for disability with the help of the friendly lawyers they found on TV, highly-penalized work (the stuff classified as "wage and hour" employment remains scarce, and yet per capita discretionary retail sales (what people buy after they pay for food, energy, communications and shelter) are once again rising.

As the Lackey would say, "Hah!".

Jim Lackey responds:

Correction! It is Mr. Vic that says HA! Lackeys say, "get the joke", which is a joke as it takes me 3 times to get it… or the "get the joke is "we are the last to know" when it comes to the "news".

May

8

 Last day at my office, and I'm cleaning out files… I found this.

It's the epilogue to my first novel, which still sits in LA unpublished over an argument on the name of a character. It's about the failure of our leadership. It's been about seven years since I last read this… and I get the sense it's more true today than when it was first scribbled during a vodka-induced rant across a bar napkin somewhere in the Battery of Manhattan…

Thought I'd share…

 

The Men on the Hill

at the set of the star, when each pass down Our Hill

to a plate ever gamely and cup overfilled

the men, they forget, the source of their fare

it was those in small town where cupboards grow bare

now ignored to provide allies’ weight in pork

they carve with the tongue, to drive us to forks

there are men on the Hill, who sneak and conspire

to cohort with Brutus and lead to new choir

there are men on the Hill, denying their fault

as they deepen the wounds and scourge them with salt

there are men on the Hill, not just one, nor one team

confuse his ambition with one country’s dream

a cry comes each voice, are there men on this hill

to stand by the cupboard, risk politic killed

you are safe on this Hill, for the process is rare,

that another ascend to relinquish your chair

on the hill is a hush – now a cast of the blame

now a finger is wagged, to preserve masters’ fame

but fall to the side, when the masses erupt

for power is fickle as power corrupts

are there men on the Hill? each street cries fervent

to answer this call as public servant

are there men on the Hill, stand up if you will

a hush…

a hush…

there’s no man on Our Hill. 

Jan

31

 Driving through the Owens Valley on a beautiful sunny clear day, the entire 150 mile stretch with 14000 peaks towering above showed the geological effects of immense glaciers that filled the entire valley during the past ice age. Ice could have been 3000 feet deep gouging up mountains. Even Mauna Kea in Hawaii has clear geological evidence of glaciers! The last ice age was as recent as 10-20,000 years ago and ice covered a large part of North America. Global warming is the end of the current ice age and has provided good weather and prosperity and the growth of civilization and the human race for 20,000 years. The reverse of global warming, namely cooling, is not an attractive alternative. Imagine if cooling began. It would mean summers with snow that did not melt lasting through destroying crops. 4 years of snow on the ground through summer would wipe out most of the world population. 4 years of 40 foot snow accumulation would erase most signs of civilization under a layer of ice. When Krakatoa went off in 1883 the ash plume circled the world and there was no summer in the US that year. Imagine the impact on gnp and the markets if cooling commenced. Its awful to imagine. So its a case of unintended consequences or be careful what you wish for should they figure out how to reverse global warming.

A commenter writes:

Cold weather crops like rye and barley would come back in vogue if we had an ice age which is not unthinkable. The zones for planting crops would change drastically. One would expect that researchers might do some genetic tinkering with corn, wheat, and soybeans, allowing them to flourish in a colder climate. Quite a number of scientists are predicting a Maunder Minimum at the end of this current solar cycle, which coincided with the "Little Ice Age.".

Steve Ellison writes: 

Quite a long time ago, I reviewed Evolutionary Catastrophes: The Science of Mass Extinction by Vincent Courtillot. Every one of the 7 mass extinction events identified by M. Courtillot was caused by global cooling. Therefore, I agree that global warming (which I see no reason to doubt) is the lesser evil.

David Lilienfeld writes: 

In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the asbestos industry maintained that "there was reasonable disagreement" among scientists about asbestos as a cause of lung cancer; no asbestos-related regulations were needed. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the same was true of the tobacco industry for tobacco and lung cancer (and other sites, too). In the 1980s, 1990s, and last decade, many in the social conservative school of thought maintained that there was little evidence, or at least controversial evidence, about the role of human papilloma virus in the development of cervical cancer (I won't get into the matter of hand and neck cancer and HPV). In the 1960s, 1970s, and into the 1980s, the US salt industry insisted that the data linking consumed salt and hypertension were controversial and that no regulation of the salt content was needed. The argument against the consensus view holds only so long as additional data do not validate the view of that majority. With Copernicus, that was the case. It was the same with the role of bacteria in the development of peptic ulcers.

Absolute certainty and uniform conclusions by all members of the science community shouldn't be needed for policy formulation. If they were, then the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel would still be roaming the ranges and desserts of our television screens.

Ralph Vince comments: 

What a logical stretch David.

In the tobacco litigation, we found secret emails amongst the defendant employee's indicating a nefarious conspiracy to keep their methods and activities secret.

The East Anglia emails are similar in that regard.

I can tell you, from firsthand observation of the computer code that was in the email trove (because I have been writing code since the 70s, and I can tell you from examining someone's code what nationality they are, what mood they were in when they wrote it, and often what they had for breakfast). The code that was dumped was utterly damning to their cause. Not only does it show that the data does NOT sufficiently show that we are experiencing (anthropomorphic or not) temperature rises, but taints the issue because it raises the question of motive. We're left knowing that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, a seeming understanding that this should have caused temperature rise, and the facts that do not comport to this, and as-yet no legitimate scientific reason (there are some theories, but that's all) to account for this.

Scott Brooks writes: 

I suggest that we look at the motives of the people involved in perpetuating what I believe is a giant con job.

Let's say the earth is warming. Is this a man made phenomena or is it just a normal cycle that the earth goes thru from time to time? Who stands to profit from these suggestions to stop global warming? Al Gore and his ilk?

Why do we trust these idiots in DC to make decisions that are common sense based and "special interest group" based?

If we start down this path that global warmists like yourself want us to go down, what happens when the earth keeps warming up (i.e. let's say it's really just a cycle the earth is going thru and not man made)…….what will happen then? Do you think the politicians will say, "Well, it's not mans fault. So let's roll back all the regulations", or do you think that they'll bloviate about how they need even more power to solve this horrible problem?

Why are you so willing to give more and more power to the government when they have a LONG history of abusing that power to their own selfish ends?

If you chose to go down that path, you will find people like me standing in your path actively trying to stop you.

Garrett Baldwin writes: 

I wasn't going to jump in on this, but I wanted to shadow something Scott said.

With regard to motives, pay attention to the way that the hearings and the solutions to solving this problem are handled. Some of us want the market to solve the problem. For example, let's say that the biggest threat in the world were something that is hard to measure, like the earth is running out of fresh air.

I'd argue that if that were a serious problem, a man would come a long and invent a machine to solve it. We'd rely on human ingenuity. We'd beat back that threat…

But the people who stand to profit through centralized alchemy only want to do it one way — their way. And any solution that is market based, creates competition, and doesn't enrich allies or decision makers or centralize more power with the government is either demonized, destroyed or regulated from the conversation.

The reality is that central planners can't solve this problem. They claim that they invented the internet, but if the government were still operating the internet, it would just be two dudes from DoD playing pong back and forth between New York and Camp Pendleton. This entire hype has evidence of scam all over it. Naomi Klein has demanded that the U.S. distribute $2 trillion to third-world nations who are "victims" of the U.S. and our energy policy. Ironically, the nations that are demanding the money are also the ones that are near the bottom of the Heritage Economic Freedom Index. Countries that aren't developing because they keep they limit their own people's ingenuity and production are going to get $2 trillion and then do what with it? Usher in a green economy? Come on…

So, when I hear the idea that we have to "do something" and do it fast without exploring the data, without asking questions, and without being allowed to have a debate because doing so would cast the distrustful of government as people who don't care about the children or the future or humanity. Meanwhile, the alarmist will have a moving wardrobe of children follow him as he spouts off how important his intentions are and how we are monsters.

Beyond that, we also ignore one thing in this discussion.

What are the positive benefits of global warming? After all, Greenland had a booming farm trade 1,000 years ago. I'd like to get some beach front property in Greenland. I'd also think that trade through the Arctic Circle would be nice and reduce shipping to Asia in half. Why is global warming such a terrible thing? Is it because we refuse to embrace the challenge, and because there's profit to be made by saving us from ourselves?

So, I will say from my perspective this. I don't consider climate change a big deal, and it's not something that I worry about. Humanity will adapt after government spends trillions of dollars chasing this dragon..

Archives

Resources & Links

Search