O Insurgente

Bootleggers and Baptists:

Bootleggers and Baptists, is a model of politics in which opposite moral positions lead to the same vote. Specifically, preachers demand prohibition to make alcohol illegal while the criminal bootlegger wants it to stay illegal so he can stay in business.

Ayn Rand – Is Atlas Shrugging?

LEITURA RECOMENDADA — Atlas Shrugged por Ayn Rand (em inglês, em Português do Brasil)

Leituras adicionais – Atlas Is Shrugging e De novo, “Atlas Shrugged”

What is Money? por Robert Sadler:

There exists a certain amount of confusion today about what money truly is, how it originated and who should produce it (the government or private individuals). For this reason, it is useful to provide a brief summary of the origin or money and the differences between the various types of money. In this manner it will become clear that money should only be produced by the market.

The monetary use of a commodity is derived from its non-monetary use. When we consider how money comes into being (through indirect exchange) we know this must be the case ..

In the case of gold or silver, it is obvious that these commodities have a value independent of their monetary use. Gold has historically primarily been used as jewellery and today, like silver, it has many industrial uses that establish a non-monetary value.

It is clear now that paper money established by government fiat cannot have any non-monetary value. It is not a good (according to the definition by Menger) or a commodity that can be widely bought and sold. No man desires paper money for its own sake. It cannot satisfy any need of man .. It is arguably, an imaginary good, as described by Menger ..

.. the optimal money derives its value from its prior non-monetary use (i.e. that of being a valuable commodity). Paper money has no prior non-monetary use and thus derives its value from government legal tender laws. In other words, it has merely an imagined value. In free market, there would be no fiat paper money. Government has no place in the production of money. Free money protects the population from the costs of fractional reserve banking and stunts the growth of government. Furthermore, with free market gold money (or similar) inflation will be limited to the illicit activities of fractional reserve banks thus the length and depth of the business cycle will be greatly reduced.

No seguimento de Fascismo euro-centralista

A Way to Soak the Rich por Jeffrey Tucker:

The rich are an interesting group. They like to define themselves with symbols of what the rest of us consider crazy luxury ..

.. People who resent the wealth of the super elite shouldn’t be condemning conspicuous consumption. They should be encouraging more of it .. This is the path to voluntary expropriation and effective redistribution of wealth, from them to the rest of us, from the 1% to the 99%.

.. Their money is siphoned off from their person straight to the hands of waitresses, pool cleaners, doormen, maid service people, cooks, groundskeepers, repair workers, bricklayers and every other kind of worker and peasant you can possibly imagine.

What’s especially nice is that their products, adopted by the rich, eventually become available for everyone else .. A cellphone in the 1980s was the ultimate luxury good. Today, they are available to all the world’s poor ..

If we want to soak the rich, we need ever more opportunities for them to blow millions and billions on things you and I would never think of buying. We need more luxury, more conspicuous consumption, more over-the-top and outrageous things and services that tempt them to part with their money.

But of course, if this is true, we also need producers to make these things to sell to the rich. That means that we should not punish investment and capital accumulation, and we certainly shouldn’t impose tax penalties when investments targeted to the rich pay off. Capital gains taxes need to be zero, and the same with income taxes and other consumption taxes. Anything that discourages the building and selling of luxury needs to be repealed, provided we want to empty the pockets of the well-to-do.

No seguimento de O Plano Marshall (1), Slaves to the Marshall Myth por D.W. MacKenzie:

Of all the myths that persist concerning economic history, the myth that the United States rebuilt Europe and Japan following the Second World War is among the most popular ..

Hong Kong rebuilt with minimal governmental interference .. This resulted in rapid economic development and a steadily rising standard of living for the people of Hong Kong. This progress benefited not only highly skilled upper income workers, but also low paid unskilled workers .. This success came to the people of Hong Kong because of low taxes, minimal tariffs and regulations, and without the redistribution schemes of democratic welfare states or large-scale foreign aid. The key source of foreign aid came from English authorities who provided security to Hong Kong, but left the people of this place to sort out their own personal affairs in private markets.

West Germany rebuilt itself in a similar fashion. Marshall Plan aid consisted of only a tiny percentage of German GDP. Also, the money that West Germany paid in reparations offset Marshall Plan aid. West Germany received military defense from the U.S. and England, but paid substantial fees for this service. The German Economic Miracle began with a radical program of privatization and deregulation, beginning in 1948. This ended the regulatory controls and elaborate tax system imposed by Hitler and his National Socialists.

Japan also experienced great success due to a relative lack of governmental interference .. Low taxes and high savings rates translated into strong economic growth in postwar Japan. Once again, foreign aid and intervention were too small to have accounted for this success. Japan did not need massive intervention to recover, even though it lacked the natural resources that Iraq possesses in its oil fields.

.. General principles in economics tell us that these cases are the norm, rather than exceptions to some rule .. efforts to centrally plan government do not proceed on the basis of economic rationality .. The belief in an omniscient state optimally employing scarce resources is, as Mises wrote, false.

No seguimento de Um Plano Quinquenal para a mesa do canto, se faz favor…, The Marshall Plan Myth por Jeffrey Tucker:

The 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan provided another occasion for the media to celebrate the government’s good works. The U.S.’s headlong plunge into global welfarism (nearly $100 billion in current dollars), they said, saved European economies after the Second World War ..

.. the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a “beneficiary” of international charity.

The result was the largest peacetime transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to corporations until that point in U.S. history.

A year after the Marshall Plan began sucking private capital out of the economy, the U.S. fell into recession, precisely the opposite of what its proponents predicted. Meanwhile, the aid did not help Europe. What reconstructed Europe was the post-Marshall freeing up of controlled prices, keeping inflation in check, and curbing union power–that is, the free market. As even Hoffman admitted in his memoir, the aid did not in fact help the economies of Europe. The primary benefit was “psychological.” Expensive therapy, indeed.

The actual legacy of the Marshall Plan was a vast expansion of government at home, the beginnings of the Cold War rhetoric that would sustain the welfare-warfare state for 40 years, a permanent global troop presence, and an entire business class on the take from Washington. It also created a belief on the part of the ruling elite in D.C. that it could trick the public into backing anything, including the idea that government and its connected interest groups should run the world at taxpayer expense.

What Does Equality of Opportunity Mean?:

The left has transformed this traditional understanding of equal opportunity into one where it is not enough that people possess equal inherent rights and receive equal treatment before the law. People must all be given the same opportunities—no one may have more opportunities than someone else. Under this belief, when one is born in a city where some people have more opportunities than others, it is the duty of government to equalize them, by taking resources from the well-off and giving them to the less well-off.

Utilizing government to equalize groups contradicts the proposition that everyone is equal before the law and possesses equal rights: How can resources be directed toward those with less without implying that they’re different before the law and in the rights they possess?

This worldview by definition cannot ever be satisfied, because, short of socialism, there will always be individuals who own and command more resources than the rest.

Furthermore, equality of opportunity encompasses much more than mere economic condition. Consider natural athletic talent, intelligence, work ethic—are we going to handicap the most talented athletes, dumb down the most intelligent people, and restrain the hardest workers?

The debate about equality is not merely between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It’s also about the meaning of equality of opportunity. For the left, it means government must manufacture an equalized starting point in life. Short of socialism, this is impossible. Even so, an equal economic start would be no guarantor of equal opportunity, for that would also require controlling natural talents, abilities, and work ethics, which start on different levels. For the right, equal opportunity is about clearing obstacles and removing legal impediments to moving ahead in life. The difference explains why both sides can claim the mantle of equal opportunity yet be talking right past one another.

Dona Adelaide lamenta que 6 dias depois da vitória de Hollande, o passeio da rua ainda esteja por arranjar no Inimigo Público:

François Hollande, o novo Presidente da França, criou muitas expectativas com a sua vitória, mas já começa a desiludir muitas pessoas que apostaram tudo em ‘Monsieur Normal’.

“Com Hollande ia ser o fim da austeridade e não sei quê, mas eu não vejo nada. Cada vez é mais gandulagem aqui no bairro. Já liguei para os senhores da TDT e ainda não tenho sinal de televisão. 6 dias após a vitória do Hollande, o mau cheiro da ETAR continua, o meu mais novo continua desempregado e o meu marido continua à espera de um rim. Prometem e depois não cumprem. São todos iguais”, lamentou Dona Adelaide. JH

Sassetti — “Podem piratear os meus discos à vontade”:

Eu não ganho nada com os discos que edito. A verdade é que nunca ganhei. O que eu quero é manter a ambição de melhorar os projectos de ano para ano. O que eu gostava realmente era que as pessoas ouvissem a minha música, percebessem a música e percebessem o porquê da música. Percebessem o projecto e o desenvolvimento.

À vontade, copiem os meus discos. Pirateiem a minha música à vontade, mas oiçam-na. Eu prefiro que o façam, mas que oiçam, que tentem compreender, gostar, partilhar.

Europe’s nightmare has just begun:

The chart above comes from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Centre. It tells a different story to the popular narrative that European voters have tried and rejected austerity. In fact, they have hardly tried it at all, returning generally to 2008 levels of government spending. France has not cut at all, yet it has just elected the patron saint of mediocrity, Francois Hollande. Not that Sarkozy was much better. De Rugy comments:

First, I wish we would stop being surprised by what’s happening in Europe right now. Second, I wish anti-austerity critics would start acknowledging that taxes have gone up too–in most cases more than the spending has been cut. third, I wish that we would stop assuming that gigantic “savage” cuts are the source of the EU’s problems. Some spending cuts have been implemented in a few countries. Also, if this data were adjusted for inflation (which I would prefer but the data isn’t available) it would possibly show a slight decrease and certainly a flatter line for all countries. However, the overwhelming take away from the European experience is that a majority of governments haven’t really implemented spending cuts, large or small, and some have even continued to grow.

The Myth of Predatory Pricing:

The predatory pricing argument is very simple. The predatory firm first lowers its price until it is below the average cost of its competitors. The competitors must then lower their prices below average cost, thereby losing money on each unit sold. If they fail to cut their prices, they will lose virtually all of their market share; if they do cut their prices, they will eventually go bankrupt. After the competition has been forced out of the market, the predatory firm raises its price, compensating itself for the money it lost while it was engaged in predatory pricing, and earns monopoly profits forever after.

The theory of predatory pricing has always seemed to have a grain of truth to it–at least to noneconomists–but research over the past 35 years has shown that predatory pricing as a strategy for monopolizing an industry is irrational, that there has never been a single clear-cut example of a monopoly created by so-called predatory pricing, and that claims of predatory pricing are typically made by competitors who are either unwilling or unable to cut their own prices. Thus, legal restrictions on price cutting, in the name of combatting “predation,” are inevitably protectionist and anti-consumer ..

.. it seems plausible at first, the idea of predatory pricing lends itself to political demagoguery .. ideological anti-business pressure groups .. employ the predatory pricing tale in their efforts to discredit capitalism and promote greater governmental control of industry .. When prices go down, it can be relied on to issue a “study” claiming that the price reductions are part of a grand conspiracy to rid the market of all competitors. And when prices remain constant, price-fixing conspiracies are frequently alleged.

.. predatory pricing is a convenient weapon for businesses that do not want to match their competitors’ price cutting. Filing an antitrust lawsuit is a common alternative to competing by cutting prices or improving product quality, or both.

Finally, some economists still embrace the theory of predatory pricing. But their support for the notion is based entirely on highly stylized “models,” not on actual experience.

Ron Paul: “Central Bankers Are Intellectually Bankrupt”:

.. Central bankers neglect the fact that interest rates are prices. Manipulating those prices through credit expansion or contraction has real and deleterious effects on the economy. Yet while socialism and centralised economic planning have largely been rejected by free-market economists, the myth persists that central banks are a necessary component of market economies.

Printing unlimited amounts of money does not lead to unlimited prosperity .. This only sows the seeds for the next crisis ..

The Fed’s response to the crisis suggests that it believes the current crisis is a problem of liquidity. In fact it is a problem of poorly allocated investments caused by improper pricing of money and credit, pricing which is distorted by the Fed’s inflationary actions.

The Fed has made banks and corporations dependent on cheap money. Instead of looking for opportunities to invest in real products that will serve the needs of consumers, Wall Street awaits .. hoping that QE3 and QE4 are just around the corner. It is no wonder that long-term investment and business planning are stagnant.

.. Policy makers focus on spurring consumption, while ignoring production. The so-called capitalists have forgotten that capital cannot be created by government fiat.

.. True prosperity requires sound money, increased productivity, and increased savings and investment .. No amount of monetary expansion can solve our current financial problems, but it can make those problems much worse.

Inspirado no post “Em análise: Campanha Pingo Doce 50% desconto” do Paulo Morais,

Esta ação também está a ser interpretada como uma ação que favorece os portugueses, tendo em conta a situação atual do país (a adesão do consumidor fala por si). Basta ir ao Facebook do Pingo Doce para ver agradecimentos.

Excertos de testemunhos de consumidores agradecidos na página Facebook do Pingo Doce,

A todos os que por aqui desdenham desta iniciativa,e que enaltacem o dia dia do trabalhador,gostava que se lembrassem do MILHÃO de desempregados para quem esta iniciativa do PD vai fazer com que pelo menos o mês de Maio seja um pouco melhor.

eu estive lá! no PINGO DOCE em Valadares VNG! foi simplesmente bombástico! o meu bem haja ao PINGO DOCE e a todos os funcionários que estiveram a trabalhar! Obgda Senhor Jerónimo Martins!

fico muito feliz por saber que existem muitas famílias que podem dar este mês aos filhos aquilo que secalhar nao podem dar no resto do ano, e que têm um mês muito mais descansado ! porque a promoção apenas englobava bens essenciais!! secalhar as pessoas qe estão descontentes, sao pessoas que nunca passarao por dificuldades

Acho que como consumidora devo expressar a minha opinião e AGRADECER ao PINGO DOCE pela promoção que fez hoje, posso dizer que fiz as compras em pouco mais de 2h e poupei 90€ o que significa que ganhei 45€ por hora. Para além disso só comprei produtos essenciais, que me enchem a despensa e me dá para o mês todo.

eu achei a iniciativa do pingo doce mto nobre! as pessoas e q n sabem o q e viver em sociedade nem sequer sabem o civismo dai as confusoes q exitiram… pq se as pessoas soubessem o q e isso saberiam q chega para todos!!!! e os q falam mal!!! q nao gostaram da iniciativa e pq provavelmente n sabem o q e passar necessidade e nao saber o q fazer para n faltar comida a quem depende de nos!!

É verdade que Portugal é um país de pulhas socialistas que preferiam que esta gente vivesse com menos, mas também é um país de muito boa gente.

Homenagem a Keynes no aniversário da sua morte, e a todos os seus fiéis

How the Fed Favors The 1% por Mark Spitznagel:

A major issue in this year’s presidential campaign is the growing disparity between rich and poor, the 1% versus the 99% .. The source is not runaway entrepreneurial capitalism, which rewards those who best serve the consumer in product and price. (Would we really want it any other way?) There is another force that has turned a natural divide into a chasm: the Federal Reserve. The relentless expansion of credit by the Fed creates artificial disparities based on political privilege and economic power.

The Fed doesn’t expand the money supply by uniformly dropping cash from helicopters over the hapless masses. Rather, it directs capital transfers to the largest banks .., minimizes their borrowing costs, and lowers their reserve requirements. All of these actions result in immediate handouts to the financial elite first, with the hope that they will subsequently unleash this fresh capital onto the unsuspecting markets, raising demand and prices wherever they do.

The Fed, having gone on an unprecedented credit expansion spree, has benefited the recipients who were first in line at the trough: banks .. and those favored entities and individuals deemed most creditworthy. Flush with capital, these recipients have proceeded to bid up the prices of assets and resources, while everyone else has watched their purchasing power decline.

The Fed is transferring immense wealth from the middle class to the most affluent, from the least privileged to the most privileged. This coercive redistribution has been a far more egregious source of disparity than the president’s presumption of tax unfairness (if there is anything unfair about approximately half of a population paying zero income taxes) or deregulation.

Let’s give Polly Toynbee the Britain she wants por Tim Worstall:

.. We should copy the Finnish education system, for example – it is, after all, the number one such system in the world. There they divide into academic and vocational at 16 and there’s none of this nonsense that all must go to university – that’s reserved for the small fraction that are indeed academic. Or the Swedish system of education vouchers. Parents decide on the school they want children to go to and the local council stumps up the fees – whether it’s a public or private school.

From Denmark we’ll take a couple of policies. Privatise the ambulance and fire services certainly. They’ve been working well there for nigh on 90 years. We’d want their taxation system as well: the national income tax is 3.76% and the top national rate is 15%. True, total income taxes are high but the rest is levied by the commune, a political unit as small as 10,000 people ..

From all of them we’ll take the abolition of the national minimum wage, for none of the EU Nordics has one.
Sweden has also abolished inheritance tax, gift tax and the wealth tax. Those sound like three excellent ideas to copy.

We’ll also need to decentralise, even dismantle, the National Health Service, for none of the Nordics has anything like it. Instead, it’s local taxation paying for local care in all instances: a real postcode lottery.

So, yes, we really should do as Polly asks. Let’s make this a country she can be proud of. School vouchers and academic and vocational streaming. Privatised emergency services. Local, not national, taxation. Abolish the national minimum wage. Get rid of inheritance and gift taxes .. Finally, destroy the “national” part of the NHS. I’ll sign up to all of that. Thanks, Polly!

Via No Pasaran, Still the Least Racist Country in the World:

.. one thing needs to be stated as clearly and as often as possible: The United States is the least racist and least xenophobic country in the world. Foreigners of every race, ethnicity, and religion know this. Most Americans suspect this. Most black Americans and the entire left deny this.

Black Africans know this. That is why so many seek to live in the United States. Decades ago, the number of black Africans who had immigrated to the United States had already surpassed the number of black Africans who were forcibly shipped to America as slaves.

And members of other races and nationalities know this. Even Muslim and Arab writers have noted that nowhere in the Arab or larger Muslim world does an Arab or any other Muslim have the individual rights, liberty, and dignity that a Muslim living in America has. As for Latinos and Asians, vast numbers of them from El Salvador to Korea regard America as the land of opportunity.

And when any of these people come here – from anywhere, speaking any language, looking like a member of any race — they are accepted as Americans the moment they identify as such. He or she will be regarded as fully American. This is not true elsewhere. A third-generation Turkish-German, whose German is indistinguishable from the German spoken by an indigenous German, will still be regarded by most Germans as a Turk. The same holds true elsewhere in Europe.

On the other hand, a first-generation Turkish American, who speaks English with a heavy Turkish accent, but who identifies as American, will be regarded every bit as American as anyone else.

Apesar destas baboseiras, Sweden’s secret recipe — Advice from a successful – and tax-cutting – finance minister:

When Europe’s finance ministers meet for a group photo, it’s easy to spot the rebel — Anders Borg has a ponytail and earring. What actually marks him out, though, is how he responded to the crash. While most countries in Europe borrowed massively, Borg did not. Since becoming Sweden’s finance minister, his mission has been to pare back government. His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut. To critics, this was fiscal lunacy — the so-called ‘punk tax cutting’ agenda. Borg, on the other hand, thought lunacy meant repeating the economics of the 1970s and expecting a different result.

Three years on, it’s pretty clear who was right. ‘Look at Spain, Portugal or the UK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus,’ he says. ‘Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.’ Tax-cutting Sweden, by contrast, had the fastest growth in Europe last year, when it also celebrated the abolition of its deficit. The recovery started just in time for the 2010 Swedish election, in which the Conservatives were re-elected for the first time in history.

He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it; he even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden ..

What even Borg did not expect was that his tax cut for the low-paid would increase economic growth so much that it has almost entirely paid for itself. Borg had created something that Osborne’s critics say does not exist: a self-financing tax cut. ‘There was some criticism at the time that we were borrowing to finance tax cuts,’ he says. But Sweden could do it, because it was expecting to return to surplus soon; Britain has no such luxury, he says. His main advice to Osborne is: ‘Keep on dealing with the deficit, because deficits destroy everything else.’

If Politicians’ Honesty Set the Standard for Others, um grande post de Robert Higgs aqui reproduzido na íntegra:

• If engineers were no more honest than the typical politician, all of the bridges would fall down.
• If accountants were no more honest than the typical politician, every firm would go bankrupt.
• If merchants were no more honest than the typical politician, Paris would not get fed; nor would any other city.
• If preachers were no more honest than the typical politician, everyone who took their sermons to heart would go straight to hell.
• If physicians were no more honest than the typical politician, all of the patients would die.
• If carpenters were no more honest than the typical politician, every house would collapse.
• If spouses were no more honest than the typical politician, every marriage would be on the rocks.
• If used car dealers were no more honest than the typical politician, no one would risk buying a used car.
• If electricians were no more honest than the typical politician, we would all be electrocuted.
• If soldiers were no more honest than the typical politician, both sides would lose every battle.
• And so forth.

So, the questions naturally arise: Why does anyone place any confidence in anything a politician says? Why does anyone expect anything but deception and predation from these dishonest reprobates? Why does anyone seek social improvement or economic salvation from the programs these ne’er-do-wells devise and implement? Why, indeed, do people continue to tolerate politics at all?

(This last question presupposes, of course, that those who wish to use the political process to commit a de facto crime—that is, an act that, if committed privately, would be seen as plainly criminal—will be entirely in favor of politics because using the government as their agent-perpetrator offers a way to legalize their crimes. My question pertains to the noncriminal element of the population.)

Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models:

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

The Right Stuff: what the NASA astronauts say about global warming:

ADENDA – aqui está, para quem quiser consultar as assinaturas

Tabaqueando o assunto de João Campos no Delito de Opinião:

Isto é mais do que vergonhoso – é merecedor de bengaladas no lombo. Para entrar no espírito da lei de Godwin, é uma medida absolutamente nazi, bem dentro do espírito nazi-higienista que anima os cinzentos burocratas do presente. Em bom português, puta que os pariu a todos.

1. Acabar com as máquinas automáticas de venda de tabaco. Disparate – .. Se é possível comprar haxixe em plena Rua Augusta durante a tarde, não há-de ser muito difícil comprar um volume de Marlboro algures ..

2. Estabelecer a proibição de fumar à porta de restaurantes, bares e cafés ..

3. Acabar com o regime misto actualmente em vigor (o proprietário decide) ..

E mercê de mais uma lei estúpida e estuprante, vamos ter os chuis a importunar e intimidar gente na rua, chibos a denunciar o que passa na porta ao lado, a ASAE qual ratazanas da PIDE a farejar bares e restaurantes, ou qual paramilitares das SS a fechá-los; e o Governo supostamente de “centro”-”direita” a vangloriar-se de estatísticas de “progresso”. Nojeira.

Why CAGW theory is not “settled science”:

The sad thing about the Great Climate Debate is that so far, there hasn’t really been a debate. The result is presented, but no one ever takes questions from the podium and is capable of defending their answers against a knowledgeable and skeptical questioner.

In the end, nobody really knows the global average temperature of the Earth’s surface in 2011 within less than around 1K. If anybody claims to, they are full of shit. Perhaps — and a big perhaps it is — they know it more precisely than this relative to a scheme that is used to compute it from global data that is at least consistent and not crazy — but it isn’t even clear that we can define the global average temperature in a way that really makes sense and that different instruments will measure the same way. It is also absolutely incredibly unlikely that our current measurements would in any meaningful way correspond to what the instrumentation of the 18th and 19th century measured and that is turned into global average temperatures, not within more than a degree or two.

Look, here’s how you can tell — to get back to your question. You compare the predictions of their “catastrophic” theory five, ten, twenty years back to the actual data. If there is good agreement, it is at least possible that they are correct. The greater the deviation between observed reality and their predictions, the more likely it is that their result is at least incorrect if not actual bullshit. That’s all. Accurately predicting the future isn’t proof that they are right, but failing to predict it is pretty strong evidence that they are wrong.

Such a comparison fails. It actually fails way back in the twentieth century, where it fails to predict or explain the cooling from 1945 to roughly 1965-1970. It fails to predict the little ice age. It fails to predict the medieval climate optimum, or the other periods in the last 10,000 years where the proxy record seems to indicate that the world was as warm or warmer than it is today ..

Well, I have other objections as well — open up the debate, acknowledge the uncertainties, welcome contradictory theories, stop believing in a set of theoretical results as if climate science is some sort of religion… but we can start with shit-canning the IPCC and the entire complex arrangement of “remedies” to a problem that may well be completely ignorable and utterly destined to take care of itself long before it ever becomes a real problem.

Na continuação de Fernando “Nanny” Leal da Costa, obviamente algo que escapará a um funcionário sem princípios liberais:

Para quem tiver o tempo/pachorra, uma excelente aula por Peter Schiff:

During a lecture entitled “The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story”, Schiff responded to Bernake’s recent four-part college lecture series, rebutting many of the Federal Reserve Chairman’s claims about the cause of the housing crisis, the role of the Federal Reserve, the value of the gold standard, and more.

Politics Makes Us Worse:

.. much of this hatred of our fellow citizens flows from vanishingly small policy differences .. The two parties have very little to distinguish them in the policies they actual pursue when in power .. This lack of significant distinction makes our extreme partisanship and in-group/out-group grandstanding even more destructive and degrading.

Outside of politics, we typically avoid forming strong opinions about topics we remain ignorant of. Yet .. the outcome of the political process–as well as what becomes part of the political process–matters in our daily lives. The decisions political actors (voters, legislators, regulators) make impact us .. the more decisions that become political decisions, the more cause we have to care–and the more invested we become in outcomes, giving us even more reason to despise those who might advocate outcomes that (we think) are harmful to us.

.. I can’t for the life of me fathom why so many seek to expand the sphere of politics, to grant it more power over our lives. Politics gives others authority over us. It raises the stakes of decisions. When healthcare remains a private issue, the fact that my neighbor holds different views than I do about what’s healthy and what isn’t impacts me very little. But when the healthcare I get becomes a matter of his vote against mine, I have every reason to become emotionally involved–even if I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about.

If you think the political debate is rancorous now, just imagine what it’ll be like when it determines even more of our lives.

Seen from this perspective, the libertarian vision is not to have our particular politics win out. Instead it is to do away with politics, to limit the reach of the state to the minimum necessary to allow everyone, in a culture awash in pluralism, to live the sort of lives they cherish. The libertarian dream is to reduce politics to something so minor that it isn’t worth investing in. As libertarians we care about politics precisely so that, we hope, some day we can turn our attention to more valuable things.