Who needs war and crime?

The military and the police of course. Bureau budgets must always be maintained and expanded.

"Legitimacy and need are problems for the military and police, particularly if 'peace' breaks out, and if crime declines. More generally, if social order overtakes social disorder in public perceptions, the military and police become less important. This poses an organizational challenge that has been partially solved by the mass media and popular culture myth-generating machine..."

David L. Altheide, Creating Fear: News and the Construction of Crisis, pp. 153-154.

Review: Unstoppable Global Warming

I am reading Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. I'm only two-thirds done, and this book has already so thoroughly demolished the theory of man-made global warming that there is nothing left of it, not even ash.

This was a little surprising, given the amount of hype and political action around this topic, but when you consider that massive political power and state-funded academic research jobs are at stake, not to mention a great media-headline generator, the true fuel behind this theory comes into focus.

So how about that demolition to sub-ash? What's in the book that can overturn most people's conventional wisdom?

This is not just a book, but a massive review of the scientific literature, citing hundreds of studies from all over the world. And while the emphasis is squarely on the science, it also presents some evidence as to the structure and motivations behind the fear-mongering and power issues underpinning this topic.

For example, it presents some strong evidence of intentional, or at least criminally negligent, presentations of data in some key studies and official reports, especially UN reports on climate change, that are then happily splashed across headlines to sell media. There is even evidence of political editing of key UN reports--after the scientists have signed off on them--that fundamentally change the findings.

My executive summary so far is that:

1) There is a long-term climate cycle that we are in the upswing of. It has been happening about every 1,500 years for at least the past hundreds of thousands of years, and causally is utterly independent of the results of human activity, most likely being fueled by a solar output cycle.

2) Many surface temperature readings that show greater warming are flawed due to changes in the environments around the temperature recording stations, mainly urbanization.

3) Climate modeling using supercomputers is incredibly flawed and the results cannot be trusted. In some cases, there is circumstantial reason to believe that key studies supporting the man-made global warming hypothesis are based on flawed data and careful selection of only that data that supports the hypothesis and ignoring of massive data that doesn't.

4) Hard measures of temperature change that are reliable, including satellite data, tree ring studies, ice core studies, and studies of the movement of tree lines up and down mountainsides show compelling evidence from all over the world that supports the 1,500 year cycle hypothesis, and either does not support, or contradicts, the man-made climate change hypothesis.

5) The data indicate that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been correlated with changes in temperature, but it follows such changes rather than causing them, and does so with a lag of several centuries.

6) Oceans are not going to flood, islands are not going to sink, and species are not going extinct as a result of human carbon emissions.

7) Anyway, warmer climates are better for most life forms, for food production, and for reducing the incidence of violent storms, compared to periods of cooling.

This book for me ties back into the key issue of the use of fear and the control of education to generate, maintain, and grow the political power of the state. This is a pure power grab for the state, implemented with the help of some of its pet intellectuals, who almost invariably receive massive state funding for their activities, and pet media friends.

One of my next reads on this broader topic: Creating Fear: News and the Construction of Crisis

Prices should be falling

The long-term price level should be falling due to productivity growth. The fiat money monopolists' grand concern about how far inflation is above zero is silly. Keeping the price level flat is still a massive form of theft out of the pockets of every net positive holder of the state-mandated currency (other than some of the first recipients of new infusions). This is because the price level not only should not be rising, it should not be flat either. Indeed, it should be falling, as it did in terms of gold before the replacement of real money with paper monopoly tickets issued by state cronies.

The creation and near universal spread of the image that as long as inflation is not too far above zero, everything is fine, is a massive delusion, which masks a truly mind-boggling embezzlement racket. Even if central banks did manage zero inflation, the fact that prices were not falling with ongoing economic progress would indicate the ongoing degree of currency depreciation relative to the progress of the real economy.

What is "currency depreciation?" In the case of fiat money systems, it is embezzlement of the savings of every single person all the time everywhere. Rather than steal particular pieces of money, treasuries, central banks, and their cronies steal portions of the value of all the money that exists (leaving it all where it is in cash and deposits), and divert it into their very own newly printed notes and newly infused magical deposit credits for Wall Street. No mere private bandit could ever dream of running and maintaining such a crime syndicate.

What's the defense? A couple of possibilities. Own tangible assets (buildings, metals) and minimize holdings of fiat currency. Another—commonly adopted in the US, but not necessarily recommended—is to be in debt. Currency depreciation harms those with positive net cash and benefits those with negative net cash (the devaluation of a negative creates a double-negative and therefore a positive). No wonder there are so many in debt. Saving in fiat money is punished.

The gutting of economics as an anti-state force by fear of offending the powers

The corruption of the academic world by state influence becomes more palpable the more one opens ones eyes to it. Why has economics, the most potent potential political force in history, become to most people an incomprehensible and seemingly pointless exercise, or the mysterious incantations of an anointed priesthood conversing with one another in their own secret language?

The following quotes from a recent biography of economist Ludwig Von Mises shed light on this question and also helped me more clearly understand why I chose not to continue in the academic economics track in the early 90s, and not to enter graduate school, but instead to continue studying on my own.

Even as an undergraduate, I was politely "guided" toward "more practical" directions than my study of classic treatises in Austrian economics in the Mengerian tradition onward, a discipline that is eminently comprehensible and offers clear policy prescriptions. Fortunately, the college culture was "free thinking" enough that I was able to continue on my course and still complete my degree (that's why I had chosen the college to begin with, in fact).

The discussion below is about the 1920s (emphasis mine).

"Because of this ostracism of genuine economists, those who held (or hoped to hold) academic positions in political economy became eager to avoid any behavior that could offend the powers that be. The most innocent strategy was to understate one's findings when they risked upsetting certain powerful social groups."

"In a similar vein, an increasing number of young economists turned their attention to abstract and technical problems that did not have any political implications unwelcome to their employers. This helps explain the success of mathematical economics, econometrics, Keynesian economics, and game theory after WWII."

"The transformation of economics into a self-absorbed technical discipline made it politically toothless. A mere 'theory' based on fictitious stipulations and therefore without scientifically valid implications for public policy was no threat to vested interests, and the champions of this theory did not have to fear reprisals. Clearly, this state of affairs suited the majority in the economics profession, both employers and employees. But it was disastrous for science, human liberty, and economic progress."

Hülsmann (2007), Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, pp. 549-552.

The intellectual disease, and part of the inoculation

These quotes are by historian/biographers I have been reading on their respective subjects. The contrast is one of intellectual honesty, and the first contestant, Honest Abe, does not fare well, which is why his state-worshiping groupies have since felt the need to call him "honest." The second quote refers to economist Ludwig von Mises.

"What all this suggests is that the Hamilton/Clay/Lincoln agenda of government subsidies for road building and railroad corporations was wildly unpopular throughout the nation and had been an abysmal failure in every instance. None of these experiences seem to have phased Lincoln, however, for he continued to promote even bigger and more grandiose internal improvement projects throughout his political career."

DiLorenzo, T. J. (2003). The real Lincoln : a new look at Abraham Lincoln, his agenda, and an unnecessary war. New York :, Three Rivers Press, p. 83

"It is above all the story of a man who transformed himself in an uncompromising pursuit of the truth, of a man who adopted his ideas step by step, often against his initial inclinations."

—Hülsmann, J. G. (2007). Mises: The last knight of liberalism. Auburn, Ludwig von Mises Institute, p. xii.

Avoid and scurry: FactChecker's Ron Paul smear distracts from the real issues

The February 12, 2008 FactCheck.org article on Ron Paul by Joe Miller, entitled "Wrong Paul," given prominent link placement on Newsweek online, demonstrates the extent to which the mainstream media is desperate to avoid any discussion of Paul's actual message. Miller felt compelled to write an article on Paul, but in doing so, apparently had to struggle valiantly to find evidence of concepts and claims he thought suitable for belittling, while ignoring entirely the core messages of the campaign, along with most of the details behind the core messages. Avoid and scurry.

Whatever the validity of the claims in the article, it misses the entire forest and most of the trees to examine bug legs on the forest floor for signs of dirt. This calls into question for me the level of intellectual honesty involved in the creation of such a piece of writing.

I have yet to investigate some of the claims, though regarding the most substantive-looking one, I read some time ago the original article by Robert Higgs restating the actual annual impact of total defense spending upward to nearly $1trn, and found it convincing. For an excellent case study, read Higg's article, and then read Miller's account of it, and see which you find more informative.

Interestingly enough, Higgs is an economist and historian who is the leading expert on the history and mechanisms of government growth through crises, including wars. I suppose Miller did not realize this when he failed to mention even the name of Robert Higgs, let alone his expertise on the topic at hand. An odd move indeed for a "fact-checker."

While Miller discounts the idea of including, for example, the Department of Homeland Security, under "defense" spending, Higgs writes, "Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, many observers probably would agree that its budget ought to be included in any complete accounting of defense costs. After all, the homeland is what most of us want the government to defend in the first place."

And of course a share of interest on the national debt proportional to historical spending on "defense" versus other government spending should be included in the total cost of "defense" spending. What's the alternative to that? Imagine a company that claims to be doing well, but conveniently omits from its accounts the impact of massive amounts of money it borrowed to set up and run its business. Or imagine a guy who claims to have a healthy net worth, but who conveniently fails to include his massive credit card debts on his self-deceptive balance sheet, and the associated interest payments. That's fraud.

Miller's article with its prominent Newsweek placement, symbolizes for me a lack of willingness in the mainstream media to engage in or report on content-based discussion of the real issues, and a strong preference for anything that can distract from the content. Could the author instead dare to actually state the main issues Paul's campaign represents, the claims he makes about war, fiat money, bloated taxation, and the mechanisms by which the state expands and intrudes by amplifying and leveraging fear in the populace? If countering and critique are the author's aim, could he try to counter core claims rather than peripheral claims? Counter them with better content, by locating and reporting on better understandings of the core issues? Those core issues are barely acknowledged, let alone addressed.

Judging from comparisons such as between Higg's original article and the quality of Miller's take on it, perhaps such content-based capabilities are lacking. That would explain why one might resort to raising as many distractions as possible to the content with which one is unable to deal, to ignore and deflect the real issues the Paul campaign raises. These ignored issues are the same ones that are not supposed to be raised too clearly into public awareness (such as by gracing the pages of Newsweek in an honest, recognizable form), else too many people might start thinking about them, investigating, learning, and finally...understanding.

That is scary stuff for entrenched special interests of all kinds. Watch them scurry.