5 of the Worst Economic Predictions in History

From FEE.org:

Uncertainty makes human beings uncomfortable. Not knowing what’s going to happen in the future creates a sense of unrest in many people. That’s why we sometimes draw on predictions made by leading experts in their respective fields to make decisions in our daily lives. Unfortunately, history has shown that experts aren’t often much better than the average person when it comes to forecasting the future. And economists aren’t an exception. Here are five economic predictions that never came true.

1. Irving Fisher Predicting a Stock Market Boom—Right Before the Crash of 1929

Irving Fisher was one of the great economists of the first half of the 20th century. His contributions to economic science are varied: the relationship between inflation and interest rates, the use of price indexes or the restatement of the quantity theory of money are some of them. Yet he is sometimes remembered by an unfortunate statement he made in the days prior to the Crash of 1929. Fisher said that “stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau (…) I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months." A few days later, the stock market crashed with devastating consequences. After all, even geniuses aren’t exempt from making mistakes.

2. Paul Ehrlich on the Looming "Population Bomb"

In 1968, biologist Paul Ehrlich published a book where he argued that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the following decades as a result of overpopulation. He went as far as far as to say that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over (…) nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.” Of course, Ehrlich’s predictions never came true. Since the publication of the book, the death rate has moved from 12.44 permille in 1968 to 7.65 permille in 2016, and undernourishment has declined dramatically even though the population has doubled since 1950. Seldom in history has someone been so wrong about the future of humankind.

3. The 1990s Great Depression that Never Happened

Economist Ravi Batra reached the number one on The New York Times Best Seller List in 1987 thanks to his book The Great Depression of 1990. From the title, one can easily infer what was the main thesis of the book, namely: An economic crisis is imminent, and it will be a tough one. Fortunately, his prediction failed to come true. In fact, the 1990s was a period of relative stability and strong economic growth, with the US stock market growing at an 18 percent annualized rate. Not so bad for an economic depression, right? [read more]

The other two wrong predictions:

4. Alan Greenspan on Interest Rates

5. Peter Schiff and the End of the World

Don’t always believe the experts. Everyone can be wrong even them.

Professor: Here are the 3 most destructive ideas colleges are teaching students today

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 17):

Jonathan Haidt, a professor at New York University and co-author of “The Coddling of the American Mind,” joined Glenn on Monday’s episode of “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” to discuss how good intentions have led to bad ideas, which are setting up younger generations for failure.

Haidt and co-author Greg Lukianoff observed “strange things” happening on college campuses around 2016, such as speakers being shouted down for having different points of view or the idea that students need a warning before they read a Greek myth or a book that contains any violence.

“They were catastrophizing. ‘Oh, if a speaker comes to campus, people will die.’ This is disordered thinking,” Haidt explained. “Colleges are somehow conveying these ideas that are really, really bad for students and students are taking them to heart and thinking themselves into a depression.”

Haidt went on to list the three most destructive ideas that are being propagated on college campuses.

1. The idea that what doesn’t kill you, makes you weaker.
2. Always trust your feelings.
3. Life is a battle between good people and evil people.

To convince students of all three is to set them up for a life of weakness, complaint, grievance and failure, Haidt concluded. [read more]

College students these days are getting infantilized.

Trump administration will close the Palestine Liberation Organization office in DC

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 10):

The Trump administration announced Monday that it will close the main office for the Palestine Liberation Organization in Washington, D.C.

…………….

What happened Monday?

The Trump administration gave official notice to the PLO that it would be closing their office in Washington, D.C. National security adviser John Bolton said that the decision had been influenced by the PLO’s lack of cooperation on the peace process in the Middle East.

“The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel,” Bolton said on Monday. “The Trump administration will not keep the office open when the Palestinians refuse to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel.”

……………

What else?

This follows the State Department announcing in August that it would cut more than $200 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinian authority. The State Department cut the funds after it conducted a review and decided that the funds were not being spent “in accordance with U.S. national interests and provide value to the U.S. taxpayer.”  [read more]

It’s about time. PLO is just a terrorist organization.

The Future of A.I. Cannot be Centrally Planned

Commentary by Tom Worstall on FEE.org:

Quite the most amusing part of the current debate about Artificial Intelligence is the manner in which we are recapitulating two of the big mistakes of the 20th century. These are the Socialist Calculation delusion and what we might call the New Soviet Man delusion.

Alchemical AI and the Knowledge Problem

An example of the Socialist Calculation fallacy comes to us most vocally from Ali Rahimi, who argues that AIs are being built by alchemy rather than science. In this version of events, the machines are just bodge jobs, processing lots of data to see what fits. As he says, “I would like to live in a society whose systems are built on top of verifiable, rigorous, thorough knowledge, and not on alchemy.”

This sounds reasonable enough in some contexts; after all, I’ve always preferred my nuclear plants to be built by those who know what they’re doing. It’s a less salient critique when it comes to societies and economies, however—as Hayek and Mises famously pointed out, some things are just too complex for us to be able to grasp in such a thorough manner.

Indeed, throughout a developed economy we used bodge jobs of processed data without quite grasping the detailed processes at work. We don’t know how many apples will be eaten next year so we leave it to market processes. As Hayek insisted, these are the only computing engine we have capable of doing the data processing to produce useful information.

…………….

As the Guardian quite rightly asks, who could have known that the 19th-century switch from whale oil to kerosene would ultimately lead to the development of plastics? And what plan started in 1880 would have given us a world either with or without plastics? None, clearly, for no one even knew of the possibility. The same is true when we try to work out what effects AI will have in decades to come—in both cases, total ignorance is not a good basis for crafting a plan.

Homo Sovieticus Does Not Exist

The other error is what I would call the New Soviet Man problem. This describes the idea that while the joys of socialism didn’t suit actual human beings too well, Soviet government would eventually create a whole new kind of human who would absolutely love it. Of course, homo sovieticus never did quite materialize.

This brings us to another common argument about AI—that it should not incorporate the things we know about actual human beings.

For example, we know that some to many humans are racist, misogynist, greedy, and short-termist. AI, too, can pick up those foibles, and can definitely show what we would call prejudice.

Insisting they do not is to miss the point entirely. The only possible use of AIs is to provide us with knowledge about the world we live in, knowledge we cannot derive purely from logic but which can only be gained through data processing.

After all, the world is full of deeply prejudiced human beings. An AI which didn’t account for that would have little value in describing our world. That’s why we should not just want, but must absolutely insist that AIs do incorporate our errors.

The New Soviet Man mistake would be to try to design AIs for a world free of humans with all their messy, illogical behavior. It is also, of course, an argument against the various alternatives to free-market capitalism. Sure, if humans didn’t respond to incentives then a rigidly enforced equality of outcome might work just fine. In the real world, incentives are important and any system which doesn’t allow for a degree of inequality arising from application or effort isn’t going to work. The AI mistake is subtly different but based upon the same underlying error. [read more]

7 of Pelosi’s Priorities as Democrats Take Back the House

From The Daily Signal.com (Nov. 7):

Democrats’ success Tuesday in retaking the House majority appeared to put Nancy Pelosi of California at the top of a short list for the speakership.

Pelosi has listed top priorities she hoped to tackle with a new Democratic House majority next year, in addition to what Republicans expect to be attempts to roll back last year’s GOP tax reform package, block planned new tax cuts for the middle class, and resist more cuts in government spending.

…………….

Here’s a look at what Americans might expect if Pelosi, who was House speaker from 2007 through 2010, regains the top leadership post:

1. More Investigations of Trump

Democrats will have the power to conduct congressional oversight when they take over the House in January, opening the door to a wide range of investigations of President Donald Trump’s administration.

………………

2. Campaign Finance Reform

Pelosi also made it clear to the Harvard students that campaign finance reform was at the top of Democrats’ agenda.

In an interview with Politico, she said a campaign finance reform package would be the first bill proposed in a new Democrat-controlled Congress.

“People believe you that if you want to reduce the goal of money in politics … then they trust you to do the right thing,” Pelosi said in the interview.

The package could include a ban on gerrymandering of congressional districts, expanded mandates to disclose political donors, and restoration of select enforcement provisions in the Voting Rights Act, The New York Times reported.

3. More LGBT Protections

…………….

4. Legal Status for ‘Dreamers,’ No Border Wall

While Trump and congressional Republicans ran on a platform that promoted stricter immigration laws and enhanced border security, Democrats focused their immigration message on protecting immigrants brought here illegally as children (so-called Dreamers) and fervently opposing a border wall.

Democrats downplayed the importance of the “caravan” of more than 5,000 persons from Central American countries, according to most estimates, that is headed for the U.S.-Mexican border.

…………

5. Push for New Gun Laws

Pelosi has been at the center of the gun debate for much of the past decade, pushing for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of every major shooting.

…………

6. Changes to Obamacare

Pelosi has said to expect measures from Democrats to lower health care and prescription drug costs, already a much-publicized priority of the Trump administration.

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have said that if they controlled the House they would seek to improve the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, rather than replace it.

………………

7. More Infrastructure Spending

Democrats and Republicans alike have pledged to pass legislation to repair the nation’s infrastructure, and Pelosi has highlighted infrastructure as an area ripe for bipartisanship in the now-divided government.

The difference between the two parties on the issue, however, is a common point of contention between Democrats and Republicans, including how much to spend.

Democrats have prepared more liberal approaches, proposing detailed plans in a $1 trillion infrastructure package resisted by Republicans who are concerned about federal spending and looming deficits.  [read more]

In other words, the same old boring platform. What no less gov’t or lowering taxes? Oh, wait they want to raise taxes. I forget. Campaign finance reform to the Dems mean making it harder for their enemies to campaign and raise money.

Killer robot TERROR: UK and US warned AI brains can be 'radicalised' for MASS MURDER

From The Daily Star (Sept. 9):

US and UK manufacturers have been told future robot minds are capable of mass murder.

The warning comes after a Campaign to Stop Killer Robots report said autonomous machines used for warfare are poised for mass production.

But computer engineer Subhash Kak said machines this advanced in future could be radicalised like the human mind.

The Oklahoma University lecturer told Daily Star Online: "Given the level of current technology, the danger of self-radicalisation does not exist at this moment.

"On the other hand, malfunctioning robot brains may produce behavior like that of radicalized humans.

"The appeal to self-radicalized youths by leaders of extremist religious groups, that has led to many terror incidents in the UK in recent years, is like the use of self-radicalized robot minds.

"There could be a bug in the code." [read more]

Could be a topic of concern. Extremist religious groups? Sounds like Islamists too me. I don’t believe the article is talking about extreme Quakers or Methodists.

Why Is the Nanny State so Popular?

From FEE.org (Aug. 8):

Bans on plastic straws, soda taxes, bans on diesel cars, the crackdown on smoking, restrictions on alcohol consumption: the list of restrictions on people's personal freedoms is steadily increasing. But why is the Nanny State so popular?

………

The theory of the brainwashed consumer

The idea that the consumer needs a centralized authority telling him or her how to behave, derives from the fundamental idea that he or she is inept at making rational decisions. It is interesting to see how the topic is addressed, in the example of restrictions on marketing for products: parents are seen as influenced by their own children, who themselves have been brainwashed by companies. As marketing becomes synonymous with manipulation, manipulated consumers need someone to protect them.

The basic flaw is a misunderstanding between "manipulation" and "marketing", two words which are not pointing to the same type of strategy. Governments seem to believe that all types of advertising mislead consumers about the product, when this is actually a more exceptional case. When Volkswagen manipulated their vehicles in order to show a lower emissions output, they were giving consumers false information about their product.

………….

But the idea of consumer protection remains important for governments because consumers have been taught to perceive themselves as victims. For this purpose, multiple European countries already have ministries for consumer protection. Much like the Ministry of Truth, it's a question of who gets to decide how the consumer is really protected, instead of letting that decision up to the individual.

The Nanny State is popular because people have lost trust in their own abilities to make their own decisions for themselves, not because they have actually lost them. Governments feed on the idea of the irresponsible individual, because confident consumers won't accept the mere existence of paternalism. If we want to defeat the Nanny State, we need not only oppose the individual policies that governments introduce, we also need to empower individuals to believe in their ability to act as responsible individuals. [read more]

It’s true that consumers don’t act responsibility sometimes. But consumers don’t need over-regulation because the powers-that-be don’t act responsible either and make stupid laws. Which is worse? An individual consumer making a bad decision or a gov’t leader(s) with power making a bad law (Obamacare for instance) that could potentially effect every citizen?

What’s not stated in the article is that the elitist Left believe they don’t make mistakes—that they are perfect. Therefore they make laws they deem are “good” for everyone else except themselves. They aren’t the brainwashed after all. They’re the brainwasher. (Just joking! I think…)

New Voter Fraud Cases Show Need to Secure Our Elections

From The Daily Signal.com (Oct. 31):

If Americans cannot say with certainty that their votes will be counted, that the process is free of fraud, and the outcome is valid, what incentive do they have to turn out in the first place?

Unfortunately, the latest news on the election integrity front is less than inspiring.

In August, the Justice Department announced it was prosecuting 19 foreign nationals for illegally voting in North Carolina—some of them in multiple elections. Those prosecutions are ongoing.

A month later, Californians learned—just weeks before a tremendously consequential election—that a “processing error” had led to 1,500 people being improperly registered to vote in their state, including at least one noncitizen.

Unbelievably, this is only the latest in a series of snafus that have plagued the state’s new “motor voter” law. Earlier this year, the state Department of Motor Vehicles botched 23,000 registrations and double-registered potentially tens of thousands more.

Just this week, The Heritage Foundation has added 20 new cases to its online election-fraud database, which now documents 1,165 proven cases of election fraud spanning 47 states. And 1,011 of these cases resulted in criminal convictions.

The new entries run the election fraud gamut, but voters heading to the polls may find one from Philadelphia particularly disturbing.

The members of the election board responsible for administering polling station 43-7 during a March 2017 special election abused their authority to deny voters an opportunity to freely cast their ballots.

According to Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Calvin Mattox, Wallace Hill, Thurman George, and Dolores Shaw employed “harassment and intimidation against voters who wanted to vote for candidates of their choice—but not the candidate being pushed by the city’s Democratic Party machine.” [read more]

The cases above are far more damaging to the election process than any foreign country’s meddling. Although, that is bad too.

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

Commentary from Perry Bacon Jr. on Five Thirty Eight.com (July 18, 2017):

The various investigations into the Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russia are hard to follow. The allegations are sometimes muddled, the probes are still ongoing, and all sides in the dispute are leaking information that favors their points of view. These stories are also hard to follow because few officials are willing to put their names behind their claims and comments, leading to a stream of stories rife with unnamed sources. What’s a reader to do?

………………….

1. Multiple sources add up. When an outlet says “six White House officials” or “seven Department of Justice officials,” it’s providing a level of precision that makes me more likely to trust the story. This does not necessarily mean that the story is correct. But it does suggest it was thoroughly reported. A recent New York Times story, for example, described something top White House adviser Jared Kushner was saying in private meetings, according to “six West Wing aides.” Six people are less likely to be wrong than one — and this also indicates that the reporter was cautious and diligent enough to seek confirmation with more than one person.

2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious. Trust a source who says something happened; distrust a source who says something might happen.

………………

I’m more dubious of stories that claim insider knowledge about future events, for three reasons. First, they are almost impossible to disprove in any way.  …..A second concern, related to the first, is that the nebulous nature of these speculative stories creates an incentive for reporters to write them. …..Thirdly, sources have an incentive to encourage these kinds of speculative stories. If you are someone in the White House who does not like Priebus or you want to take his job, anonymously leaking that Trump is considering replacing Priebus is a great tactic.

…………….

3. Specifics matter. What information does the story give you about its sources? The more, the better.

…………..

4. Consider the outlet and the reporters. If, say, Nate Silver, Harry Enten and I co-write a story with unnamed sources about Hillary Clinton’s campaign decisions in 2016, there are reasons for readers to trust that story. All three of us have long records covering electoral politics. If the three of us wrote an article claiming that Kushner had a secret meeting with a Russian oligarch, full of unnamed sources, you should be more skeptical, since we are not regularly breaking news about Kushner’s activities.

……………..

5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate. Another thing to make you trust a story: When an official spokesperson offers a “denial” that really isn’t a denial. [read more]

Interesting, good advice.

The Good Intentions Fallacy Is Driving Support for Democratic Socialism

From FEE.org:

When doctors of the ailing George Washington bled him, they were motivated by good intentions; and their unscientific medical practice arguably hastened Washington’s death.

Politicians who trust their seat-of-the-pants good intentions inevitably become authoritarians. They are relying on the limits of their error-prone minds and not on proven principles that promote human flourishing.

Those who rely on their good intentions to guide their actions are arrogant rather than humble. They have little respect or understanding for, as Hayek put it in his essay “Individualism: True or False,” the “spontaneous collaboration of free men [that] often creates things which are greater than their individual minds can ever fully comprehend.”

When Hugo Chavez, the father of Venezuela’s nightmare, passed in 2013, President Carter praised Chavez’s bold leadership saying, "We came to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized.”

Professor Owen Williamson of the University of Texas at El Paso might say President Carter had fallen victim to the logical fallacy, The Argument from Motives: “Falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator's apparent purity of motives or lack of malice.”

In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman argued that there were two threats to freedom, external and internal. In 1962, Friedman pointed to the Soviet Union as an external threat. Seeing an internal danger, Friedman argued, is more difficult because it is “far more subtle”:

It is the internal threat coming from men of good intentions and good will who wish to reform us. Impatient with the slowness of persuasion and example to achieve the great social changes they envision, they are anxious to use the power of the state to achieve their ends and confident of their own ability to do so. Yet if they gained the power, they would fail to achieve their immediate aims and, in addition, would produce a collective state from which they would recoil in horror and of which they would be among the first victims.

That "concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it” has become among Friedman’s most famous ideas. His warning is ignored today by those believing the “good intentions” of politicians, such as Bernie Sanders or congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, will render their destructive policies harmless.  [read more]

Dick Morris: Clinton’s Ties to the Uranium Scandal Continue To Grow

From Western Journal.com (Sept. 1):

Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager John Podesta (and his former partner in their lobbying business), was paid $180,000 by the Russian-owned company Uranium One to push for Clinton’s approval of its acquisition of 20 percent of the U.S. uranium mines, a project near and dear to Vladimir Putin’s heart.

So let’s detail Moscow’s efforts to get the Clintons to approve the uranium acquisition:

1. The Russians paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech in Russia a few weeks before Hillary Clinton had to vote on the acquisition.

2. Moscow directed ten spies in America to infiltrate Clinton’s political apparatus to push her to back the uranium deal. The operations of these spies, disguised as Americans, are the theme of the TV drama The Americans.

3. Tony Podesta was paid $180,000 by Uranium One to push for the deal.

4. The New York Times reported that “in total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatom.”

Yet, with all of these connections between Uranium One and the Clintons and all the payments that might have, in fact, been bribes, the Department of Justice’s investigator probing the Clintons, John Huber, has yet even to interview Doug Campbell, the FBI undercover informant who had infiltrated Uranium One, according to Campbell’s attorney Victoria Toensing. [read more]

Yea, this scandal should be investigated by the Justice Dept. And it is completely ignored by the fake news community.

Scientists create a clock so accurate it won't lose time for 40 million years

From CNET.com (Sept. 3):

The Cryogenic Sapphire Oscillator is one of the most precise clocks ever invented -- and it's not just keeping time, it's keeping Australia safe.

Researchers at the Institute for Photonics and Advanced Sensing (IPAS) in Adelaide, Australia in conjunction with Cryoclock, have, for the past 20 years been working on developing the Oscillator which they have dubbed the "Sapphire Clock."

It is 1,000 times more precise than any other commercial system currently available and ticks 10 billion times per second. The  "cryogenic" in the device's real name comes from the 1,200-carat sapphire crystal that needs to be cooled to minus 267 degrees Celsius (around 449 degrees Fahrenheit) -- only a few degrees above absolute zero.

The idea to harness the amazing properties of sapphire came from Andre Luiten, director of IPAS, during his PhD project before moving to Adelaide in 2013.  [read more]

Wow, that’s one accurate clock. Then again who will be around to check the accuracy.