Connect with us

Economy

Punxsutawney Phil’s Groundhog Weather Predictions Beats UN’s Climate Change Forecasts

Published

on


 

QUESTION: have you ever tested Punxsutawney Phil‘s predictions of spring with your forecasts?
how often was he correct?

TT

REPLY: The Punxsutawney Groundhog Club has kept track of  Punxsutawney Phil’s predictions. Actually, his forecasts have been far better than the climate change/global warming crowd who said snow would cease to exist and we should all have died after drowning from the rising sea levels. When we look at Punxsutawney Phil’s predictions, out of the 15 times when he did not see his shadow, which is supposed to predict an early spring, as he did here in 2020, he actually got it correct seven times which gives him an accuracy rate of 47%!

Back in 1989, the UN environmental official ACTUALLY FORECAST that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Yes, that was the forecast back in 1989 (see Snopes).

I have stated many times that these forecasts for climate change are so bogus that it is just stupid why anyone would even listen to this nonsense. They are all entirely based upon linear projections and are completely void of ANY cyclical analysis they even apply to flu vaccines. These activists assume that whatever trend is in motion will continue in motion because they attribute everything to a single cause and effect — humans and CO2. That is like saying the Dow Jones Industrials went higher by 5% last year so it will do the same every year for eternity.

Oh let me see. Irving Fisher did that in 1929 pronouncing the market reached a new permanent level of higher prices.  He famously predicted, three days before the crash, “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” Irving Fisher stated on October 21st, 1929 that the market was “only shaking out of the lunatic fringe” and went on to explain why he felt the prices still had not caught up with their real value and should go much higher. Then on Wednesday, October 23, 1929, Fisher announced in a banker’s meeting “security values in most instances were not inflated.” For months after the Crash, he continued to assure investors that a recovery was just around the corner. Once the Great Depression became obvious, Fisher finally warned that the ongoing drastic DEFLATION was the cause of the monumental cascading insolvencies that were unfolding since deflation increased the real value of debts fixed in dollar terms. 

Once someone takes a major position based upon opinion, they will usually go down with that opinion refusing to admit a mistake in personal judgment. NOTHING is exempt from cyclical movement. There are cyclical patterns in our heads we call brainwaves. Our heartbeats are in a cyclical fashion because it cannot continually pump blood. The sun is the same. We are headed into Solar Minimum because the sun also beats like our hearts.

But the climate change activists refuse to attribute any change in climate to the sun. At least the ancients worshiped the sun as a god because they understood all life is possible ONLY because of the sun. Even our Statute of Liberty is the image of the old sun god with rays of light beaming from her head.



Source link

قالب وردپرس

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

Book of the Week 7: To Engineer Is Human by Henry Petroski

Published

on



Henry Petroski is a fascinatingly eclectic writer – a nerd with the soul of a poet. I relied upon his book The Pencil: A History in writing the opening chapter of the forthcoming The Next Fifty Things That Made The Modern Economy (coming in May), and turned to Success Through Failure while writing Adapt.

I was delighted to receive To Engineer Is Human as a Christmas present – one of those rare surprise presents that actually works out… It’s a wide-ranging collection of essays and musings. Topics range from the experience of being a toddler in a world of adults, through the distinctive pattern of fatigue in a “Speak & Spell”, to the catastrophic collapse of walkways in the lobby of a Kansas City hotel in 1981.

One provocative idea in Petroski’s work is the idea that engineers learn through trial and error more than one might expect. Yes, there are the laws of physics and in principle one can calculate the load-bearing strength of any structure – but in practice, when we try to do something new we will sometimes run into the unexpected.

Not every essay hits the mark – I didn’t feel moved or improved by the analysis of the Oliver Wendell Holmes poem “The Deacon’s Masterpiece” – but like a collection of poems or short stories, if you don’t enjoy one you can skip to the next. Overall I felt I was learning things from Petroski that I wouldn’t learn from anybody else.

Some overlap with the more recent book Success Through Failure, but lots to intrigue.

US: Powell’s / Amazon   UK: Blackwells / Amazon

Receive these posts by email

(You can unsubscribe at any time)

/*
Custom functionality for safari and IE
*/
(function( d ) {
// In case the placeholder functionality is available we remove labels
if ( ( ‘placeholder’ in d.createElement( ‘input’ ) ) ) {
var label = d.querySelector( ‘label[for=subscribe-field-526]’ );
label.style.clip = ‘rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px)’;
label.style.position = ‘absolute’;
label.style.height = ‘1px’;
label.style.width = ‘1px’;
label.style.overflow = ‘hidden’;
}

// Make sure the email value is filled in before allowing submit
var form = d.getElementById(‘subscribe-blog-526’),
input = d.getElementById(‘subscribe-field-526’),
handler = function( event ) {
if ( ” === input.value ) {
input.focus();

if ( event.preventDefault ){
event.preventDefault();
}

return false;
}
};

if ( window.addEventListener ) {
form.addEventListener( ‘submit’, handler, false );
} else {
form.attachEvent( ‘onsubmit’, handler );
}
})( document );



Source link

قالب وردپرس

Continue Reading

Economy

Playing Scrooge in “The Best Economy Ever”

Published

on


@TBPInvictus here:

On Presidents Day, it is noteworthy that the current President feels compelled to cap the salaries of those employees who work for the government, who perform duties in the national interest, and  operate essential services for the benefit of the nation.

Salary increases limited to 1% annually. That ought to teach the Deep State!

Read Trump’s February 11 tweet below and try to reconcile it with the Feb 10 excerpt from a White House transmittal to Congress the day before.

Trump tells us — constantly and incessantly — that he has created the “best economy in history.” Let’s ignore the fact that he inherited  a robust GFC recovery from Obama, and then temporarily goosed it with an unfunded trillion dollar tax cut that never got us over 3% GDP on a sustainable basis, and which has since worn off, leaving us at a 2% or so GDP.

While we’re all enjoying the greatest economy ever, could he possibly – unilaterally, no less – cut the proposed pay increases (to 1.0%) for the nation’s Federal employees?

I don’t profess to have any other answer than that the man is a stone-cold hypocrite and liar. I’m open to other possibilities.

The previous day, February 10, 2020 (emphasis mine):

I am transmitting an alternative plan for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems in January 2021.

Title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement alternative plans for pay adjustments for civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems if, because of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare,” I view the increases that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate.

[…]

We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course; Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases. Accordingly, I have determined that it is appropriate to exercise my authority to set alternative pay adjustments for 2021 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5303(b) and 5 U.S.C. 5304a.

Specifically, I have determined that for 2021 the across-the-board base pay increase will be limited to 1.0 percent and locality pay percentages will remain at their 2020 levels. This alternative pay plan decision will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce.

This is rank hypocrisy. I don’t know who else is flagging this, but:

 

Greatest. Economy. Ever.

The post Playing Scrooge in “The Best Economy Ever” appeared first on The Big Picture.



Source link

قالب وردپرس

Continue Reading

Economy

Arguments for Compulsory Vaccination

Published

on


The Connecticut legislature wants to abolish the last non-medical exception for the compulsory vaccination of children, following in the steps of five other state governments (“Connecticut Lawmakers Brace for Public Hearings on Vaccination Bills,” Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2010). Two serious economic arguments can be made in favor of this measure. (It wouldn’t protect against the coronavirus, for which there is yet no vaccine, but this epidemic is certainly a motivation or an excuse for strengthening compulsory vaccination.)

The first argument is a public good argument, which can be summarized as follows. Everybody potentially benefits from other individuals being vaccinated, the main beneficiary being those whose age or state of health precludes vaccination. Immunization through vaccination is thus a public good, to the production of which everybody must contribute. A large part of this contribution consists in having oneself vaccinated. In order to prevent potential free riders from skirting vaccination while benefiting from that of others—benefiting from the so-called “herd immunity”—compulsory vaccination is justified. Richard Epstein’s article “Let the Shoemaker Stick to His Last” (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46:3, 2003) can be interpreted this way.

The second argument for “compulsory” vaccination relates to the fact that, nowadays, it is, thus far, advocated only for children as a condition for admission in public schools (or perhaps private schools too). A child, the argument goes, is, by definition, too young to know where his own interest lies, especially in probabilistic choices such as between the risk and consequences of catching the disease on one side, and the inconvenience and risk of vaccination on the other side. The child’s parents must make the choice. However, as was famously said in a slightly different context:

A priori, parents would ideally always be willing and able to protect children from tobacco themselves. If this happened, there would be little need for governments to duplicate such efforts. Perfect parents, however, are rare.

This statement is due to Prabhat Jha et al., “The Economic Rationale for Intervention in the Tobacco Market,” in Prabhat Jha and Frank J. Chaloupka, Eds., Tobacco Control in Developing Countries (World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 164. Note that the title of the book is a misnomer, for it is concerned as much with rich countries as developing ones.

The validity the two arguments for compulsory vaccination, even for children, is not obvious.

The first argument is analogous to the one that Thomas Hobbes, in his 1651 book Leviathan, made for the state in general. Since the security provided by the state is in everybody’s interest—since it is, in today’s terms, a public good—it is also in everybody’s interest not only that everybody contribute to financing the state, but also that the state be the only judge of everybody’s contribution. Otherwise, free riders will ride. Or so claimed Hobbes.

One problem with the Hobbesian argument, as well as with the public-health argument for compulsory vaccination, is that it justifies absolute power. Although Hobbes took the argument very seriously, some would dismiss the fear of tyranny as a slippery-slope argument. As if slippery slopes did not exist. Consider how, in the early 20th century, compulsory vaccination was used to legalize forced sterilization. The famous 1927 Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200) said it clearly:

The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

It was not an abstract matter. The decision legalized previous and future forced sterilizations against individuals deemed to be “imbecile,” “feebleminded,” “defective,” or “socially inadequate.” It is estimated that more than 65,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized up to the 1980s. The last sterilization statute, in Mississippi, was only repealed in 2008. (On this topic, see Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell [John Hopkins University Press,2008].)

Another problem with the public-good argument is that, technically, it only applies to goods or services unanimously desired. If basic security against aggression can be assumed to be a public good, the assumption becomes less valid as it is extended to other goods or services. Indeed, from what we can observe in the anti-vaxxer movements, many people do not want vaccination because they think that its cost is higher than its benefits for them or their children. From the point of view of a philosopher-king, this may be true or not, but it is not correct to think that there is no “objective” risk. For example, philosopher Mark Navin (who believes that compulsory vaccination is morally justified) cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention according to whom the DTaP vaccine (against diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough) causes long-term seizures or brain damage in “only” one out 1,000,000 children (Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics [Routledge, 2016]).

Furthermore, there is a good economic argument against government pretending to determine the “optimal” vaccination coverage. University of Chicago economist Tomas Philipson brilliantly argued that the fewer the number of people who get vaccinated, the higher the risk factor for the unvaccinated, and the higher the latter’s incentives to get vaccinated (or to use other prevention measures). (See notably his “Economic Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases,” in A.J. Culyer and J.P. Newhouse, Eds., Handbook of Health Economics, Vol. 1 [Elsevier Science B.V., 2000].)

As for the argument that imperfect parents cannot be trusted to make decisions in the best interest of their children, the basic counterargument is quite simple: have you seen many perfect politicians and perfect bureaucrats? Despite a few extreme and troubling cases, parents have been genetically hard-wired to look out for their children’s interests. There is no such hard-wiring for the state.

To be clear—and to this extent that this may seem relevant—I am not arguing that the anti-vaxxers are right. In fact, I don’t agree with their evaluation of costs, but I don’t claim that their children belong to me either.

In this short post, I have only scratched the surface of the issue. It may get especially pressing if an epidemic scare grips the public. It will be interesting to see if populists affirm the primacy of individual choices or, at least, the presumption of individual liberty or, instead, just follow a frightened and irrational mob.

(48 COMMENTS)



Source link

قالب وردپرس

Continue Reading

Trending