A federal judge issued a surprising decision that allowed part of an emoluments challenge to proceed toward trial. The opinion has been widely misreported, but still represents a rare win for those arguing that President Donald Trump is accepting prohibited payments from foreign governments at the various Trump properties. However, the decision is only on the threshold standing question and did not address the merits of the constitutional claim. Moreover, United States District Judge Peter Messitte dramatically narrowed the action to only claims related to the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. These is considerable debate over the meaning of the Constitution’s “emoluments” clause. There are clearly good-faith arguments that such payments fall within the meaning of the language, but I remain highly skeptical. Even with the much reduced action, I think Messitte is wrong and that the action should have been dismissed in its entirety. Previous actions have been dismissed.
The plaintiffs argued that Trump is accepting emoluments in receiving revenue from his various businesses. No president has held the range of assets that Trump brought to office after his election. Thus, there were valid questions raised about the scope of emoluments. I simply find these claims too attenuated. Moreover, none of these Democratic leaders and Trump critics called for such challenges to the Clintons racking in hundreds of millions in person speaking fees or contributions to their foundation. The clause is not limited to Presidents:
Messitte’s decision on standing may be easier to support than any finding of an emolument, but I would still bet against the sustainability of these claims.
584 thoughts on “Federal Court Permits Emoluments Challenge To Move Forward”
I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I’ve outed three of them, in fact — three more than most of my critics. And I’ve repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that these videos, even though some of them are edited deceptively, paint a different picture.
I’m partly to blame. My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, “advocacy.” I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.
As to some of the specific claims being made, sometimes things tumble out of your mouth on these long, late-night live-streams, when everyone is spit-balling, that are incompletely expressed or not what you intended. Nonetheless, I’ve reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don’t believe they say what is being reported.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes that I think the current age of consent is “about right.”
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn’t have used the word “boy” — which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age — instead of “young man.” That was an error.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly.
Previous statement: https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/posts/851263248344905
I not only read his statement – I saw the video of him giving it.
I also saw the video that offended CPAC.
Milo was absolutely targeted – but in this instance not by the right.
I have no problems with his statement – nor his interview remarks that started the problem.
But they are not reconcilable with each other.
I hope he recovers, but portions of the right are absolutely unforgiving.
If he was a left leaning comic, this would have blown over.
But the left has no principles, only feelings and those blow with the wind.
Whitehouse, CIA, FBI and Harry Reid tied together in what some might call a conspiracy,
Oh, another common room in Bedlam, here.
I see Diane isn’t the only one not taking her Aricept.
My comment in moderation
Game over. Jeff Sessions is a serpent No special counsel. B@st@rd traitor.
Protest Hillary @ Rutgers
Hillary Clinton is being paid $25k for a 1.5 hour talk at Rutgers. Maybe she makes so much money that she doesn’t realize that money in politics harms middle- and lower-class citizens. She is out of touch. We will hold up signs and have some chants during her talk. Contact us on FB at Our Revolution, Hazlet, to sign up or RSVP.
TIME: Thursday, March 29, 2018 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM EDT
HOST:Our Revolution, Hazlet NJ
LOCATION:Rutgers Athletic Center (Rutgers, NJ)
83 Rockefeller Rd.
Piscataway Twp., NJ
Rutgers, NJ 08901
NB: the event was cancelled by Hillary cultists…..they don’t want anyone to have Free Speech and Right to Assembly on her watch
Who is paying for/organizing the protest and who is paying for the speech?
There were reports that the DeVoses pay for the White supremacist speeches that Robert Spencer gives.
Linda, perhaps you are referring to Richard Spencer though I don’t think the Devoses would pay for a speech of his. However, they may pay for a speech by Robert Spencer who has nothing to do with white nationalism.
You really ought to get your names and facts straight.
Why, pray tell, should facts start getting in her way now?
You just made my night right before going to sleep
Rutgers is a public university in answer to your question about right to know.
References-“The Conservative Force Behind Speeches Roiling College Campuses”, NYT, May, 20, 2017. David Horowitz, Ben Shapiro, etc. are speakers mentioned in addition to Robert Spencer. “Richard and Helen DeVos are by far the biggest donors to YAF and the Donors Capital Fund and its affiliate Donors Trust” (speech sponsors) (“How the Right Wing Koch and DeVos Families are Funding Hate Speech on College Campuses Across the U.S.”, Alternet, 4/18/2017)
JS, Allan will want to correct your misidentification/misspelling of “DeVoss” and “Spensor”.
The correction to my comment is “….White supremacist speeches and Robert Spencer speeches given.” The latter is associated with the right wing view of Muslims.
Robert Spencer is the moderator of Jihad Watch. He’s notable as a critic of Islam and has published several books on the subject. He’s also a Melkite deacon. He has nothing to do with the alt-right.
I would clarify – Spensor is an opponent of RADICAL islam, a proponent of counter-jihad.
As with myriads of people who speak out against violence and oppression by groups the left very oddly choses to identify with, he is therefore labeled as racist.
An islamic court in pakistan just sentenced two brothers to have their sister raped as punishment for raping another woman.
It is that that people like Spensor rail against. It is that, that those on the left silently condone.
It is impossible for those on the left to grasp that people are different, that ideologies are different, that aspects of different cultures, religions, peoples, are WRONG!
I guess that is not strictly true. The left is capable of seeing Christianity as evil, of seeing the culture of whites as evil, of seeing the hat of conservatives as evil.
But it is incapable of seeing that similar flaws exist in other minorities, other races, other religions, other ideologies.
The left fights against abuse of women throughout the world. What blinders have prevented you from seeing it? The true left, not DINOS, consistently stand up for the powerless. In contrast, the right wing has a pattern of interceding in “other cultures” when there is something financial to gain.
IMO, Jay Sekulow, Michael Cohen, Erik Prince and the man they rose to the highest levels with, Trump, are far “different” than those who exemplify high standards in religion and professionalism.
The true left, not DINOS, consistently stand up for the powerless.
I’ll let Baronelle Stutzman know.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
“The left fights against abuse of women throughout the world. What blinders have prevented you from seeing it? ”
Reality, precludes me from seeing that – the fact that it is not true.
In the post modern intersectional scheme of the left the abuse of women is subordinate to that of minorities and muslims are bizarrly defined as a racial minority.
Therefore YOU can label those such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali – one of Times most influential women, and now on SPLC’s list of “extremists” – because she fights for women, and against forced marriage, honor violence, child marriage and female genital mutilation.
I do not know Robert Spensor that well, but he seems to be similiar to Ali.
Regardless, as typical of the left – when you “decide” that someone is on the “right”,
then they have to acheive impossible standards of perfection to be acceptable to you.
But if they are on the “left” they can rape women and still be considered “femists” so long as their politics are right and they say the right things.
“I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.” Nina Burkleigh of Bill Clinton during the impeachment.
Yet the Islamic theocracy one that directs women to be raped for the crimes of their brothers, that is not something you are concerned about ?
“In contrast, the right wing has a pattern of interceding in “other cultures” when there is something financial to gain.”
Substitute left for right or just accept that the US government in general left of right is happy to mess with other cultures.
More books for your reading list.
The Ugly American.
You can get a used copy for less than $4.
It is an excellent book and an easy read.
It is old but nothing has changed.
“Jay Sekulow, Michael Cohen, Erik Prince and the man they rose to the highest levels with, Trump, are far “different” than those who exemplify high standards in religion and professionalism.”
Aside from Prince each of these is entirely private actors.
You get your “vote” on how high other people rise privately, by your personal choices with respect to consuming their services. That and your voice is the limit of your control.
Sekulow has as an example argued before the Supreme court on the First Amendment 12 times.
He has defended groups from Krishnia’s, Jews, to Democrats, and he has won 9 times.
Not a single case had anything to do with Trump.
I am not impressed by Cohen, he seems to be a pretty poor lawyer,
Regardless, he is not a government employee, and my judgement of him is of little consequence.
Beyond that you are entitled to your own views as to what constitutes high standards.
You are not entitled to impose them on the rest of us by force, and you can expect the rest of us to judge YOU by the hypocracy of your “standards”
I have been published half a dozen or more times. When writing for publication, I will put in the effort to get things like spelling correct – in fact it typically takes 5 hours to write one page concisely and properly for publication.
When I am writing blog comments I am under no obligation to direct my time and effort to your wishes.
I am not interested in your critiques of my spelling.
Rutgers is a public university – again something that should not exist.
Force is not required to educate people.
Regardless, as a public entity Rutgers may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.
BTW Robert Spensor is not richard Spensor.
Though either would be legally allowed to speak at Rutgers.
Nor do I care who finds who to speak where.
I have personally contributed to groups – like the ACLU that fought to permit actual Nazi’s to speak and march – and then I showed up to peacefully protest.
That is ACTUAL liberalism – classical liberalism, not the repugnant polluted hateful progressive garbage you sell.
Donations to the ACLU, like John Arnold, who bragged about it, in the defense of the aerial community surveillance of Baltimore funded by him and operated by the police, without the knowledge of elected city and community leaders?
“Donations to the ACLU, like John Arnold, who bragged about it, in the defense of the aerial community surveillance of Baltimore funded by him and operated by the police, without the knowledge of elected city and community leaders?”
You are actually going to try to criticise me for contributing to the ACLU because of some bizzare fixation you have on some nonsense that occurred several states away that I am neither aware of nor have anything to do with ?
Whatever, To be clear, I do not support everything the ACLU (or any other group) does.
I am particularly offended that they no longer will defend free speach if guns are part of the fact pattern.
That means they would not have defended the free speach rights of jews in germany who also lost their guns to the Nazi’s.
Regardless, I contributed to an ACLU fund arguing to allow a Nazi group to march through my city.
Then I protested the march. I was clear about that in my post.
I joined the ACLU when Bush attacked Dukakis as a “card carrying member of the ACLU”
I also contributed to an ACLU effort to defend local adult bookstores from government persecution.
When the ACLU is defending the rights of individuals – REAL LIBERALISM – I am with them.
I have no clue what nonsense you are fixated on
Selective, ignores information that does not confirm existing bias- just as the psychological profiles of conservatives describe.
‘Selective, ignores information that does not confirm existing bias- just as the psychological profiles of conservatives describe.”
Again no ability to think critically.
The psychological profile of a conservative is NOT evidence.
In fact it is just about the stupidest argument you could possibly make .
YOU claim that you can not discriminate – and then decide that you are entitled to discriminate based on some profile.
There is no difference between making choices based on the fact that someone is conservative and making choices based on the fact that someone is black.
EXCEPT that you do not understand one CRITICAL aspect.
You, I, the guy next door, can make choices based on race, religion, ideology, or or mood on a given day.
GOVERNMENT may not.
Only government is actually required to pretend that we are equal, to be blind to any differences between us.
There’s an apt description for those who think natural born predators in the top 0.1%, after having decimated the middle class, will allow the professional class or Jews to keep their assets.
“Freedom”- the bait and switch.
Predators use force against others.
I have absolutely zero problem with prosecuting to the fullest anyone who uses force against others.
I have absolutely zero problem calling those who warp words like predator to to malign people who do not use force, and acheive stupid political goals – idiots.
I joined the ACLU when Bush attacked Dukakis as a “card carrying member of the ACLU”
NII, that one word “sucker” says it all. It was around that time the ACLU was giving up on the right of free speech.
A lot of garble above, but to get to the point, Muslims can be black, white, brown or of any color so to use the term white supremacist referencing Robert Spencer is totally ignorant. He doesn’t even express views about Muslims as much as he does about the religion and its extremists. He is a very nice man, pleasant and articulate. He has made mincemeat of those wishing to debate him because he is an expert on the Quran and on extremist Islamic activity.
Everyone that doesn’t follow your Stalinist type of belief system is characterized by you as being white supremacists.
Maybe you wish to point to anything Robert Spencer has said that you find so objectionable. In the meantime keep your white supremacists separated from the rest of the population and keep your Richard’s and Robert’s apart.
The above was to Linda. WordPress gets confused just like Linda.
Islam even in its less virulent forms is the worlds least “liberal” significant religion.
How it is that the left can accuse people of racism who are standing up for women, for homosexuals for the values of “liberalism” in opposition to the most illiberal of religions.
I am using the term “liberal” in its traditional meaning – as in those who value individual liberty and respect the rights of those who are different. Not in the sense of “left”.
After the invasion by Bush, are Iraqi women better or worse off? Did George Tenet tell Bush what he wanted to hear about WMD’s for his own career advancement with the result that the middle east went backwards in terms on women? The DeVoses could finance those discussions on campus.
On the continuum of conservative and liberal religions, Westburo’s position is where? How about the church that Andrea Yates’ husband attended? Any speeches paid for by the Kochs about those denominations?
Which speakers that the DeVoses and the Kochs pay for address the sexism in conservative American churches, the Catholic Church, etc.?
Credibility on the points JS makes would be enhanced if funding was provided for a discussion about American majority rule, a founding principle of representative democracy. The reason there’s no funding for that is the exploiters’ message of “freedom” to plunder (leaving the 99% with nothing to lose) and tribalism, works for the richest 0.1%.
When Richard Spencer sued the University of Cincinnati, U.C.’s president made a remarkable statement in defense of the values of a university.
JS’ gripe about public universities is that collectively, Americans decided that the nation gained from a meritocracy instead of the exclusivity of legacy admission colleges. Public education is a gift the people give the children of workers and, the nation.
Darwinism should be limited to natural evolution not, funded as a philosophy for society’s advancement.
Someone say I supported Bush ?
Why do you presume libertarians are republicans or conservatives ?
I would further note that historically democrats are more likely to engage in war.
Or better still “progressives” – and that will pick up Bush as another progressive war monger.
I am a non-interventionist. Our response to the misconduct of other nations that does NOT constitute acts of violence against other nations, is to condemn it but otherwise stay OUT of their affairs.
Read “the Ugly American”. You will get a better idea.
Regardless, the US has a long history of meddling in other countries to horrible effect.
I opposed Iraq II.
I care about WMD;s – but they are NOT a justification for acts of war..
We may not invade Iraq, Bomb Iran, or North Korea – merely because they strive for WMD’s.
We may when they do violence to their neightbors.
Force may only be used in response to actual force.
There is no justifiable pre-emprive war. Hitler argued that, we should not join that company.
From Philanthropy Roundtable, in an article written by Frederick Hess (AEI) and an external affairs manager of a Bill Gates-funded education “philanthropy”, quoting education reformers (privatizers) ” We’ve got to blow up the ed schools.” Hess then outlines a plan to use the wealth of donors to financially coerce, rather than “blow up” ed schools. The quote does not relate to you personally. It provides an example for the following point. Citizens in the U.S., by a majority vote, have a right to collectively fund public education as an alternative to legacy admission schools.
The U.S. was founded in opposition to aristocracy. One million Irish were allowed to die because of theories similar to the Kochs’. Those Irish along with others who fled the oppression of the wealthy, built America to be a land of opportunity.
You want to channel the discussion to an unrelenting “I” e.g. “I didn’t support Bush.” The point of my thread was not you, Iraq nor Bush. My point was that the rich use selectivity when dominating political discourse. Their money buys platforms. They can barrage the airwaves with political advertisements drowning out an oppositional voice.
The Russians saw that politics in America is pay to play and they took the opportunity.
I recall that you wrote Russian involvement was fine with you. The average Russian spends 50% of his salary on food, a government official (oligarchy) responded, the people should eat less. At all costs, the marriage between the American conservative movement and Putin, should be stopped.
Linda writes: “Those Irish along with others who fled the oppression of the wealthy, built America to be a land of opportunity.”
I thought those that began building America and creating it as a land of opportunity for those that followed did so in 1776, not in the 19th century. In fact, I remember the history that states the leaders weren’t fleeing “oppression of the wealthy” rather desired a monarchy grant them rights as citizens. That didn’t happen and that negative response led to the Revolution.
Of course Linda has her own history and eventually, she will tell us about how the Russians created America in their own image.
“Citizens in the U.S., by a majority vote, have a right to collectively fund public education ”
You may not by majority vote abridge a right. A right is by definition something even the majority can not abridge.
Further the social contract is NOT, government is permitted to do whatever is not denied it.
It is exactly the opposite.
Government is ONLY permitted to do what is NOT denied it.
A may not steal from B.
A and B may not steal from C by agreement.
A and 50/100 others may not steal from the other 49 by agreement.
You really do not seem to get this.
Government is force, and there are only a few legitimate justifiable ways that force can be used against others.
This is not a game.
You act immorally by definition when you use or threaten to use force against others.
“The U.S. was founded in opposition to aristocracy.”
This is the founding text of our nation – Aristocracy appears NOWHERE in it.
Freedom, liberty, individual rights are found from end to end.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
You are incredibly ignorant of history.
The Great famine in Ireland was caused by a potato blight that effected all of europe.
To the extent there was any broader role, the English Corn laws significantly aggravated it.
The “Corn Laws” were a system of Tarriffs and Trade restrictions.
In otherwords exactly the things that the Koch’s Cato, Even heritage and all pretty much all libertarians OPPOSE.
You are both on the wrong side of history.
You are once again demonstrating your own deep ignorance.
You know nothing about the Irish famine, the corn laws, tarrifs, or the Koch’s
You litterally just make claims up from thin air.
You presume that those you do not like hold whatever view you wish to project onto them.
If you support Tarrifs – then YOU have the same moral’s as those who starved the Irish.
If you do not, not only are you on the same side as those evil Koch’s, but you are a follower on an issue where they LEAD.
There is no real point to your rant.
I do not care if you attack Bush – particularly if you do so accurately.
I am going to defend him – or Ralph Nader, or Bernie Sanders from attacks that are false.
I do not need to agree with someone to oppose people lying about them.
And that is one of the many problems with you.
You just make crap up.
Not only do you make up crimes committed by others, but then you make up who supported them.
Your arguments are of the form
Bush did something evil, you support bush, you are evil.
It is irrelevant to you what Bush actually did, whether it was evil, whether I or anyone else supports bush.
It is guilt by association smeared over a bed of lies.
What is important is not that I opposed Bush.
It is that you falsely ASSUMED I supported him.
This is not about me. It is about YOU, your poor judgement, your pretence to read other peoples minds, and you myriads of errors in doing so.
And you think you can step onto a moral soap box ?
“They can barrage the airwaves with political advertisements drowning out an oppositional voice.”
A typical left wing nut garbage argument.
A false tragedy of the commons argument.
I would suggest the work of recent economics nobel prize winner Elenor Olstom.
The gist of which is that the “tragedy of the commons” is a fallacy. in the real world and without govenrment people through volunatrary cooperation work out issues involving real commons always better than government.
I would also refer you to Coases Law, which essentially says that with strong property rights, all these problems resolve themselves
But the above ignores the HUGE problem with your argument.
You falsely presume a limited commons where there is none.
There is no practical limit to the amount of Radio and TV adds that you can run.
Further it is just about the most stupid biased ideological argument I can possibly conceive to presume that there is any means by which anyone can be permitted to decide what political speech others get to hear.
You posit a problem that does not exist and a solution that is inherently stupid and evil.
“The Russians saw that politics in America is pay to play and they took the opportunity.
I recall that you wrote Russian involvement was fine with you. The average Russian spends 50% of his salary on food, a government official (oligarchy) responded, the people should eat less. At all costs, the marriage between the American conservative movement and Putin, should be stopped.”
“At all costs” means war – are you prepared to go to war with Russia over free speach – and worse to do so on the WRONG side of the issue ?
If not, then get real.
I have not said I like Russians speaking in US elections.
I do not like YOU speaking in US elections.
I do not get to make laws, based on what I like or do not like.
You do not seem to grasp that.
Russia did something I do not like.
They did not do something that violated my rights.
They did not use force.
With respect to the Russian people – absolutely I am appalled that Russia would spend resources trying to persuade americans when it has problems of its own.
But that is an issue for the Russian people.
I am free to have an oppinion.
I am free to express it.
I am free to try to get my voice heard – IN RUSSIA.
But I am not free to force Russia or her people to do as I wish.
Again a complete lack of logic or critical thinking on your part.
You have this bizarre long list of things you demand answers to.
I have made clear my principles – you can expect they apply consistently to specific instances.
I fully support Westborro’s right to speak in public forums – as well of that of Biker Groups that have most effectively shut WestBorro down.
I oppose what they say.
I support the right of even reprehensible people and groups to excercise their rights, while protesting what they stand for.
What church people attend is not my business – or Should we bring back Rev, Wright ?
DeVoss and Koch can with their own money buy whatever they want in voluntary free exchange.
If they wish to pay for my speech – I am here and I can take, cash, checks, wire transfers, paypal, …
I do not think there is a church more sexist in the entire planet than Islam. I will be interested in what you have to say when you are prepared to say that.
There is lots wrong with the Catholic Church regarding Women – and Hollywood and NPR, and the media – left and right. You only see the sins of the right – and that is your problem.
You think that because your ideas are virtuous that you can forgive the sins of those on your own side.
And that blinds you to the fact that your ideas are NOT virtuous.
The problems with the right are real – but for the most part they do not seek to make things worse for people. The left actually does.
You are not entitled to steal from someone else to fund debating ideas that you wish to discuss.
You are free to discuss whatever you wish. If you need funding for your side of the discussion – go get it whereever you can persuade someone to provide it – except from govenrment, which is required to NOT support any viewpoint.
The reason there is no funding – is you are not entitled to funding from others.
You are not entitled to take money from others.
Earn it or persuade people to give it to you. Anything else is called theft.
Theft is indeed what the richest 0.1% have done to American labor. All of the rewards for productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 1% for the past 35+ years, a period in which workers saw no real wage increase.
Linda, for the most part, people or your ilk are responsible for the lack of wage increases. Blame yourself and blame your ignorance of history and economics. Productivity increases have made your cell phone and computer available to virtually all Americans. That is a result of capitalism and a market system without which only the rich could afford these amenities.
If we eliminated central banks we would return to something like the 19th century or before in most of the world.
Productivity increases over time
Wages DECLINE over time.
Prices DECLINE even faster than wages.
Purchasing power increases.
That same rule continues to hold even today EXCEPT that everything gets multiplied by inflation.
But ultimately all that matters is that prices decline relative to wages. And that is what is happening.
John, if the end product of what you are saying means that the working person is better off today than he was years ago, I agree. If you are saying that increased productivity leaves the working group better off I agree as well. As far as your statements made in virtual shorthand, it depends on a lot of the specifics so I have no comment.
Most of us learn in math or physics class in HS that we can manipulate equations and information to cancel out terms and get the information we want.
The same is true of economics.
We have massive amounts of data that is expressed in terms of money, and then we go to alot of trouble to correct that data over time to reflect inflation.
All laudable, But also problematic.
One of my points is that you can factor out dollars in nearly any dataset and express the results in other units that are not unreliable over time – as money is.
ONE common example I use is to price goods in some standard units of labor such as time, rather than money.
The results are much clearer, more important they are actually MORE statistically significant.
There are some things we must do in money.
Further true broad aggregate measures – such as GDP, can reasonably accurately be adjusted for inflation. But car prices, milk prices, or really any specific price cant.
I care about this – because it is not that hard to do.
Most of us can do so on our own – without experts – I know what I paid for things in 1983 and how hard I had to work to earn them.
And the results are robust, and clear.
John, Such conversions are used in argument in a very specific fashion, but we have to recognize how poor such comparison’s are. My i phone today is more expensive than the phone I had growing up, but I can make calls less expensively and quicker, it acts as a television, radio, newspaper, reminder, clock, etc. There is no way, except in specific instances, to compare the phone of today to the phone of my youth.
We can compare things like amenities and what we find is that poor people who might have less amenities than rich people are now getting those amenities at a faster rate than years past with higher usable quality so that one could say that the poor and rich have not drifted apart with regards to the most popular amenities, but closer together.
I suspect that your iphone is actually cheaper than the phones you had growing up.
Did you ever try to buy a phone in the 60’s from Ma Bell ?
Yes, you can compare.
You get all the same capabilities for the same or lower costs – and then even more for free.
That is true of many things. but more of some than others.
Fridges today are much better than 50 years ago – but not an order of magnitude better.
Phones are several orders of magnitude better.
“Theft is indeed what the richest 0.1% have done to American labor. All of the rewards for productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 1% for the past 35+ years, a period in which workers saw no real wage increase.”
Again theft is an act of force.
You can not seem to grasp that when government takes something from you without your permission – that is force, and theft.
When the rich refuse to give you what you want, there is no force involved.
With respect to your labor – you are entitled to whatever you can get for your labor. No more, no less.
Your grasp of the facts is ludicrously wrong – the lionshare of productivity gains over the past 40 years are the result of capital, the lions share of the profits from increased productivity went to labor.
Lets try a hypothetical.
10 man can dig 100yds of ditch in a day for $10/hr.
If the owner of the company buys a backhoe – for 50K, one man can dig 400yds per day.
So who should get the 400/hr in profits that are essentially the difference ?
Should backhoe operators be paid $400/hr ?
If so do you think that owners would ever buy backhoes ?
In the real world what happens is the price for ditches drops by about 1/2 – so the consumer gets the lions share of the gains. The backhoe operator gets $50/hr, and the owner gets to pocket the rest – most of which goes to paying off the loan used to buy the backhoe.
At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production”
The first and foremost beneficiary of ALL productivity gains is the CONSUMER.
When productivity goes up, prices go down, more value is delivered for less cost
We ALL benefit.
If there are no wage changes – we still benefit.
The production of more of what we want and need is ALWAYS a benefit to US.
That said productivity gains ALWAYS result in price reductions.
Inflation makes that harder to see.
But canceling to eliminate money, it is easy to see that over time we are able to consume ever more.
That is the definition of rising standard of living. That inherently means that atleast in terms of the value of our time costs are ALWAYS dropping. And that is the cost that really matters.
Apple’s Ted Cooke was asked about outsourcing and the suicide nets outside of production factory dormitories. JS’ spin will no doubt justify the situation because product costs go down.
Why do I need to justify anything ?
Is Apple not free to produce its product wherever and how ever it pleases – so long as it does not use force ?
If someone is forced to work in a factory – that is wrong and I oppose it.
There are clearly abuses of that kind in Chinese (and other factories).
I have no problems with action in that regard.
You can start with your own purchasing decisions – which neither I nor anyone else controls.
Do you own an Apple phone ? If so aren’t you condoning exactly what you are condemning ?
Protest Cooke – I have no problem with that.
I have no problem with your boycotting and protesting – even if you are doing so for stupid reasons.
It is called freedom.
With respect to China more broadly – Since Mao’s death China’s life expectance has increased by 20 years and is nearly equal to ours. However the Chines suicide rate overall is 50% lower than the US.
And standard of living has risen about 250 fold since Mao’s death
My “gripe” is what I have said it is – and I have been clear.
Government has no business in anything that can be accomplished by free people acting on their own.
That includes universities. Public schools are outside the legitimate scope of government.
Private schools and universities can operate as they please – including if you can persuade them to do so in the fashion you choose if you can persuade.
I do not care if Harvard (a private university) decides to go completely tuition free and only accpet minorities with low SAT scores. They are private and free to do so – or only admit legacy white males, or whatever they choose.
You do not actually understand what a “meritocracy” is.
It is not inherently something that serves the interests of old white men.
It is what serves the interests of its consumers and investors.
And each and every organization finds its own market.
Try the breakfast aisle in a grocery store.
We really only need corn flakes. The left “anti-trust” approach to markets that is stupidly incorporated in our law, seeks 1 breakfast cereal made by 3 large competing entities neither of which is allowed 50% of the market.
Real free markets are like the grocery aisle – hundreds of choices – 3 major producers and dozens of competitors. If there is a market for low sodium, organic, fair trade, gluten free, humane Kashi – some company will make it. And they will appeal to your values in order to acheive their self interests. They might even serve you non-hypocritcally – regardless, they will serve your wishes, or someone will proportionate to the portion of people that share your values.
That is how an actual meritocracy works.
Value is subjective – each of us gets to decide what it is for ourselves.
As out standard of living rises we will be increasingly able to meet a greater portion of the values of ever more people.
The more people there are and the higher our standard of living the larger the set of all of our values will be met.
A free market – will do its best to provide you with what you want, and me with what I want and everyone else with what they want.
If will not do so perfectly – if can not provide us what we do not produce. Therefore the less productive we are the more triage will occur with respect to our wants and needs.
What it will NOT do – but what left and all other centrally planned schemes WILL do – is provide lots of what only some of use want.
You may not get what you want from a free market – if so that is either because standard of living is not high enough to meet your needs yet, or because too few people share your values.
When the monopoly or oligopoly buys the new competition and makes entry into the market more difficult? Check out the telecommunications laws drafted by ALEC (industry corporations).
Policy statement of ALEC: https://www.alec.org/issue/broadband/
Access to a fast Internet connection returns a great of value to consumers. Whether for education, furthering a career, innovating or just enjoying entertainment, broadband access can open new worlds of opportunity. The great news is that the promise of broadband is being realized across the country, in urban and rural communities, including all demographics, amongst the middle class and the poor.
Widespread efforts to promote broadband adoption, use and digital literacy are critical to improving the nation’s long-term competitiveness in a global market, and to achieving certain socioeconomic improvements in the quality of American life. Expanding adoption, use and digital literacy skills will allow a greater number of Americans to fully take advantage of the benefits of broadband based applications such as tele-health, energy management and education opportunities online
By any objective measure, the rollout of broadband services in the U.S. is going phenomenally well, and is largely being done with private capital and without involving taxpayer dollars. As you might expect, broadband providers have focused on areas where demand and market forces sufficiently incentivize private network companies. But there obviously are some challenges in areas where, for reasons of geography, population density, or other issues, making a business case for deploying broadband.
Free market policies provide the best answer for the provision of broadband to the greatest number of people in the greatest number of places. In many cases government needs to get out of the way and let the market be free to provide demanded services. To the extent that coverage is not reasonably complete then other small government approaches are an option.
Please name any actual monopoly that exists without the implict or more likely explicit support of government ?
Monopolies require government.
Eliminate the illegitimate power of govenrment to regulate the economy and whatever groups you fear will not be renting power to create barriers to entry.
Plunder requires force.
Anyone actually using force against others has committed a crime and the state may legitimately intervene.
Differences from your personal desires are not “plunder” – though YOUR use of force to get what you want over what others want – that is plunder.
The SCOTUS’ ruling on eminent domain.
Linda writes: “The SCOTUS’ ruling on eminent domain.”
Terrible decision by the Supreme Court, but that decision was made by the leftist justices of the Supreme Court, not the conservative ones.
Your principles led to the ability of large corporations to take over land from private persons.
“The SCOTUS’ ruling on eminent domain.”
Are you trying to defend those ?
Please tell me you are not so stupid as to defend SCOTUS on eminent domain ?
Most of the retired justices left and right have expressed regret over Kelo.
Public education is not a gift.
It is theft. Schools, teachers, resources do not come from thin air.
They are acquired by taking money from others without their consent.
Further is it horribly inefficient.
I am not sure what the current price of a traditional public school is.
But my kids cybercharter cost 75% of what the local school district paid per student – and it delivered a better education at a profit.
A few decades ago the cost of a local public school was about 13K/year per student, and 17K for HS.
I live next to an extremely well regarded elite private girls boarding school – that costs about 21K/year today. In otherwords the education of the top 0.01% costs only a bit more than that of a typical public school student.
there is a slightly less prestigeous private school – still much better than the local high school that costs about 18K/year, For 7K per year there is an extremely well regarded private menonite HS, and finally for 5K/year – less if you are low income, you can attend a local catholic HS – still a better education than the local public school.
At the elementary level that Catholic education runs about 25OO/year – again less if you are needy.
The fact is that YOUR public education is a ridiculous ripoff.
The vast majority of families – even poor families could do better with a private school for the same cost as they pay in school taxes a year – and instead of paying them every year they would only have to pay them while their kids were in school.
The left is terrified that people will come to realize how cheap it is to educate a child well.
And that your “GIFT” is just a ridiculously expensive boondoggle.
What you call “social darwinism is a stupid idea that origniated on the LEFT with progressives.
Please quit blaming me for your garbage.
I have explained to you have actual free markets work – though again a trip to your grocery store would help.
It is YOUR favorite political candidate – Bernie who thinks that people should NOT be free to have whatever cereal, or sneakers, or deoderant that they want, that somehow we would be better off with one deoderant for all – and the savings would make all kinds of miracles possible.
That is economic bunk. It has failed whenever it has been tried.
The “economies of scale” are not an immutable law, and they do not work without competition.
In fact they really do not work all that well at all – or small business could never thrive or profit.
AS I said Social Darwinism is YOUR ideological garbage – not mine.
We are NOT evolving in a single direction. Many many things are happening concurrently.
Many will fail – but not all will and we will all be better off, and we will have MORE freedom and more choices – not less – unless you return to power.
Then we will only get what you want, and less and less of even that.
Learn so basic economics.
I recomended Coases book on China to you. Not only is at an excellent history of Post Mao China, but an excellent primer on basic economics with real world examples of what works and what does not.
Regardless, please get better informed as you are spewing garbage and it is obvious.
Not surprisingly, you misstate positions other than your own.
“Not surprisingly, you misstate positions other than your own.”
How so ? It is you that has attributed “social darwinism” a position of 19th/early 20th century progressives to conservatives.
Need I quote Woodrow Wilson, Marget Sanger, or FDR ?
“who is paying … ?”
And what business is it of yours ?
Are you entitled to know what I pay to have my garbage hauled ?
Are you entitled to know what charities I contribute to ? What church I belong to ?
Didn’t the left just whig out because Facebook sold CA information on 50M FB users – almost certainly NOT left wing nuts ?
I mean seriously do you think that CA paid to find out who was NOT voting for Trump no matter what ?
Regardless, you are not entitled to know things just because you want to.
I would be completely shocked to find DeVoss funding Richard Spencer.
Your ideological ignorance is enormous. White Supremists are STATISTS, Nationalists.
DeVoss is a champion of individual rights.
The public education system that DeVoss is trying to tear down was invented by german nationalist predecessors of the Nazi’s.
Spensor is about as ideologically close to DeVos as Mao.
But left wing nuts are ideologically clueless.
See 11:43 comment above.
So if someone doesn’t hew to your opinon on Islam, or anything else for that matter, it is expedient to dub them “racist” or whatever “ist” you think will discredit them?
It is not only intellectual laziness but brders on defamation which seems to be all too common a tactic used in today’s “discourse”.
If someone you don’t like, quotes or accurately paraphrases a n idol of yours, chances are you’d still find a way to label it because you know what they really mean, code words and all.
Since I don’t follow either Spencer, care to give me examples of Roberts’s racism?
I cited article sources so that readers could review journalism that is held to a standard, including libel.
Linda, you provided a source for a lot of things and generalizations. Why not provide something that demonstrates racism in contrast to something that demonstrates a distaste for radical Islam? Maybe you find the idea of chopping human beings into little pieces darling, but the rest of us don’t.
Linda’s grasp on logic is nearly non-existant.
Racism is by her definition failure to adhere to her own self contradictory views.
Islam is a religion – not a race. It is the religion of over a billion throughout the world.
As a religion it has merits and flaws.
A portion of those sharing that religion fixate on the flaws.
At this moment in time religious violence is concentrated in Islam. That has not always been true.
Nor does it mean that a majority of muslims are violent.
But it is still a fact – just like it is a fact that completing high school significantly increases your future prospects, or that young black males was several times more likely to commit crimes than any other group.
Or that IQ near certainly has atleast a 50% genertic component, and that though it varies highly between individuals there are weaker variations between races.
There are a whole raft of facts that the left sees as evidence of racism – and most anything the left doesn’t like is called racism regardless of whether it has anything to do with race.
“Linda’s grasp on logic is nearly non-existant.”
For Linda to believe or say what she does proves what you say to be true. She is also devoid of facts and doesn’t even realize it. She has been given the capacity to read and write, but that is not the important thing. The important thing is understanding what one is reading and writing. [Note: we see some children learn to read words in a book very quickly. That should not be our objective because the ability to read words is only a tool to understanding what is being said.]
Saying that someone is a racist – does not make them a racist.
Saying that someone says that someone is a racists does not make them a racist.
Both are fallacious arguments.
In point of fact while racism has substantially dimminshed since my childhood, it still exists and will forever, those with rare exceptions it is no longer a significant problem in most peoples lives.
This is true of myriads of negative personality attributes of humans – such as your inability to think logically.
The inability of the left to think logically is a far more significant problem for all of us in both the present and the future. Idiots on the left aree back advocating Socialism again. We have nearly two centuries of real world experience with socialism. It does not work ever – not in any form.
Far far more blood has been shed by socialists than by racists.
I would further note that those on the left are among the most racist in this country today.
Racism is making choices based on race. It is wrong no matter what race you favor.
The entire scheme of affirmative action is inherently racist. And that is a construction of the left.
Labeling those who disagree with you as racist, hateful hating haters, because of their race and disagreement with you is racist.
Excluding communism, options for national economic structuring are not limited to just two. There are variations on a continuum between the two.
Shallow and wrong.
You may not abridge the liberties of others outside of a few limited justifications.
You can not elide that by playing label games.
Further “economics” is an arbitrary and false distinction. Economics is the means by which we acheive what we want and what we need. When you limit the means you limit our ability to acheive our wants and needs.
Just as you can not abridge our free speech through restrictions on the necescities for speach – such as a time, a place, money, …
You can not restrict our ability to pursue happiness, to appreciate or make art or music, to have time with our loved ones.
Economics is entirely about our wants and needs – whether that is feeding our bodies, feeding our minds, or feeding our spirits.
These are ALL outside the bounds of government.
This is a major part of what you – the left do not get. You do not get to decide for all of us what we want and need.
When White felons receive sentences 20% shorter than Black people for the same crimes, I presume that that segment’s “happiness” is more important to the conservatives in ALEC.
If a hedge fund manager buys season tickets to the opera, equivalent to a year’s pay for a worker, his happiness is important. The financial sector drags down GDP by an estimated 2%, while labor carries Wall Street’s drag and grows GDP. His happiness is not important.
Linda writes: “When White felons receive sentences 20% shorter than Black people for the same crimes, I presume that that segment’s “happiness” is more important to the conservatives in ALEC.”
In 2012, ALEC and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hosted a summit focused on inspiring state criminal justice policy. Working with the ACLU, ALEC members successfully implemented mandatory minimum sentencing reforms around the country. In September of 2015, ALEC and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL) formed a new partnership to prioritize the prevention of overcriminalization, the reforming of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the reduction of recidivism rates and the promotion of community-based alternatives to lengthy jail stays for non-violent offenders. ALEC members’ work has sparked a new wave of state criminal justice legislation that is carefully crafted to maximize taxpayer dollars to protect the public while preventing overcriminalization and unnecessary prison stays.
Are you clueless ?
ALEC supports prison reform – including the reduction or elimination of manditory minimums.
As BTW do the Koch’s, and Kushner and 25 republicans and democrats in the senate.
Prison reform is opposed by Sessions, and alot of other Senators – both republicans and democrats.
I Grassley is strongly pushing for prison reform. Orin Hatch has supported Prison reform for years.
But again in your world everyone must fit into boxes – every good thing is from the left, and only the left.
All oponents MUSt be on the right, all supporters on the left.
There are some issues that split the country on partisan lines.
But many split us in a bipartisan fashion.
Prison reform is one of those. There are both republicans and democrats working to reduce sentences and eliminate manditory minimums.
BTW one of the big drivers of longer sentences for blacks was the harsh sentences for crack.
And those were driven by the congressional Black Caucus. They have proven a failure – a predictable but honest failure.
We are facing similar garbage because of the rising heroin overdose problems – we are likely to become more agressive about heroin. That is not going to work and not going to help.
I have no idea whether it will have a racially disparate impact – but it will have a bad one.
An idea – like nearly all drug laws, is bad or good on its merits. Not because it MIGHT have a racially disparate impact.
No on intended that the Crack law changes would result in longer overall sentences for blacks.
But they did. Not because blacks were targeted, but because bad ideas have bad results.
“If a hedge fund manager buys season tickets to the opera, equivalent to a year’s pay for a worker, his happiness is important. The financial sector drags down GDP by an estimated 2%, while labor carries Wall Street’s drag and grows GDP. His happiness is not important.”
The contribution of every free segment of the economy is EXACTLY what it is.
By definition they neither drag down not boost artificially the economy.
Value is subjective, the value of anything is what a buyer and sellor volunatarily agree to.
Absent force the finanical sectors proper contribution to the economy is exactly what it is, no more no less.
If it was worth more – we would pay more, if it was worth less we would pay less.
This is not only how prices and value work, it is how they MUST work.
This was the focus of the economic calculation problem debates of the 40’s and 50’s,
that were essentially the debate between socialism and free markets.
Free Markets won – not only in the debate, but in the real world. Everything in the debate worked exactly as the propoenents of free markets claimed.
Socialism failed – because it did not have a workable pricing system, because it could not solve the economic calculation problem.
You are just spraying economic nonsense.
A hedge fund manager is entitled to make as much as he can persuade those buying his services to pay him. His value (with respect to the work he performs) os what he can get paid for that work.
The same is true of the laborer.
Further it is not the big muckety mucks that decide what each of us is to be paid.
It is the people – in our purchasing decisions. We decide what mowing the lawn, or housekeeping, or investing is worth to us. We do that when we choose to buy or not buy something.
If we pay alot for something – we value it, and the producer in turn values highly those who aide in producing the thing he sold which is valueable to us.
There is no objective standard of value.
Value is subjective and it is determined by OUR choices – from the bottom up.
The Walton’s have not gotten incredibly wealthy selling diamond encrusted yacht’s to the super rich.
You can not get incredibly wealthy – to the level ot the Walton’s or Gates, or Buffet,
buy selling to the rich. There are just too few of them and they need too little.
Great wealth is produced by catering to the needs of ordinary people.
There may come a time and perhaps you’re already there when you discover Linda is hard-wired in her beliefs and impervious to change. Regardless, keep up the great work.
I do not care much about Linda.
She is just useful as a means to make arguments I want to make.
Confronting your argument on its own fallacious terms.
Whether govenrment may infringe on our rights without justification is binary.
Either it may or it may not.
If you accept free will – and you will not like the alternatives, then permissible restrictions on liberty are rarely justified – only as a response to the actors own use of force to restrict the liberty of others.
If as you do you are prepared to violate free will whimsically, then the differences between different forms of government are merely questions of degree.
I would note we have studied extensively the effects of govenrment over the past 200 years atleast – and fairly great detail over the past century and 50 years. We have alot of results.
I will start with the most attenuated.
Economic growth negatively correlates to tax rates – higher taxes mean lwer or no increase in standard of living. There are lots of studies on this, but I would refer you to the work of Christine Romer – as she was Obama’s cheif economic advisor during his first term – maybe you will beleive her. She found taxes on capital and investment did $2 of economic damage for every $1 of tax levied.
Taxation is the most attenuated – because it is the farthest removed from the real cause.
The next stronger corelation is to government spending. This is stronger, because whatever government spends, it is in some for a constraint on what can be spent privately. Our current GDP is the limit of what we can spend – you can not consume what you do not produce. If government sonsume a portion of what we produce, we can not do so ourselves. It should be self evident that govenrment spending comes at the expense of our standard of living. Regardless, all govenrment spending must be paid for, and it is paid either by current taxes, future taxes, or inflation.
The next strongest correlation is the size of govenrment – this is almost the same as the spending of government, so the logic is the same.
Regardless we know from robust data across individual countries, accross the world, accross the OECD, across 40 years, accross centuries, that for every 10% of GDP that government increases in size the rate of increase of standard of living decreases by 1%. The form of govenrment does not matter.
About the only mittigating factor is that in monocultures – such as the northern european social democracies where there is near universal agreement on everything the rate of reduction in standard of living is slightly lower.
The strongest correlation is to freedom – because that is really what matters.
The less freedom a people have – regardless of the form of government the slower the rate of improvement in standard of living.
I do not much care what label you place on your particular form of statism. It still fails.
Calling some scheme in which government has broad control of the economy something other than socialism does not magically make it work.
Socialism does not fail because of the label.
It fails because the more government restricts peoples freedoms – including economic freedoms the lower standard of living will be.
Obama’s economists like Romer gain no credibility by the association. Neoliberal economics doesn’t differ from the Chicago school that employs Steven Levitt. Obama was driven and convenienced by identity politics.
During the last election, Romer was one of four economists who signed a public letter that identified her solely based on her academic affiliation. There was no mention of the simultaneous corporate and grant income she received. That alone speaks to the integrity of the 4 DINO academic economists who omitted their corporate sponsors, when signing the letter.
Rogoff and Rhinehardt- you forgot their research debacle. You ignored the research of Dean Baker and Paul Krugman. But, when you don’t agree with them, you label them 4th rate economists.
For every source you cite, there is an alternative that disputes or “proves” the opposite.
Truman said, “Give me a one-armed economist. I’m tired of economists saying, ‘On the one hand, and then.on the other hand..’ .”
In retort to the economic claim about… “In the long run…” Keynes’ reply was, “In the long run we are all dead,”
One million Irish starved to death, which provoked the mass exodus from the economic tyranny of the British aristocracy.
Linda writes: “Neoliberal economics doesn’t differ from the Chicago school that employs Steven Levitt.”
What did Steve Levitt do or say that upset you so greatly? He is the author of Freakonomics and other related books. He drew conclusions based on statistical data while you seem to base your conclusions on personal whims that contradict one another.
Romer, did not “associate”,
She did research, gathered data, did analysis and published results.
And she was not at chicago when she did so.
Chicago is “neoclassical” not “neoliberal” Krugman is a “neoliberal”
If Hitler speaks the truth is it false because Hitler is the speaker ?
You have posted repeatedly about the evils of the Koch’s and ALEC – does that mean that prison reform is evil – because the Koch’s and ALEX support it ?
Every time I post an opinion here – must I note that Micron Electronics pays me, or all of the other clients I have ?
I have some MINOR problems with Roggoff and Reinhart, but there central thesis – that growth slows as debt increases is ROCK solid. The only debate was as to whether there is a tipping point from which recovery is impossible. No one serious doubts that increased debt is very bad – ask the Greeks.
Krugman has not practiced economics in decades. Once upon a time he was actually a good one.
I did not Cite Romer because she is the best, but because she is the most credible Romer BTW is considered a “neokeynesian”.
“Our baseline specification suggests that an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly three percent.”
If you wish to read her work.
If you would like better work – you can try Robert Barro, who is the pre-eminent expert on the effects of government spending on growth and the 4th IDEAS Respec ranked economist in the world.
“One million Irish starved to death, which provoked the mass exodus from the economic tyranny of the British aristocracy.”
So citing a failure of merchantilist economics is a refutation of the classical economics that arrose as a result of the failure of merchantilist economics.
Truman ? North Korea Remains a problem TODAY, and you want to cite Truman ?
JS made the association between Obama and Romer to legitimize her viewpoint to readers on the left.
Krugman is no more neoliberal than Robert Reich. When a person only accepts information that agrees with his existing bias, he makes mistakes in describing the other viewpoints.
“JS made the association between Obama and Romer to legitimize her viewpoint to readers on the left.”
Absolutely correct! Nearly all economists of all flavors agree on the negative economic impact of taxes.
“Krugman is no more neoliberal than Robert Reich.”
The economic school that Krugman belongs to is “neoliberal”. I am near certain he classifies himself that way. The label you are looking for, for the chicago school is “neoclassical” – though that is in accurate, regardless, they are not neoliberal and you do not know what neoliberal is.
I have debated Robert Reich personally. He is nice, he is intelligent, he is wrong, he is not an economist,
“When a person only accepts information that agrees with his existing bias, SHE makes mistakes in describing the other viewpoints.”
Absolutely correct – look in the mirror.
Regardless it is self evident you are completely clueless about what anyone else beleives.
You do not even know your own ideology.
He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)
Libel only applies to misstatements of facts, not oppinion.
The left has made claims of racism meaningless as a consequence of missue.
That is a factor in your loss in 2016.
When you identify most of the country as Racist – you may well be speaking the truth but you have at the same time reduced racism to an inanity.
Until an equivalency is provided for the statement of Betsy Devos, Trump’s Sec. of Education, which described the establishment of Black colleges as provoked by choice instead of exclusion from White colleges, the claims that the left believes what it wants to be true, is true, are rightfully ignored. Proof of right wing bias/ignorance at the highest levels, delivered in speeches to the very people discriminated against, reflects arrogance, prejudice and stupidity.
The establishment of private black colleges is an example of self-help, and all of the academically stronger black colleges are private institutions. Blacks were not categorically denied entrance to the tertiary schools which then existed. Blacks were first enrolled in tertiary institutions in the 1840s and could be found at elite institutions in the immediate post-bellum period. The utility of HCBUs derived from blacks being debarred from most state campuses in the former slave states.
In the 1960’s, the first Black students were admitted to many of the state universities in the south. Pres. Kennedy sent troops to the University of Alabama to ease admission of the first Black students.
The story of the Tuskeegee Airman in WW II provides illustration of a situation that was typical of institutionally segregation. Harvard in 2007, did not have one Black varsity coach among 32 positions. There had been none in the previous 15 years.
“Key Events in Black History in Higher Education”, provides an informative chronology.
In the 1960’s, the first Black students were admitted to many of the state universities in the south.
Actually, no. Around 1950.
Some Americans recall from television footage at the time, when forced change occurred.
From University of Missouri Web Site
1950 – Gus T. Ridgel was one of the first African-American students to enroll in the university, and the first graduate. He earned a Master’s degree in Economics the following year.
1799: John Chavis, a Presbyterian minister and teacher, is the first black person on record to attend an American college or university – what is now Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia.
1804: Middlebury College awards an honorary master’s degree to Lemuel Haynes, an African American who fought in the Revolutionary War.
1823: Alexander Lucius Twilight becomes the first known African American to graduate from a college in the United States. He received a bachelor’s degree from Middlebury College in Vermont.
1837: What is now Cheyney University in Pennsylvania is established for free blacks. It does not become a degree-granting institution until 1932.
1854: Ashmun Institute (now Lincoln University) is founded as the first institute of higher education for black men. The school, in Oxford, Pennsylvania, later graduates Langston Hughes and Thurgood Marshall.
1855: Kentucky’s Berea College is established, becoming the first interracial and coeducational institution in the South.
1866: Fisk University is founded in Nashville, Tennessee.
1867: Morehouse College (originally known as Augusta Institute) in Atlanta, Georgia, and Saint Augustine’s College in Raleigh, North Carolina, are founded.
1868: Hampton Institute (now University) is founded in Virginia.
1870: By this time, approximately 22 historically black colleges and universities are enrolling students in the United States.
Uh, no. The relevant court decisions concerned professional schools and were implemented around 1950. There was a subsidiary set of controversies about undergraduate admissions and that occurred about a dozen years later in Alabama and Mississippi.
Sliding around to find a spot that matches your statement?
All interesting observations – and completely irrelevant to the debate.
Black universities predate the 60’s.
There are some private black educational institutions that predate the civil war.
Decisions are made for many reasons – not a single one. Another thing the left constantly fails to grasp.
We had a huge debate over why Comey was fired – different reasons were offered, sometimes by the same person. The left shreeks “See obviously lying!!!!” But as most rational people grasp there were many reasons Comey was fired. Any debate is merely over which straw broke the camels back.
I do not disagree that discrimination and segregation was a factor in creating black eductional institutions.
But it was one of MANY factors.
Even today it is true that blacks going to private black colleges tend to perform better than those attending other colleges.
Beyond that it is true that on the whole (there are some exceptions) Blacks are better served by NOT attending elite educational institutions that they are not adequately prepared for.
Linda, to you and Stalin diversity of opinion is to be reviled and removed. If I remember correctly one of the best schools in the country was a black school in Washington D.C. Imagine that. But it did not conform to leftist ideology so it was removed. “You will be assimilated” not into a country of many ideas but into a country of one Stalinist type of idea.
You’re referring to Dunbar High School in DC, which was the black honors high school prior to 1955. What happened was that it was turned into a local district high school and thereafter subject to the pathologies of such schools in the disciplinary regime which followed. Thomas Sowell during his own research on Dunbar collared a prominent black academic and community leader and asked her why something wasn’t done to save Dunbar. Well, she said, consideration of the issue was lost in the shuffle because the priority was integration.
Thank you for the name I couldn’t remember. I remember Sowell’s book on this subject, but that was a long time ago. I wish Enigma would read Sowell with an open mind, not just one book, but a whole bunch of them. Enigma is articulate, but that is wasted on his diatribes that move the nation backward. Sowell wrote on more things than just race and ideology. He also wrote about culture, academia and provided tremendous insight by writing about himself. He is one of the great minds of our lifetime.
Organic vs the superficial thoughts of the left dictating policy. That is what we saw at Dunbar H.S. A school that developed organically and sent blacks to the finest universities in the country creating black scholars and businessmen was replaced by the top-down superficial dictates of the left. Who did that help? No one.
This is why to the greatest extent possible we should avoid government making choices, or making choices collectively.
Outside central planned decision making – myriads of factors go into making every decision, and each person does not weigh them the same.
Further some of the factors are not even things we are conscious of.
Some of those factors are things the left thinks of as negative – such as group solidarity – racism (both only when practiced by whites).
Regardless, decisions made organically are not only better – because they are more all encompassing, but because they are dynamic. Make a poor choice and the option to alter that choice nearly always exists.
Top down decisions rarely weigh more than a small number of factors, do not reflect individual differences, and are near impossible to repair should they prove in error.
“Until an equivalency is provided for the statement of Betsy Devos, Trump’s Sec. of Education, which described the establishment of Black colleges as provoked by choice instead of exclusion from White colleges, the claims that the left believes what it wants to be true, is true, are rightfully ignored. Proof of right wing bias/ignorance at the highest levels, delivered in speeches to the very people discriminated against, reflects arrogance, prejudice and stupidity.”
Do you read what you write ?
Recent studies have found that left on their own college students will self segregate by a variety of criteria – including race. In fact, factoring out for everything else, black college students will self segregate with other blacks,.
At the same time we have found that this self segregation negatively impacts their future outcomes.
Further you are under the delusion that all things are done for a single reason.
Absolutely blacks established separate black colleges because of the difficulty they had getting into white colleges.
But they also established black colleges because those colleges could better address the actual needs of black college students, and because black students in black colleges were more likely to succeed.
DeVoss is not required to prove to you that something is true, just because something else you beleive that is NOT inherently contradictory may also be true.
Black Colleges remain today – despite the fact that nearly all colleges in the country accept blacks preferentially. There is absolutely no justification for the continued existance of black colleges based on exclusion from white colleges today – therefore their continued existance proves that there are many other reasons for them besides addressing exclusion.
In the real world nearly everything has multiple factors and multiple reasons driving it.
Make and argument – or don;t
Thus far you have not while I have been here made a logically valid argument about anything.
Fallacies are not valid arguments.
You have clearly been very poorly educated.
I do not think you even realize that your arguments are fallacies or know what a fallacy is or why it is not a valid argument.
I do not think you have ever been exposed to any education regarding logic.
But I should not be surprised – you are equally bad with respect to facts – ones that you can look out your own window to establish that you are wrong.
You give yourself permission to be a bully. The child you referred to as living in your home, if she hears or reads your gratuitous insults, is made less by the experience.
It stretches credulity to believe that the most controversial of the speakers funded by the DeVoses are, charitably speaking, empathetic to cultural experiences like race in America. The nation has a legacy of discrimination that impacted one segment disproportionately. To ignore the time forward, of accumulated deprivation, while others had opportunities based on not experiencing discrimination is callous. Also, to now say, we will give a pass to the lingering bigotry by some who have the power to hire, fire and deny access to necessities like housing and loans and, to amenities like social settings where access to opportunities like contacts, occur, can be described as forcing equal treatment in unequal situations. It is a reflection of people who have an underdeveloped sense of morality.
Even a rudimentary look at studies about, for example, resumes that are equal in all ways except the deduction that one was that of a Black person and the other, that of a White person, would give an open minded person, pause to reflect.
You may claim that I don’t hear or understand your position and you may label that my inadequacy. Your rants speak for themselves in terms of your inadequacies.
I have not used or threatened the use of force against anyone.
I have not sought to restrict anyone’s rights in anyway, much less by using force – either through government or myself.
Apparently your definition of bullying is saying things you disagree with.
My children are doing fine. I am sorry they missed some of the experiences I had as a child, but they have benefited from opportunities I did not. I am very proud of my children, and expect to be even prouder as they grow further as adults.
Thus far you – as most of the left have proven entirely inept at representing the views of others.
You are not able to see the horrendous flaws of your own, but you amplify and mistate those of those who disagree with you.
People are not perfect – most of our flaws do not follow our ideology.
It should be self evident from the past year that misogyny has no ideological correlation, that in fact a case could be made that it is worse on the left. It is certainly more hypocritical.
But the same is true of most other negative and positive attributes.
I do not know much of Robert Spensor. What little I do know suggests you are defamining him.
But I am familiar with many other speakers the left similarly identifies as racist is that the left is engaged in egregious defamation – and in some cases physical violence.
Milo Yanopolis is offensive – exactly like myriads of comics on the left.
But he is not racist, or mysoginist or … and he is pretty good with his facts.
Charles Murray is a mild mannered and extremely reputable scholar who dared to say out loud what all reseach on the subject has found – that intelligence is heritable, and that though the individual variations are larger, there are clear variations correlating with race. That these racial variation remain even when you move to different parts of the world.
Sam Harris is also a scholar who is now being similarly defamed by the left for the great crime of defending Murray.
Jordan Peterson – another scholar who has more recently chosen to speak publicly about the actual science that he has participated in and observed for decades is defamed by the left because he asserts correctly that sex is biological. He is a racist and a nazi – because anyone the left disagrees with is a racist and a nazi – it need not make the slightest sense.
It is garbage ad hominem like this that is why the left lost the last election.
When you call everyone who disagrees with you a mysogyinst, racist, homophobic hateful hating hater, you alienate much of the country, you destroy your own credibility and you deflate the impact of words that should have serious meaning.
These are YOU problems not DeVosses
I do not honestly care if DeVoss is funding Richard Spensor – because we need to hear all voices.
We particularly need to hear the most articulate represenations of the views that we like the least.
Please read John Stuart Mills “On Liberty” – it is completely free, and only 109 pages.
Actually learn something about free speach as well as other freedoms.
“On Liberty” used to be the gold standard for freedom, particularly free speach.
People on the left – such as those driving the 60’s Berkeley Free Speech movement would cite it against the conservative power of the time.
Today you are reviling it – without knowing anything about it.
You are burning some of the best parts of your own heritage.
“Milo Yanopolis is offensive – exactly like myriads of comics on the left.”
John, I met Milo at an event and had a conversation with him. I even tried to spark a bit of his onstage offensiveness. Instead, he was one of the most pleasant and respectful persons I have met in such circumstances. I think he has a genuine warmness that impressed me. John Murray is a man I would like to meet or take a course with. He is a true intellect that is criticized by so many on the left that have never read his books.
I have never met Milo.
I have enjoyed watching his video’s.
I do not agree with some things he says.
But he is incredibly well informed and incredibly good at defending extreme positions on his feet with little prep. Though I would imagine he has heard most of the questions he gets before.
Regardless Milo is offensive – it is his Schtick. He is a modern Lenny Bruce or George Carlin.
I think Milo’s concept of himself is more as a “comic” than an intellectual – that does not mean he is not smart. It means that he thinks his role is to shock you, rather that bore you with details.
He tends to travel with others who fit the “intellectual” persona.
That creates a good synergey. They can make their intellectual points and he can face down the lunatic left critics in a way they can’t.
About a year ago he F’d up by treading into turf that was just too taboo.
I am really really really libertarian so he did not bother me.
But you can get away with a gay jewish fag who like black dick persona and still float in conservative circles today – something that speaks pages of the changes int he past few decades,
but do not get anywhere near sex between teens and adults or you are toast.
I expect he will recover. I had expected he would quicker – hell Roy Moore almost got elected.
I look forward to his rising to a high profile once again.
Milo is a hoot. His importance to the conservative and libertarian movements is that he can get millennials to listen. Mixed with laughter is theory. I didn’t realize he F’d up so I am not sure what you are talking about. He had an amazing following on Twitter that banned him. That plus the rioting preventing his speaking engagements caused some difficulty in his career. The same happened to James O’Keefe who was also banned but through his Twitter followers was able to force Twitter to reinstate him. O’Keefe IMO is the finest journalist that exists today based on performance, not journalistic writing skills. He is young, totally focused and learns from his mistakes. If you don’t follow him do so and listen to each and every one of his videos and perhaps even read his book. Hayek is great on theory, but present-day writers permit one to understand how the left is undermining a civil society.
Milo’s publisher was intimidated by the left so they refused to publish his book delaying it from being released. His book IMO is very entertaining especially if one uses an audiobook because he does the narration.
Sometime in the past Milo made some remarks about sex between adults and teens on a radio show that resembled something from Plato.
Just before he was to speak at CPAC some group found these and sprayed them all over.
Milo did not disown and condemn his own past remarks quickly enough and was booted out of CPAC, “left” Brietbart, and had his book deal dropped in less than a week.
Since then his profile has been less than 1/10 of what it was before.
As I said conservatives have reached a point of tolerating – even liking a flaming, “jewish” fag who “likes black dick”. but sex between tens and adults is way outside their comfort zone.
I hope that he eventually recovers.
Milo is a survivor. What caused a lapse in popularity might be due to what you say or a whole bunch of other things. Remember, he promotes a conservative/libertarian satirist viewpoint and the idea of the left is to silence popular people of that nature. We have heard people say much worse without harm to their public image.
I think the idea he was presenting was presented in a one-sided fashion and not permitted to be explored so that the full meaning of what he was saying could be stated. Elsewhere (to permit the column to be wider) I provide his Facebook statement and a link to that and a prior statement.
I think the biggest problem might have been his removal from Twitter, but Twitter censors people on the right. That is in James O’keefe’s video on Twitter abuse along with his Twitter feed where he videoed himself apologizing when he was thrown off of Twitter for no good reason. O’Keefe was put back on Twitter, Milo was not. He resigned from Breitbart. Likely he would have been demoted or even possibly fired. Sex is a subject that some on the right and left go crazy about. I don’t agree with loose sexual habits but I agree discussion should be open. The left has shut down many a book by intimidating publishers. I think that is why so many conservative books are published at Regnery Publishing.
I understand why CPAC did what it did at the time because of sex being the topic it could have negatively affected CPAC’s objective.
O’Keefe is one of few actual investigative journalists left.
Left, right I do nto care – do what he is doing.
I really do not want stories from 12 outlets parroting what one outlet was prepared to release – without sources.
Get it from the horses mouth if possible.
Individuals are responsible for themselves – not their parents, certainly not past generations.
Do we hold american indians responsible for the genocide they inflicted on the prior inhabitants of north american.
Ideas have a legacy – leftism has resulted in more blood than anything else in history.
I bear no personal responsibility for past racism or segregation. Even my ancestors are from Ireland – a place that has been oppressed for 1000 years – though according to National Geographics genetic tests an Askanazi Jew managed to get into the family tree sometime in the recent past.
Regardless even if my family tree went back to Jefferson, We do not punish children for the sins of their fathers.
Race remains a factor in ones success – both in this country and the world.
But of the many factors that correlate to future success it is one of the lest significant.
The left has defamed other scholars for noting that things like – not committing crimes, graduating from High School, getting a job – any job, getting married and waiting to start a family until you are married are among the strongest factors effecting ones future success.
Regardless all these are far more important than discrimination.
Even the genetic disparity in intellegence is a larger factor than racism in determining ones success.
Why do you beleive you have the right to dictate how someone else can hire or fire ?
You are really clueless to how the real world works.
I have actually had to hire people.
I get Dozens – sometimes up to 100 applications for every job.
I can not afford the time to interview more than a handful of applicants.
Your application is going to get a cursory review, you have a few seconds to catch my attention.
Further the process of hiring is about saying NO!!!!!
For every person I hire, I must say no 99 times.
That is how it is.
If the application you produce contains errors – NO!.
If they are obvious you will not make it through the first pass.
I have a stack of 100 applicants – I want to get rid of as many as possible as quickly as possible.
My business does nto profit from the time I spend trying to hire people.
My profits are the consequence of what I produce.
What I want to see on your application – is how hiring you will allow me to produce and profit more.
If you can not do that, there is no reason to hire you.
I do not care if you are black, white or green.
That said in years of hiring I have found Milton Friedman’s advice to be poignant.
I have not hired many racial minorities – they just did not apply.
But I have hired a disproportionate number of women and gays.
Why, because aside from specific areas of the businesses I was engaged in where that would be detrimental, I could count on getting better, more loyal people for less.
As Friedman noted when you exclude someone for reasons such as race that have nothing to do with productivity, you deprive yourself and your business the best person for the job and worse you present your competitor with an opportunity.
I have zero interests in your garbage arguments about discrimination of any form.
It should not be the business of government, it is a “self punishing act”
Regardless, there is no entitlement to a job, and not right to dictate how others offer jobs.
If I wish to hire the stupidest least productive applicants – the cost of poor hiring decisions falls on me.
Grasping what is and is not a right is important to critical thinking.
You have no right to anything that requires another to act affirmatively.
Do I really have to explain why that is a horrible idea ?
That means you have no right to a job, to healthcare, ….
Given that your understanding of morality is abysmal I find your rush to criticise other laughable.
I have already noted that morality rests on the foundation of freedom.
If you violate anothers freedom you act immorally.
Morality does not exist without freedom.
Again you are not entitled to what requires an affirmative action on the part of another.
My daughter is 21, she lives with me, she has her own room. I do not charge her rent.
Am I obligated to offer her room to anyone who might want it ?
Must I provide it to whoever the best choice is by some standard dictated by government ?
Discrimination is just another name for CHOICE.
And hundreds of times a day we make choices – many involving people.
If something is yours to offer – you are not morally obligated to offer it according to some criteria decided by others. And you should not be legally obligated to do what you can not be morally obligated to do.
You are not entitled even to equal opportunity.
The only equallity you have by right is equal treatment by the law.
That is it.
Ultimately you can not preclude discrimination – because people must make choices.
You can not even preclude specific forms of discrimination that you find more offensive than others.
You can at best drive them underground.
Put simply you actually have the right to be a bigot – though you should be concerned because it is a delf punishing act.
No you may not describe things that are not force as force.
That is called lying and it is immoral.
Either actual force is used or threatened or it isn’t
Words have meaning. When you misrepresent as force things that are not,
you distort you communications and worse your own thought.
The only people who would reflect on hiring processes are idiots who have never had to hire someone.
You say that resumes that appear to be from blacks are less likely to be considered ?
statistically you are likely correct.
You are not allowed to ask race. So we must presume that if black resumes are disproportionately rejected it is because of something else.
Is poor sentence construction a legitimate reason to cull resumes – remembering I have to winnow 100 resumes down to 5 interviews and 1 here ? bad Grammar ? Bad Spelling ? Inarticulate expression ?
Legitimate criteria for rejecting an applicant often correspond to race.
You have admitted that employers are somehow more likely to reject black resumes even where all things are equal, and race is not specified.
Because all things are not actually equal.
Because what you think of as racial descrimination is likely descrimination against people who can not write an appealing resume when there are many resume’s to reject for each job.
You fail to get that a job is not a right, it is something you compete for, something YOU have to PROVE you are the best choice for – and sometimes even that is not enough.
Of course you do not understand my position.
But that is your problem not mine and not the issue.
You do not understand reality, that is the serious problem.
You live in a hypothetical world that can not exist, not the real one.
You craft unsustainable pseudo rights from thin air, and fail to grasp actual rights,
and then do not understand when your concoction fails and people are angry.
One adult child described the change in her Dad in an essay, “How Fox News and the Right-Wing Media Machine Made My Dad Crazy”. The theme is more universal than the title suggests. It would open a dialogue with your children if they are old enough to talk to you and you are open to listening.
Linda, you’re not in a position to evaluate anyone’s mental stability.
“One adult child described the change in her Dad in an essay, “How Fox News and the Right-Wing Media Machine Made My Dad Crazy”.”
Yes, absolutely – the views of teens with respect to their elders have biblical authority.
Maybe we should solicit the opinions of toddlers on matters of policy too ?
There is overwhelming evidence that ones judgement improves with:
getting a job
buying a house
graduating from high school
avoiding becomining a criminal.
Avoiding having children out of wedlock.
forming a family.
BTW each of these also strongly correlates to a conservative political shift.
I am glad that young people express themselves, it is important and part of how we learn.
but 16 year olds have no special intellectual credibility.
“The theme is more universal than the title suggests.”
I am not interested in fake left wing nut themes that run at cross currents to facts.
“It would open a dialogue with your children if they are old enough to talk to you and you are open to listening.”
I have had an open dialogue with my children through their entire life.
Do you even have children ?
You are so clueless about them.
If you do I am sorry for them.
Mine are quite capaple of thinking for themselves – and defending their views.
Though they do not share yours – they could defend yours better than you can.
You are ignorant even of your own ideology.
You just make things up. Stupidly and obviously.
Comments are closed.