but it's never a bad thing to remind people of what their god did:
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and
Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed
into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
No, I do NOT want Rubio in the Oval Office. First chance he gets, he'd start amnesty for illegals, the bastard.
Big reason so many millenials like the idea of socialism? Because the schools have done two things:They haven't taught them what it actually is, and
They haven't taught history; they've taught the socialist/progressive/communist-approved version.
And what's the local school teaching YOUR kids or grandkids?
All those enviroweenies screaming if some researcher who doesn't go along with AGW gets any money connected in any way from an oil company?
Of the more than 100 climate “experts” signing the letter as of now,
73 are affiliated with U.S. universities, including Harvard, MIT and
Stanford, just to name a few.
Of those 73 signatories, 59 of them are affiliated at universities that -- in 2014 alone -- accepted grants worth about $40 million from ExxonMobil.
In 2002, Exxon awarded Stanford
University a ten-year grant worth $225 million. One might expect such
an award to give Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson some pause in
adding his name to a petition demanding Exxon not sponsor the AGU -- but
he did sign it. Jacobson should forward the AGU letter to Stanford’s
Board of Trustees to see what they have to say.
And a real winner,
As federal funding for climate research recedes amid budgetary
belt-tightening, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution signed
agreements in 2014 to do research for the Saudi Arabia-owned oil company Saudi Aramco. What are Woods Hole researchers doing for Saudi Aramco? They are helping the company find more oil in the Red Sea, of course.
Sheriff Joe, like a bunch of other Democrats, doesn't like having his words brought back up. Especially when they're a problem for what he wants done.
1 comment:
Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian just discovered what's been blatantly obvious for 80 years. The economy followed a boom-bust cycle[1], and always had. The depression that started in 1929 should have ended itself in a few years. But Hoover was an immoderate progressive and advocate of tax supported relief programs (which I call "robbing hood charity"). He massively interfered in the economy, and it got worse. (So-called liberal historians ignore that.) FDR re-targeted and increased the interference, and it got worse. The only slight relief came after NIRA was overturned by the courts, but FDR found ways around that, and the economy continued bad until it was "rescued" by a different distortion: massive government borrowing and military spending; there was full employment making stuff to send overseas and blow up, but standards of living were hardly improving until 1946.
[1]It's likely that the "natural" boom-bust cycle of that era was mostly due to delayed feedback, such as sales data that was reported by mail and aggregated by hand, so the final reports were months behind. Companies could easily find all their capital and their credit line tied up in unsellable inventory. That cause has been largely alleviated by automated data collection over computer networks; if sales of a Mattel toy at Walmart drop nationwide, Walmart will see the change in a day. Mattel won't be far behind, and can reduce production or shift to something that sells better before much inventory has built up. So as far as I can see, recent booms and busts have largely been the result of technological advances and government intervention.
Post a Comment