"Global online news portal for business success. Provides daily information on economics (and a little politics) necessary to identify and act on global opportunities.">
pryvateer.news
pryvateer.news : Global online news portal for business success. Provides daily information on economics (and a little politics) necessary to identify and act on global business opportunities.
Mr Ambassador, Ladies and Gentlemen, dear American friends,
I am pleased to be here – for the fifth time as President of the Czech Republic – with all of you and to join you in celebrating this very unique day – the Independence Day of the United States of America.
I have to start with mentioning what – I suppose – we all know, with saying that the relations between the Czech Republic and the United States are – now, already for more than 17 years – very good, very intensive and very friendly. What is even more important is that the relationship is very dynamic. The time that elapsed between the last two Independence Days was again characterized by new events and by new issues, which begin to dominate our mutual agenda.
We now talk more than before about visas on the one hand, and about the possible deployment of the American radar base on the Czech territory on the other. We hope that both will be solved. We are deeply convinced that the American presence in Europe has been of key importance for stability, security and prosperity of this continent.TheCzech Republic, because of its rather complicated history, feels very strongly about this.
There are some who, lacking the ecstatic thrill of any other faith-based religion, wish to believe that the Earth is in the early stages of an unprecedented climatic change which will see temperatures soar, the polar ice caps melt, rising sea levels flood our coastal cities -- general devastation on the biblical model -- all because we insist on driving petroleum-fueled private automobiles and using electricity generated by burning coal.
Burning that stuff releases into the atmosphere large amounts of carbon dioxide, you see, a "greenhouse gas" that contributes to the ongoing warming of the planet.
Now, this is almost entirely fantastic nonsense. The planet is currently warming at a rate of perhaps one degree a century, part of an ongoing cycle of global warming and cooling which (ice cores and other fossil records tell us) has been ongoing for millions of years. This is caused not primarily by CO? levels -- changes in atmospheric CO? loading actually trail temperature shifts by decades or even centuries -- but rather by fluctuating solar activity. Even if CO? were a factor, most of the CO? in the atmosphere comes from volcanoes and the natural processes of the oceans, not from man-made sources.
Since wiping out mankind would have a minimal impact on climate, what good do you think a few rich folk switching to "hybrids" will do?
If warming continues at the present rate, the most significant impact is likely to be a small increase in the amount of previously frozen ground on which people could grow wheat.
The global warming hysteria will be remembered as one of those episodes of "the madness of crowds" which saw bands of flagellants wandering Europe urging folks to finish work on those cathedrals real soon because the world was going to come to an end at the millennium, in 1,000 A.D., and the minor panic of Oct. 30, 1938, when numerous radio listeners were taken in by the realistic Orson Welles broadcast of "The War of the Worlds."
Now that they've got everyone hot and bothered about predictions of global warming catastrophe, there are a few details that are being conceded.
First, the head of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concedes the "General Circulation Models" used to predict increased global warming can't really predict future climate. In what sounds like a quick-step retreat, Kevin Trenberth says the IPPC didn't really predict changes in climate after all. The agency merely offered up "what if" projections that correspond to hypothetical scenarios.
Maybe that's why the much-relied on models for whipping up global warming fever can't even predict what's already happened, let alone the future.
Then there's this in World Magazine: "Computer models that predict climate changes due to global warming are flawed, according to a study published in the journal Science. The study examined two decades' worth of satellite climate data and found that actual rain and snow precipitation was much higher than current models predict. In fact, precipitation increased with temperature at a rate three times higher than expected. Most global warming models forecast a much slower rise in precipitation that would mean drought for many already dry areas of the globe."
To the hardworking American citizens, your country is about to be swept from underneath you. Our sovereignty is unraveling. I say this because of the various agreements to privatize and lease our nation's interstates and highways to foreign companies. And it’s happening without Congressional approval or approval of the people. This is happening across the country as well. The Trans Texas Corridor is planned to be under the control of Spain's Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte. And locally in Tennessee, a proposed toll road to be installed near Knoxville caught my attention. I wonder what's to become of that highway project. As it is implemented, will it be sold to foreign companies?
Our nation's sovereignty is being erased and most Americans know nothing about it. This reeks of an effort by some politicians to sneak in and implement the Superhighway, which is connected with the North American Union effort.
As with so many policies produced by left-right Washington, the compromise immigration bill that the Senate effectively scuttled today was a lose-lose proposition from the beginning. It contained a one-time benefit for a chunk of our current illegals, but it didn't address the ongoing issues that compel Mexican laborers to stream over the border in the first place. It also contained billions of dollars worth of the same dubious enforcement measures that are currently failing, not the least of which was hundreds of miles of mostly symbolic fencing and a truly disturbing national employee verification system that would have increased the cost of every job in America and made the Federal government the final arbiter of every employment decision made in this country.
Although entrepreneurship is at an all-time high in the US, most of us still work for someone else, and so when the government comes along with a new scheme that demands businesses hand over yet another right to the government, too many Americans think little of it. And then a few years later, when the depressing effects of the new regulations come home to roost, the same Americans get angry and demand yet another government scheme to address it. It's pretty obvious that freedom loses in every revolution of this cycle, and when freedom loses, we all eventually lose.
In the opening chapter of The Assault on Reason, its seldom reasonable author accuses the Bush administration of exploiting people's fears "to short-circuit debate and drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts, or the public interest."
Shamelessly abusing lingering September 11th and nascent Iraq anxieties, he argues that the roles of "reason, logic and truth" have been eroded from the American decision-making process. This lack of focus and clarity, charges Al Gore, is personified by an administration that ignores expert advice, circumvents analysis and debate, and suppresses evidence to promote predetermined, agenda driven policies.
What's most confounding about these stinging allegations is that they were penned by the very same man whose Oscar awarded fear-exploitation-film proclaimed - in a gross distortion of prevailing evidence and facts -- that:
When an academic discoverswhat ordinary mortals have known for eons, it’s called science. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity is not a strength, but a weakness; the greater the diversity in a community, the greater the distrust. Prof. Putnam’s five-year study was reported last year by the Financial Times, and is finally percolating down to others in the media and blogosphere.
In diverse communities, Putnam observed, people “hunker down”: they withdraw, have fewer “friends and confidants,” distrust their neighbors regardless of the color of their skin, expect the worst from local leaders, volunteer and carpool less, give less to charity, and “agitate for social reform more,” with little hope of success. They also huddle in front of the television. Activism alternates with escapism, unhappiness with ennui.
Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’” Since this is all very perplexing to the “progressive” Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, allow me to save the good professor from another future shock. People are doing more than hunkering down in these unhappy habitations; they are fleeing. In 1995, the New York Times mocked the findings of William H. Frey and Jonathan Tilove, authors of “Immigrants in, Native Whites Out.” These demographers noted that as states stretching from California to Texas were swamped by Third World immigrants, the historic population began leaving. At least those who did not reside in $16.5 million mansions,in the exclusive Pacific Heights. At its most elevated, the NYT discounted the findings with the aid of the correlation-is-not-causation claim. At its most debased, the newspaper called those who tracked the trend xenophobes.
Sir, Lawrence Summers' article "Harness market forces to share prosperity" (June 25), on reducing income inequality, leaves several critical questions unanswered.
First, why should we care that income inequality is increasing? Was the previous distribution of income more just, simply because it was more nearly equal? Second, neither Professor Summers nor anyone else has a comprehensive understanding of the causes of recent trends in income distribution. In general, it is a bad idea to look for solutions to a "problem" whose causes we do not understand. Third, the whole idea of "sharing prosperity" seems to imply that prosperity is some kind of aggregate to which we all have some claim, much like members of a family. What justifies looking at society as a family? If it is, Prof Summers can just send me a monthly cheque without the need for legislation.
Last Friday’s precipitous stock-market plunge, with the Dow Jones dropping 185 points, is all about Washington’s continued war on prosperity.
The latest assault comes courtesy of House Democrat Sander Levin. Late last week, he introduced a bill that essentially would abolish the 15 percent capital-gains tax preference for risk investing, and raise it by 20 percentage points to the 35 percent corporate and personal rate. This goes beyond an earlier tax attack on a public offering by the Blackstone Group, and would slam into all private partnerships, including buyout funds, hedge funds, venture-capital firms, real estate partnerships, and oil-and-gas deals.
Incidentally, while attacking capital gains, the congressional Democrats are killing initiatives for across-the-board cuts on wasteful appropriation bills. According to the Club for Growth, House Democrats defeated separate measures that would cut spending by 4 percent, 1 percent, and 0.5 percent.
12:21:54 PM comment []
There’s no doubt that President Bush will veto any capital gains tax hikes that congressional Democrats are proposing for buyout funds, hedge funds, and other private partnerships.
Through White House spokesman Tony Snow, the president said he’s prepared to veto any measures to increase taxes.
Treasury chief Henry Paulson said, “I don’t believe it makes sense to single out one industry….We need to be careful dealing with something like this piecemeal.”
SEC Chairman Chris Cox testifying before Congress said, “The funds that Blackstone manages are indeed investment companies but the fund manager is not, under the law.” Cox stressed that Blackstone management is a partnership that’s entitled to the 15 percent capital gains tax, not an investment company liable for paying higher income taxes.
Public choice can be defined as the application of economic theory and methodology to the study of politics and political institutions, broadly defined. Neoclassical price theory has been one of the principal tools of the public-choice theorist, having been applied to address such questions as why people vote, why bureaucrats bungle, the effects of deficit finance on government spending, and myriad other questions regarding the operations and activities of governments.
There has indeed been a public-choice "revolution" in economics. But neoclassical price theory has its limitations, many of which have been investigated by Austrian economists. These limitations have implications for the study of public choice. Namely, if neoclassical price theory is itself flawed, then perhaps its applications to the study of political decision-making have produced uncertain resu
It's not often I can say it, so enjoy: the Supreme Court did the right thing. It has reversed a century-old rule that criminalized retail price agreements. Good. Great. There are 10 million bad regulations to go.
Now, if you just happen to be reading over the Constitution, you will note that it does not give government power to tell manufacturers what the price of their products should be, or regulate the terms of the contracts, much less provide a rationale for economy-wide price controls. In fact, if you were reading it for the first time, you might find the assertion that such a power exists to be preposterous on its face. Truly it is. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate the details of economic contracts.
