Thursday, June 22, 2017

Why are there so few Women in the Sciences?

That is, why are there so few women in the hard STEM fields that involve high-level mathematical and spatial-visual cognitive ability?

The Cultural Left, the Liberals and even some Conservatives have offered various explanations for this, but most of their theories are false or feeble, and some on the Cultural Left are basically unhinged conspiracy theories.

As it happens, there is a straight-forward scientific explanation, and backed up by a mountain of scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, it requires looking at the nature of IQ, or intelligence, in men and women, and, of course, this causes bilious, almost deranged howls of outrage in our culture, mostly from the Left.

But, if you bear with me, you can understand in this short post what the vast majority of people don’t understand (and even refuse to understand or believe if they are told the truth).

The explanation is as follows:
(1) Culturally unbiased, fair IQ tests measure a person’s general faculty of intelligence, or what is now called Spearman’s g (general intelligence), which is clearly a unified, single cognitive trait of human beings. It appears that IQ (which measures general intelligence) is about 70–85% heritable in adults. The heritability of IQ rises with age, so that by the time one is an adult perhaps as much as 80% of IQ is genetic (Plomin and Spinath 2004; Plomin and Deary 2015). Even the liberal/leftist American Psychological Association (APA) admits the overwhelming evidence for this (see Neisser et al. 1996: 96, which accepts the 0.75 figure), and the democratic socialist James R. Flynn (after whom the “Flynn Effect” is named) – the leading environmentalist on gaps in IQ between population groups – himself accepts that current evidence shows that the heritability of IQ in adults is probably about 0.75 (Dickens and Flynn 2001: 346).

(2) When the IQs of a representative sample of men and women are plotted on a graph, it has been discovered that the distribution of IQs is not the same. See the graph of male and female IQ distribution here. As we can see, the manner in which the IQs of men and women fall on the graph differs: the IQ scores of women tend to cluster around the average (with less distribution in upper and lower ranges), while male IQs tend to be distributed less around the average and more in the upper and lower ranges as compared with the IQ distribution of women (see Hedges and Nowell 1995; Lubs 1999; Roberts 1945; Deary et al. 2007).

The average IQ for European people is about 100. So, for example, more European women have IQs that tend to cluster around 100 than the IQs of men do. This means that, numerically, there are far more high IQ men than there are women (also, it means there are far more low IQ men than there are women). Furthermore, it means that, numerically, there are fewer men of about average IQ than there are women.

(3) in addition, there is probably a small difference between the average IQ of men as compared with that of women (Lubs 1999; Johnson and Bouchard 2007; Nyborg 2005). Men appear to have a slightly higher average IQ, with about a 3–5 point advantage over women – though, admittedly, that is not large. It is still correct to say that the average IQs of men and women are not greatly different.

(4) by examining the sub-tests of IQ tests, we have discovered that – in terms of subsets and specific cognitive abilities – men and women also differ. Women tend, on average, to be much better at verbal abilities and language, but men tend on average to outperform women on numerical/mathematical and spatial cognitive abilities (Neisser et al. 1996; Wechsler 1958: 144–149; Lubs 1999; Johnson and Bouchard 2007; Johnson et al. 2008; Halpern et al. 2007).
The fact that the intergenerational Flynn effect – which has been working for about a hundred years – hasn’t eliminated these IQ differences between men and women should alert us to the truth that the differences are mostly genetic, not environmental.

So why are there so few women in the sciences?

First, science requires a high IQ. But the IQs of women tend to cluster around the mean of 100. Because many more men have IQs well above 100 than women, numerically there are not enough women to compete with men in the sciences. The slightly higher average IQ of men also contributes to this.

Secondly, science also requires a high level of mathematical and visual-spatial cognitive abilities, and here on average men outperform women.

Thirdly, science tends to attract human beings with an interest and ability in mathematics, spatio-visual abilities, and propensity to do abstract, impersonal work, which is much less focussed on human beings, or on social/verbal interaction between human beings. There are also general psychological and behaviour differences between men and women that affect each gender’s educational choices and career choices. Women are better at verbal/language abilities, and have a general propensity to choose professions where they can use those abilities. Thus the hard sciences appeal to men far more than to women. Therefore, generally speaking, even high IQ women tend not to be interested in the hard sciences.

When women do go into the sciences, it tends to be in biology or medicine, where they can use their superior verbal skills, while women tend to avoid other STEM fields that require a more intense mathematical and spatial cognitive ability.

By contrast, men excel at physics, chemistry and engineering, where greater numerical and spatial cognitive abilities are required (see Johnson et al. 2004).

The reality of few women in the hard sciences, then, has a mainly biological explanation, which is grounded in genetics and Darwinian evolution. In short, it is explained by the biological and genetic differences between men and women.

This is precisely why not only in the past but also to this day modern Western science and scientific discovery is driven mostly by high-IQ men, not women.

Of course, this biological explanation does not rule out influences from culture, institutional factors, discrimination, and government policy either. But these are likely to be minor or even trivial factors, while the major factor is biology.

Crucially, while none of this necessarily rules out the moral case for equality of opportunity for women, it totally destroys the feminist aim of total gender equality of outcome in all employment, professions and intellectual life. Moreover, it follows logically that the conventional explanation for the failure of women to attain a 50% presence in all higher professions because of some evil institutional gender discrimination and sexism in Western societies is manifestly absurd.

And nobody scientifically literate even in a layman’s sense should be surprised by any of this.

There are also other significant biological differences between men and women, as follows:
(1) on average, men are taller than women;

(2) on average, men have greater upper and lower body strength (with greater muscle mass, thicker tendons, and greater bone density) than women;

(3) on average, oxygen is better circulated around the male body because of higher haemoglobin levels so that, physiologically, men are better at physical activity than women;

(4) on average, men have greater stamina (with higher levels of anabolic steroids);

(5) on average, men have greater maximal oxygen uptake capacity than women;

(6) on average, men are more competitive (because of higher levels of testosterone) and more aggressive than women.
This is also why women, on average, simply cannot work at certain jobs that require hard, strenuous, extended physical labour in the way that men can.

Once again, these facts of human social life are explained largely by biology and genetics.

But try saying this in public, or in academia, or in the media. The response will be a hysterical, vicious, witch-hunting wave of public abuse, persecution and, if the person in question is of high-profile or status, probably the ruin of that person’s career.

This is how anti-scientific and insane our civilisation has become. The fault lies mostly with the Cultural Left and feminists too. But the mainstream Conservatives aren’t any better either.

Modern conservatives – who are rightly derided as “Cuckservatives” (from “cuckold conservatives”) by their own enemies on the right – are so useless that they cannot even defend basic scientific truths about the biological differences between men and women.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bouchard, Thomas J., Lykken, David T., McGue, Matthew, Segal, Nancy L. and Auke Tellegen. 1990. “Sources of Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart,” Science n.s. 250.4978: 223–228.

Deary, Ian J., Irwing, Paul, Der, Geoff, and Timothy C. Bates. 2007. “Brother–Sister Differences in the g Factor in Intelligence: Analysis of Full, Opposite-Sex Siblings from the NLSY1979,” Intelligence 35.5: 451–456.

Dickens, William T. and James R. Flynn. 2001. “Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects: The IQ Paradox Resolved,” Psychological Review 108.2: 346–369.

Halpern, Diane F., Benbow, Camilla P., Geary, David C., Gur, Ruben C., Hyde, Janet Shibley and Morton Ann Gernsbacher. 2007. “The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8.1: 1–51.

Hedges, Larry V. and Amy Nowell. 1995. “Sex Differences in Mental Test Scores, Variability, and Numbers of High-Scoring Individuals,” Science n.s. 269.5220: 41–45.

Johnson, W., Bouchard, T. J., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M. and I. I. Gottesman. 2004. “Just one g: Consistent Results from Three Test Batteries,” Intelligence 32.1: 95–107.

Johnson, Wendy and Thomas J. Bouchard Jr. 2007. “Sex Differences in Mental Abilities: g masks the Dimensions on which they lie,” Intelligence 35.1: 23–39.

Johnson, Wendy, Carothers, Andrew and Ian J. Deary. 2008. “Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence: A New Look at the Old Question,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 3.6: 518–531.

Lubs, H. A. 1999. “The Other Side of the Coin: A Hypothesis Concerning the Importance of Genes for High Intelligence and Evolution of the X chromosome,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 85.3: 206–208.

Neisser, Ulric, Boodoo, Gwyneth, Bouchard Jr., Thomas J., Boykin, A. Wade, Brody, Nathan, Ceci, Stephen J., Halpern, Diane F., Loehlin, John C., Perloff, Robert, Sternberg, Robert J., and Susana Urbina. 1996. “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” American Psychologist 51.2: 77–101.

Nyborg, H. 2005. “Sex Related Differences in General Intelligence g, Brain Size, and Social Status,” Personality and Individual Differences 39.3: 497–509.

Plomin, R. and F. M. Spinath. 2004. “Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.1: 112–129.

Plomin, R. and I. J. Deary. 2015. “Genetics and Intelligence Differences: Five Special Findings,” Molecular Psychiatry 20.1: 98–108.

Roberts, J. A. Fraser. 1945. “On the Difference between the Sexes in Dispersion of Intelligence,” The British Medical Journal 1.4403: 727–730.

Schmidt, F. L. and J. E. Hunter. 2004. “General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment and Job Performance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.1: 162–173.

Wechsler D. 1958. The Measurement of Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (4th edn.). Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore.

Monday, June 19, 2017

A Thought Experiment about Diversity

The belief that “Diversity is Strength” is pretty much an Orwellian cry of the modern world.

Let us take the average multiculturalist Conservative, multiculturalist Liberal, or multiculturalist Leftist, Cultural Leftist, or multiculturalist Marxist. We can assume that you are vehemently in favour of diversity and immigration – and that you think diversity is the greatest thing ever.

There is a simple question these people need to answer:
With respect to Western countries in Europe like Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, or Belgium, how much diversity is enough?
Is there any limit to diversity?

For example, is the pro-diversity Leftist or Conservative willing to set a limit at which we have had enough diversity?

For example, is it enough diversity when we hit the point when 50% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or when 60% of the total population is of immigrant origin? Or 70%? Or 80%? Or 90%

Or 100%?

I would like to see the pro-diversity multiculturalists – whether Conservatives or Leftists – answer this question.

How much diversity in the West is enough for you?

And, importantly, are you also calling for similar levels of diversity in African nations, Muslim Middle Eastern nations, Israel, India, South-east Asian nations, China, Japan, and South Korea?

Any takers?

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Richard Werner on “Strategic QE: Money Creation for Sustainable Investment”

Richard Werner gives a talk below on “Strategic QE: Money Creation for Sustainable Investment” at the EU Parliament:



A minor point: I don’t think it is correct to say that the banks, when they create a new loan, record their liability as a “fictitious deposit.” Instead, the new demand deposit is technically and legally an IOU or promise to pay, but also a type of credit money, so that new demand deposits expand the broad money supply.

I don’t accept Werner’s “quantity theory of credit” either (you can listen to a talk on the subject here), because it concedes too much to the flawed Neoclassical quantity theory.

However, the point that our modern financial system – because it has been so poorly regulated and deregulated – is driving asset price inflation by credit bubbles is absolutely correct.

And Richard Werner has a radical solution to the below-replacement fertility rate in the Western world, namely, generous subsidies for new children:



This sounds excellent to me, and much better than the disastrous Neoliberal attempts at population replacement, which is now being pushed by the United Nations.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The “Highest” Stage of Neoliberal Capitalism

Lenin was wrong about imperialism being the highest stage of capitalism.

Instead, we are seeing the highest stage of neoliberal capitalism playing out all over the Western world right now, and here is the BBC doing us all a tremendous service by describing it, as advocated by a non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a UN special representative for migration:
Brian Wheeler, “EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN Migration Chief,” BBC News, 21 June 2012.
The highest stage of neoliberal capitalism is the quite explicit drive for the demographic replacement of the peoples of the developed capitalist Western world.

Neoliberalism and Neoclassical economics place no value on national identity, or social and cultural cohesion, whether of working class people nor of whole nations. Hence the utter insanity being pushed today, as also advocated here by Noah Smith.

Funny how Marxists aren’t interested in analysing, discussing or acknowledging this.

Because many Western nations have fertility rates below replacement levels, Neoliberals want massive levels of immigration to prevent a falling population, not to mention more and more low-wage workers for capitalist exploitation, and no doubt other Neoliberals and corporate capitalists will love such labour as they use it to smash the high wages and labour rights of workers.

But that logically requires the destruction of the cultural and ethnic homogeneity of pretty much all Western nations, and the Neoliberal advocates of this don’t even bother to hide that this must be the consequence of their policies.

But why should native Europeans be in favour of their own dispossession and demographic replacement? (even if it did have, economically speaking, benefits, which is doubtful.)

And for that matter why on earth should any people – say, for example, the Japanese – be in favour of such a thing even if they did have a low birth rate?

Wouldn’t it be better to try much more radical means to raise the birth rate to replacement levels before destroying the national identities of nation after nation, or attempting insane social engineering experiments not seen since the disaster of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia?

And this is all, once again, proof of the straightforward point about free market capitalism as argued by Ha-Joon Chang:
“Wages in rich countries are determined more by immigration control than anything else, including any minimum wage legislation. How is the immigration maximum determined? Not by the ‘free’ labour market, which, if left alone, will end up replacing 80–90 per cent of native workers with cheaper, and often more productive, immigrants. Immigration is largely settled by politics. So, if you have any residual doubt about the massive role that the government plays in the economy’s free market, then pause to reflect that all our wages are, at root, politically determined.”
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2011. 23 Things they Don’t Tell you about Capitalism, Thing 1: There is no such thing as a free market
The most crippling and disgusting problem with the Left today is that there is no left-wing moment willing to oppose open borders capitalism and the destruction of the national identities of Europeans.

On the contrary, most of the Left is vehemently in favour of these policies, even though its more radical wing prides itself on opposing the excesses of free market capitalism. But why is this?

The Left has simply been taken over by the quasi-religious obsession with multiculturalism, Third Worldism, quasi-Marxist internationalism, and what can only be described as a toxic racial hatred of European people and the very idea that European people should have majority homelands in which they survive as a majority to preserve themselves and their culture.

At the same time, it is unlikely that these leftists in question would deny those rights of national homelands and national identity to non-European people all over the globe. Why, for example, don’t most Leftists call for massive diversity in Tibet, China, Japan, Korea, India, Africa, Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia?

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Michael Norman for President!

Here:



Sounds great to me.

My own feelings on American politics are: imagine if the Left had a billionaire (as Trump was) but to run as a Democratic party candidate with an MMT program. As much as I like Bernie, he was for many people tainted by his Marxist past.

But imagine a rich, successful charismatic businessman who could push a left Keynesian program and say, “look, this is good for capitalism and the middle class!,” but at the same time have a quiet but sane policy on immigration, and not be some crazy Cultural Leftist, but instead focus mainly on economics.

I bet such a candidate would crush all those Neoliberal Democratic shills. That would be truly something.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Stephen Cohen on the Latest Anti-Russian McCarthyite Hysteria

Sane analysis of the latest phase of this hysterical nonsense:



Cohen brings up this acutely relevant point: back in 2016, Obama pushed for a ceasefire agreement in Syria and even a policy of coordinating with the Russian military against Islamic State and Nusra Front forces, and even a plan for a “Joint Integration Center” (JIC) for both US Russian military cooperation.

Such cooperation with Russia in Syria was, more or less, what Trump promised in 2016.

So why wasn’t Obama accused of being a Russian agent and of “collusion” with Russia in 2016?

But, curiously, Obama’s policy in 2016 seems to have been sabotaged on 17 September that year when US military figures ordered the Deir ez-Zor airport raid, a series of 37 US-led coalition airstrikes near the Deir ez-Zor Airport in eastern Syria, which ended up killing about 100 or so Syrian soldiers and an emergency UN security council meeting and an end to the ceasefire. The US-Russian detente immediately collapsed.

See the analysis here of the whole episode.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Sunday, May 7, 2017

The US H-1B Visa Scam

Virtually the whole program is a case of vicious class war but against middle class people too:



If it were really the case that H-1B visas are just a program to import immigrants to do jobs Americans cannot do, then there wouldn’t be so much evidence of employed people being forced to train their own H-1B replacements and then fired.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, May 4, 2017

The Free Market Final Solution to the Western World

Just look at what US Republican politicians are planning for America:
Neil Munro, “Two GOP Legislators Propose American Replacement Bill, Plus Amnesty,” Breitbart, 4 May 2017.
These Republican scumbags want to “annually import 500,000 foreign blue-collar workers and white-collar professionals to replace Americans who have fallen out of the workforce and into drug addiction,” all justified with the usual outrageous nonsense that people don’t want to work or that they can’t find Americans to work at their miserable slave labour wages.

And how many years will this go on for? 20 or 30 years? 50 years? 100?

This is free market fanaticism at its most vicious and grotesque depths of inhumanity.

The long-suffering working class and even middle class people of America have been assaulted for decades with Neoliberalism – and its hideous program of austerity, free trade, outsourcing of manufacturing and service jobs, real wage stagnation, debt slavery, and the unending program of Third World mass immigration to lower wages and replace American workers.

And now these GOP legislators are openly, unashamedly, viciously proving that the actual outcome of a movement towards free markets is absolutely the following scenario:
“Wages in rich countries are determined more by immigration control than anything else, including any minimum wage legislation. How is the immigration maximum determined? Not by the ‘free’ labour market, which, if left alone, will end up replacing 80–90 per cent of native workers with cheaper, and often more productive, immigrants. Immigration is largely settled by politics. So, if you have any residual doubt about the massive role that the government plays in the economy’s free market, then pause to reflect that all our wages are, at root, politically determined.”
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2011. 23 Things they Don’t Tell you about Capitalism, Thing 1: There is no such thing as a free market

“… the living standards of the huge majority of people in rich countries critically depend on the existence of the most draconian control over their labour markets – immigration control. Despite this, immigration control is invisible to many and deliberately ignored by others, when they talk about the virtues of the free market.”
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2011. 23 Things they Don’t Tell you about Capitalism, Thing 3: Most people in rich countries are paid more than they should be.
If we in the West don’t get severe immigration control quickly, we are going to be demographically replaced and reduced to the level of the Third World. And then when those immigrants have been economically and socially destroyed by free markets or their wages get too high, the Neoliberal rulers of the West will presumably just import even more.

And where is the Left on this issue? Where are all these spineless, worthless, left-wing and Liberal people who claim to be in favour of the working class and labour rights?

I see hardly anybody willing to talk about this, nor willing to make the case that mass immigration is the last fraud of Neoliberalism, which it most certainly is, and this is before we even get to the terrible social and cultural problems associated with it.

And, on the contrary, I see many people on the Left who are fanatical, delusional, hardcore supports of the same endless mass immigration policies or even total open borders, only justified with the demand for multiculturalism or refugee rights, but whose effect – if not intention – is exactly the same as the hardcore free market fanatics.

This is a major reason why so much of the Left is morally bankrupt, and certainly doesn’t deserve political power any more than the free market Conservatives do.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Posts on 19th Century Economic History (Updated)

Below are updated links to various posts on 19th century economic history, in the US, the UK, Australia and Japan, as well posts analysing the deflation of 1873 to 1896.

(1) General
“The Gold Standard did not Prevent Price Inflation,” October 26, 2012.

“The Classical Gold Standard Era was a Myth,” March 18, 2013.

“The Profit Deflation of the 1890s,” June 13, 2013.

“Alfred Marshall’s Judgement on the ‘Depression’ of 1873–1896,” June 13, 2013.

“S. B. Saul on the Profit Deflation of the 1873–1896 Period,” June 14, 2013.

“The Original Economic Use of the Word ‘Inflation’?,” August 4, 2014.

“Malthus on Nominal Wage Rigidity,” May 25, 2015.

“Henry Thornton on Downwards Nominal Wage Rigidity,” December 1, 2014.

“Wage Stickiness in 1890s Germany,” December 7, 2015.

(2) The US
“Woods on ‘Sound Money’ and Deflation: A Critique,” March 17, 2013.

“19th Century Deflation and Recession in the US,” February 9, 2013.

“US GNP Estimates in the Recession of the 1890s,” January 18, 2011.

“Government Intervention, James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railway,” July 26, 2011.

“US Real GNP Estimates 1869–1879,” December 4, 2011.

“The US Recessions of the 1890s in Balke and Gordon,” December 5, 2011.

“Why was US Unemployment so High in the 1890s?,” December 6, 2011.

“US Real GNP Growth in the 1880s,” December 6, 2011.

“Real US GNP Growth Rates 1870–1900 in Balke and Gordon,” December 6, 2011.

“Real US GNP Growth Rates 1870–1900 in Romer,” December 6, 2011.

“Real GDP and GDP per capita, 1870–1913, Selected Nations,” December 7, 2011.

“Real US GNP Growth Rates 1870–1913 in Balke and Gordon,” December 8, 2011.

“Real US GNP Growth Rates 1870–1913 in Romer,” December 9, 2011.

“US Unemployment in the 1890s,” January 24, 2012.

“US Unemployment, 1869–1899,” January 26, 2012.

“Real US GNP Growth Rates, 1873–1896,” February 26, 2012.

“Thomas E. Woods on Keynesian Predictions vs. American History: A Critique,” May 29, 2012.

“Davis on US Recessions in the 19th Century,” August 25, 2012.

“Reply to ‘Unemployment, Deflation and Growth During the Period of 1873–1896,’” September 6, 2012.

“Per Capita GDP Growth Rates During the Gold Standard Era,” September 11, 2012.

“US Real Per Capita GDP from 1870–2001,” September 24, 2012.

“Rothbard on the US Economy in the 1870s: A Critique,” September 24, 2012.

“US Unemployment Graph, 1869–1899,” February 27, 2013.

“US Unemployment in the 1890s Again,” February 20, 2014.

“US Unemployment in the 1890s: Who is Right?,” December 30, 2013.

“US Industrial Production in the 1890s,” January 2, 2014.

“Were Nominal Wages Flexible in 1890s and Early 1900s America?,” January 31, 2014.

“Weir on Historical Estimates of US Unemployment,” February 9, 2014.

“A US Wholesale Price Index 1860–1914,” June 3, 2014.

“Protectionism and US Economic History,” June 8, 2014.

“US Industrial Production Index 1800–1914,” June 9, 2014.

“US Bank Suspensions 1864–1970,” January 8, 2015.

“Real US GDP 1870–2001,” January 13, 2015.

“Huerta de Soto gets it Wrong on the Gold Standard,” December 20, 2014.

“The 1870s Economic Crisis in America: Reality versus Rothbard,” October 5, 2015.

(3) The Deflation of 1873 to 1896
“Libertarian Gold Standard Myths Never Die,” January 13, 2015.

“Neoclassical and Quantity Theory Explanations of the 1873–1896 Deflation,” January 7, 2015.

“More Evidence on the Profit Squeeze of 1873–1896,” January 5, 2015.

“UK Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation in the 1873 to 1896 Deflation,” December 18, 2014.

“Nominal Wage Rigidity in the US and the UK 1865/1880–1913,” December 16, 2014.

“Armitage-Smith on the Profit Deflation of the 1873–1896 Era,” December 15, 2014.

“UK Average Money Earnings 1880–1913,” December 14, 2014.

“UK Real Per Capita GDP 1830–1913,” December 13, 2014.

“British Money Wages in the 1873–1896 Deflation,” December 10, 2014.

“Saul’s The Myth of the Great Depression, 1873–1896,” December 8, 2014

“Alfred Marshall on the Deflation of 1873–1896,” October 14, 2014.

“UK Real GDP 1830–1918,” October 8, 2012.

“Robert Giffen on the Deflation of 1873–1896,” December 7, 2014.

“Alfred Marshall on Business Confidence,” December 3, 2014.

“Alfred Marshall on Wage Stickiness and Debt Deflation,” November 30, 2014.

“The Profit Deflation of the 1890s,” June 13, 2013.

“Alfred Marshall’s Judgement on the ‘Depression’ of 1873–1896,” June 13, 2013.

“S. B. Saul on the Profit Deflation of the 1873–1896 Period,” June 14, 2013.

(4) The UK
“The Early British Industrial Revolution and Infant Industry Protectionism: The Case of Cotton Textiles,” June 22, 2010.

“UK Real GDP 1830–1918,” October 8, 2012.

“UK Unemployment, 1870–1999,” February 25, 2013.

“Britain’s Protectionism against Indian Cotton Textiles,” July 12, 2016.

(5) Australia
“The Australian Business Cycle in the 19th Century,” June 1, 2011.

“Free Banking in Australia,” May 16, 2012.

“A Tale of Two Depressions: 1930s and 1890s Australia,” May 18, 2012.

(6) Japan
“Industrial Policy in Meiji Japan,” April 14, 2012.

“Industrial Policy in Meiji Japan,” December 28, 2016.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Friday, April 21, 2017

Bibliography of Nicholas Kaldor’s Work

Nicholas Kaldor (12 May 1908–30 September 1986) was one of the most important Post Keynesian economists of the 20th century.

Studies of Kaldor’s work and biographies of Kaldor can be found in these works:
Books and Biographies on Kaldor
Thirlwall, A. P. 1987. Nicholas Kaldor. Wheatsheaf, Brighton.

Targetti, Ferdinando. 1992. Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Nell, Edward J. and Willi Semmler (eds.). 1991. Nicholas Kaldor and Mainstream Economics: Confrontation or Convergence?. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Turner, Marjorie S. 1993. Nicholas Kaldor and the Real World. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Targetti F. and A. P. Thirlwall. 1989. The Essential Kaldor. Duckworth, London.

King, J. E. 2009. Nicholas Kaldor. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York.
A complete bibliography of Kaldor’s writings can be found in Targetti, Ferdinando. 1992. Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Here is also a bibliography of Kaldor’s work, by no means complete, but listing many of his books and articles:
Books by Nicholas Kaldor
Kaldor, N. 1960. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy (vol. 1). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy (vol. 2). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1966. The Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom: An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1967. Strategic Factors in Economic Development. Ithaca, New York.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. Further Essays on Economic Theory. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn.). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1982. The Scourge of Monetarism. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Kaldor, Nicolas. 1983. The Economic Consequences of Mrs. Thatcher. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1985. Economics Without Equilibrium. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Kaldor, N. 1989. Further Essays on Economic Theory and Policy (ed. by F. Targetti and Α. P. Thirlwall). Holmes & Meier, New York.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1996. Causes of Growth and Stagnation in the World Economy (ed. by Carlo Filippini, Ferdinando Targetti, A. P. Thirlwall). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Collected Works of Nicholas Kaldor
There are 9 volumes of collected works of Nicholas Kaldor: volumes 1 and 2 both have first and second editions. There is a PDF of the contents pages of these collected works here.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1960. Essays on Value and Distribution (1st edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 1). G. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 1). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1960. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth (1st edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 2). G. Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Essays on Economic Stability and Growth (2nd edn.; Collected Economic Essays volume 2). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy – Volume One (Collected Economic Essays volume 3). Duckworth, London.
I. Policies for Full Employment; II. The Control of Inflation; III. The Problem of Tax Reform

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1964. Essays on Economic Policy – Volume Two (Collected Economic Essays volume 4). Duckworth, London.
IV. Policies for International Stability; V. Country Studies

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. Further Essays on Economic Theory (Collected Economic Essays volume 5). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. Further Essays on Applied Economics (Collected Economic Essays volume 6). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Reports on Taxation 1 (Collected Economic Essays volume 7). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. Reports on Taxation II (Collected Economic Essays volume 8). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, N. 1989. Further Essays on Economic Theory and Policy (ed. by F. Targetti and Α. P. Thirlwall; Collected Economic Essays volume 9). Duckworth, London.

Articles by Nicholas Kaldor
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1934. “A Classificatory Note on the Determinateness of Equilibrium,” The Review of Economic Studies 1.2: 122–136.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1934. “Mrs. Robinson’s ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition,’” Economica n.s. 1.3: 335–341.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1934. “The Equilibrium of the Firm,” Economic Journal 44: 60–76.

Kaldor, N. 1935. “Market Imperfection and Excess Capacity,” Economica n.s 2.5: 33–50.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1937. “Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The Recent Controversy on the Theory of Capital,” Econometrica 5.3: 201–233.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1938. “Stability and Full Employment,” The Economic Journal 48. 192: 642–657.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1939. “Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility,” The Economic Journal 49.195: 549–552.

Kaldor, Ν. 1939. “Capital Intensity and the Trade Cycle,” Economica 6: 40–66. [reprinted Kaldor 1960: 120–147]

Kaldor, N. 1939. “Speculation and Economic Stability,” Review of Economic Studies 7: 1–27. [reprinted in Kaldor 1960: 17–58]

Kaldor, N. 1939. “Money Wage Cuts in Relation to Unemployment: A Reply to Mr. Somers,” Review of Economic Studies 6: 232–235.

Kaldor, N. 1939. “Principles of Emergency Finance,” The Banker 51: 149–156.

Kaldor, N. 1940. “The Trade Cycle and Capital Intensity: A Reply,” Economica n.s. 7.25: 16–22.

Kaldor, N. 1940. “A Model of the Trade Cycle,” Economic Journal 50: 78–95. [reprinted in Kaldor 1960: 177–192]

Kaldor, N. 1941. “Employment and Equilibrium. A Theoretical Discussion,” Economic Journal 51: 458–473. [reprinted in Kaldor 1960: 83–100]

Kaldor, N. 1941. “The White Paper on National Income and Expenditure,” Economic Journal 51: 181–191.

Kaldor, N. 1942. “Professor Hayek and the Concertina-Effect,” Economica n.s. 9.36: 359–382.

Kaldor, N. 1942. “Models of Short-Period Equilibrium,” Economic Journal 52: 250–258.

Kaldor, N. and T. Barna. 1943. “The 1943 White Paper on National Income and Expenditure,” Economic Journal 53: 259–274.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1945–1946. “The German War Economy,” The Review of Economic Studies 13.1: 33–52.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1949. “The Economic Aspects of Advertising,” The Review of Economic Studies 18.1: 1–27.

Kaldor, N. 1955. An Expenditure Tax. George Allen & Unwin, London.

Kaldor, N. 1956. “Report of a Survey on Indian Tax Reform,” Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delhi.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1957. “Capitalist Evolution in the Light of Keynesian Economics,” Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics 18.1–2: 173–182.

Kaldor, Nicolas. 1957. “A Model of Economic Growth,” Economic Journal 67: 591–624.

Kaldor, Ν. 1960. “A Rejoinder to Mr. Pindlay,” Review of Economic Studies 27.3: 179–181.

Kaldor, N. 1960. Suggestions for a Comprehensive Reform of Direct Taxation. Government Publications Bureau, Colombo.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1960. “The Radcliffe Report,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 42.1: 14–19.

Kaldor, N. 1961. “Increasing Returns and Technical Progress: A Comment on Professor Hicks’s Article,” Oxford Economic Papers 13.1: 1–4.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1961. “Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth,” in F. A. Lutz and D. C. Hague (eds.), The Theory of Capital. Macmillan, London.

Kaldor, N. 1962. “Comment,” Review of Economic Studies 29.3: 246–250.

Kaldor, Nicholas and James A. Mirrlees. 1962. “A New Model of Economic Growth,” The Review of Economic Studies 29.3: 174–192.

Kaldor, N. 1963. “Will underdeveloped Countries learn to Tax?,” Foreign Affairs 41.2: 410–419. K

Kaldor, N. 1964. “The Role of Taxation in Economic Development,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume 1. Duckworth, London. 225–254.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “International Trade and Economic Development,” Journal of Modern African Studies 2.4: 491–511.

Hart, A. G., Nicholas Kaldor, and Jan Tinbergen. 1964. “The Case for an International Commodity Reserve Currency,” in Nicholas Kaldor (ed.), Essays on Economic Policy (vol. 2). Norton, New York. 131–177.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “Panel Discussion,” in W. Baer and I. Kerstenetsky (eds.), Inflation and Growth in Latin America, Irwin, Homewood, Il. 465–469, 485–487, 499–500.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “A Positive Policy for Wages and Dividends,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume 1. Duckworth, London. 111–127.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “Prospects of a Wages Policy for Australia,” Economic Record 40.90: 145–155.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “A Memorandum on the Value-Added Tax,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume I. Duckworth, London. 266–293.

Kaldor, Ν. 1964. “Economic Problems of Chile,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Economic Policy. Volume II. Duckworth, London. 233–287.

Kaldor, N. 1964. “Dual Exchange Rates and Economic Development,” Economic Bulletin for Latin America 9.2: 214–223. [reprinted in Kaldor 1964]

Kaldor, N. 1966. “Distribution, theory of,” Chambers’s Encyclopaedia (rev. edn.). Pergamon Press, Oxford. 557–561.

Kaldor, Ν. 1966. “Marginal Productivity and Macroeconomic Theories of Distribution: Comment on Samuelson and Modigliani,” Review of Economic Studies 33.4: 309–319. [reprinted in G. C. Harcourt and N. F. Laing. Capital and Growth. Penguin, Harmondsworth]

Kaldor, N. 1967. “Taxation in Developing States,” in D. Krivine (ed.), Fiscal and Monetary Problems in Developing States. Praeger, New York. 209–219.

Kaldor, Nicholas, 1968. “Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industry: A Reply,” Economica 35.140: 385–391.

Kaldor, N. 1969. “The Choice of Technology in Less Developed Countries,” Monthly Labor Review 92.8: 50–53.

Kaldor, N. 1970. “The New Monetarism,” Lloyds Bank Review 97: 1–18. [reprinted in Kaldor 1978: 1–21]

Kaldor, N. 1970. “The Case for Regional Policies,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 17.3: 337–348.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1972. “The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics,” Economic Journal 82: 1237–1252.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1975. “What is Wrong with Economic Theory,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 89.3: 347–357. [reprinted in Kaldor 1978: 202–213].

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1975. “Economic Growth and the Verdoorn Law: A Comment on Mr Rowthorn’s Article,” Economic Journal 85.340: 891–896.

Kaldor, N. 1976. “Inflation and Recession in the World Economy,” Economic Journal 86: 703–714.

Kaldor, N. 1977. “Capitalism and Industrial Development: Some Lessons from Britain’s Experience,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 1.2: 193–204.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. “The Nemesis of Free Trade,” in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Applied Economics. Duckworth, London. 234–241.

Kaldor, N. 1978. “The Role of Industrialisation in Latin American Inflations,” in N. Kaldor (ed.), Further Essays on Applied Economics (Collected Economic Essays volume 6). Duckworth, London. 119–137.

Kaldor, N. 1978. “The Effect of Devaluations on Trade in Manufactures,” in N. Kaldor (ed.), Further Essays on Applied Economics (Collected Economic Essays volume 6). Duckworth, London. 99–118.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1978. “The Causes of the Slow Rate of Economic Growth of the United Kingdom,” in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Economic Theory (Collected Economic Essays volume 5). Duckworth, London. 100–138.

Kaldor, N. 1980. “General Introduction,” in Collected Economic Essays (vol. 1). Duckworth, London.

Kaldor, Ν. 1980. “Public or Private Enterprise: The Issues to be Considered,” in W. J. Baumol (ed.), Public and Private Enterprise in a Mixed Economy: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the International Economic Association in Mexico City, Macmillan, London. 1–14.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1980. “The Foundations of Free Trade Theory and their Implications for the Current World Recession,” in E. Malinvaud and J. P. Fitoussi (eds.), Unemployment in Western Countries. MacMillan Press, London. 85–100.

Kaldor, Ν. 1980. “Alternative Theories of Value and Distribution,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn). Duckworth, London. 209–236.

Kaldor, Ν. 1980. “The Controversy on the Theory of Capital,” in N. Kaldor, Essays on Value and Distribution (2nd edn). Duckworth, London. 153–205.

Kaldor, N. 1981. Origins of the New Monetarism. University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff. [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 160–177]

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1981. “The Role of Increasing Returns, Technical Progress and Cumulative Causation in the Theory of International Trade and Economic Growth,” Économie Appliquée 34.4: 593–617. [reprinted in Targetti and Thirlwall 1989]

Kaldor, N. 1981. “Fallacies on Monetarism,” Kredit and Kapital 4: 451–462.

Kaldor, N. and J. Trevithick. 1981. “A Keynesian Perspective on Money,” Lloyds Bank Review 139: 1–19.

Kaldor, N. 1982. “Limitations of the ‘General Theory,’” Proceedings of the British Academy 68: 259–273. [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 74–89]

Kaldor, N. 1982. “Keynes as an Economic Adviser,” in A. P. Thirlwall (ed.), Keynes as a Policy Adviser. Macmillan, London. 2–33.

Kaldor, Nicholas. 1982. “The Radcliffe Report and Monetary Policy,” in N. Kaldor, The Scourge of Monetarism. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. 2–36.

Kaldor, N. 1983. “Keynesian Economics after Fifty Years,” in D. Worswick and J. Trevithick (eds.), Keynes and the Modern World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1–28.

Kaldor, N. 1983. “The Role of Commodity Prices in Economic Recovery,” Lloyds Bank Review 149: 21–33.

Kaldor, N. 1985. “How Monetarism Failed,” Challenge 28.2: 4–13.

Kaldor, N. 1985. “Piero Sraffa 1898–1983,” Proceedings of the British Academy 71: 615–640.

Kaldor, Ν. 1986. “Recollections of an Economist,” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 156: 3–26 [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 13–37]

Kaldor, N. 1986. “The Role of Effective Demand in the Short and in the Long Run,” in A. Barrere (ed.), Keynes Today: Theories and Policies. Macmillan, London. [reprinted in Kaldor 1989: 90–99]

Kaldor, N. 1986. “Limits on Growth,” Oxford Economic Papers 38.2: 187–198.

Kaldor, N. 1989. “The Role of Commodity Prices in Economic Recovery,” in N. Kaldor, Further Essays on Economic Theory and Policy (ed. by F. Targetti and Α. P. Thirlwall). Duckworth, London. 235–250.
Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Saturday, April 15, 2017

Tony Thirlwall’s Lecture on Nicholas Kaldor

Tony Thirlwall gives a lecture on the life and work of Nicholas Kaldor:



Some good books and biographies on Kaldor:
Thirlwall, A. P. 1987. Nicholas Kaldor. Wheatsheaf, Brighton.

Targetti, Ferdinando. 1992. Nicholas Kaldor: The Economics and Politics of Capitalism as a Dynamic System. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Targetti F. and A. P. Thirlwall. 1989. The Essential Kaldor. Duckworth, London.

King, J. E. 2009. Nicholas Kaldor. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke and New York.
My posts on Kaldor’s work are below:
“Kaldor’s Growth Laws and Verdoorn’s Law: An Overview and Bibliography,” October 8, 2016.

“Kaldor on Economics without Equilibrium,” March 9, 2013.

“Kaldor on the Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics,” May 15, 2013.

“King’s Nicholas Kaldor: Chapters 1–3,” October 18, 2013.

“Boylan and O’Gorman’s ‘Kaldor on Debreu: The Critique of General Equilibrium Reconsidered,’” June 12, 2016.
Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Stephen Cohen on US–Russia Relations

Stephen Cohen is interviewed by Tucker Carlson after Trump’s Syria strikes and the calls for regime change in Syria:



You know we live in a bizarre, upside-down world when Ann Coulter starts talking sense on Syria and appears to have become a peacenik:



Update
Stephen Cohen’s interview on Democracy Now:



See here if there are problems with the embedded video.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Why do we need Mass Immigration when our Future is this?

A viral video of an army of robots sorting packages in a Chinese delivery warehouse (more here):



And here:



The notion we need unending Third World mass immigration because of supposed labour shortages in the future has to be the single biggest absurdity pushed by advocates of multiculturalism and Neoliberals.

Instead, we are going to import millions of immigrants only to find there is no work for them, not to mention the millions of native-born citizens.

And then there is the terrible issue: what do you do with the low-skilled people who have been replaced by machines and automation? The notion that all or most people can be easily retrained to be IT professionals, middle class professionals or workers capable of doing highly-skilled labour is a cruel lie. Most people who have spent their lives doing low-skilled or semi-skilled labour obviously did so because they were not capable of doing something better. Their educational ability is likely to be limited.

Under Neoliberalism and in Neoclassical economics, there is a clear tendency to see human beings as fungible and homogeneous. This is an outrageous lie. The average person who is an unskilled or low-skilled labourer cannot magically become a surgeon or computer programmer, no matter how much money or education you throw at them. This is going to be yet another serious problem for the 21st century.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Ray McGovern on the Syrian Chemical Attack Accusations

The veteran ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern, of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and who chaired the US National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President’s Daily Brief in the 1980s, citing actual well-placed sources in the US government, gives us what sounds to me like the truth about this chemical attack in Syria:



This confirms the same intelligence reported to Philip Giraldi by intelligence and military personnel on the ground in the Middle East as discussed here.

So there seems to be mounting evidence that the Russian and Syrian governments’ explanation of what happened on 4 April 2017 in Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib province was the truth: the Syrian government carried out a conventional attack on the Islamist rebels and hit a chemical storage warehouse, which caused these fatalities. We don’t know precisely what chemicals were involved without an independent investigation, but it is unlikely that will happen.

And yet our media is filled with these unconfirmed hysterical cries that Assad gassed his own people. And there are calls left, right and centre from the usual suspects for a massive new war against Syria.

See also Ray McGovern’s comments here on the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack accusations here:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Trump’s Syria Strike Explained?

See this analysis at Zerohedge:
Tyler Durden, “Former CIA Officer: ‘The Intelligence confirms the Russian Account on Syria,’” Zerohedge.com, 8 April, 2017.
In essence, even though there aren’t any big-name Neocons in high-level positions in the Trump administration, it is the National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster who is supporting a return to Neoconservative-style policies in Syria:
“Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime’s guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek “regime change” in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

The source said the Trump national security team split between the President’s close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus. ….

Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration’s CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a “false-flag” operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels — and the intelligence analysts’ similar beliefs about Tuesday’s incident.

Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night’s missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation.

If changing the narrative was Trump’s goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump’s fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The neocons and Israel have long sought “regime change” in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.”

Tyler Durden, “Former CIA Officer: ‘The Intelligence confirms the Russian Account on Syria,’” Zerohedge.com, 8 April, 2017.
So the question now is: will the Trump administration push for a full-scale aerial and ground offensive to oust Assad?

Or was this just a symbolic strike that will not change the previous policy of defeating ISIS and accepting Assad’s regime as the only viable solution to the Syria mess?

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

Friday, April 7, 2017

Trump to Adopt Neocon-Style Regime Change Policy in Syria?

If the Trump administration moves to support the failed Neocon and Liberal interventionist polices of overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria, it will be another bloody disaster for the Middle East.

In brief, the US launched an attack of 50–60 Tomahawk missiles against the Syrian Shayrat airbase near Homs, in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime near Idlib, in an area held by Islamist rebels. The Russians were warned in advance, and “U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield, ” according to Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis.

But exactly why the US did so and what is happening behind the scenes is not clear, but here is some good analysis I have seen:
“Philip Giraldi says IC-Military Doubt Assad Gas Narrative,” The Scott Horton Show, 6 April, 2017.

Justin Raimondo, “Trump Betrays Trumpism: Syria in the Crosshairs,” Antiwar.com, 7 April, 2017.
Philip Giraldi in the first link reports that intelligence and military personnel he has contact with report that the Russians’ explanation of the chemical attack is true: that a Syrian military attack using conventional bombs on the rebels in Idlib hit a chemical or chemical weapons storage facility that *belonged to the Islamist rebels themselves*. If true, this was all a tragic accident in wartime.

Turning to Trump’s attack on the Syrian Shayrat airbase, unless we see a major escalation of US efforts to remove Assad from now on, this military strike seems more symbolic than anything else. Could it be that the Trump administration did this in desperation to quash the hysterical media lies that Russia hacked the election and that Trump is Putin’s puppet?

At the moment, the Chinese President Xi Jinping is holding a summit with Trump, and when the military strikes happened Trump was hosting a dinner with Xi Jinping in Florida. One wonders whether it was also intended, as Breitbart reports, as some kind of attempt to intimidate the Chinese and warn them over the North Korea issue.

But, if Trump does move to ramp up the previous schizophrenic policy of both trying defeat ISIS in Syria and overthrowing the Assad regime, it will result in an utter catastrophe for Syria. It will be a major betrayal of his campaign promises and a Neocon-style foreign policy – a policy which he promised to repudiate last year.

The only real beneficiaries will be the increasingly authoritarian Islamist regime in Turkey, the fundamentalist Arab gulf states like Saudi Arabia, and Israel, who all want Assad gone for their own reasons.

Millions more migrants will swamp Europe. The only credible “opposition” in Syria are Islamist lunatics, who might gain power and then cause a bloodbath in that country.

And as for the media narrative and the line taken by the Trump administration and other Western governments that the Assad regime was responsible for a chemical weapons attack in Idlib province, we should all revisit Seymour Hersh’s brilliant investigative journalism from 2013–2014 on the Ghouta chemical attack of 21 August 2013, and the subsequent facts that came to light:
Seymour M. Hersh, “Whose Sarin?,” London Review of Books 35.24 (19 December 2013): 9–12.

Seymour M. Hersh, “The Red Line and the Rat Line: Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian Rebels,” London Review of Books 36.8 (17 April 2014): 21–24.

Peter Lee, “Hersh Vindicated? Turkish Whistleblowers Corroborate Story on False Flag Sarin Attack in Syria,” Counterpunch, 23 October, 2015.
There is much evidence that the sarin attack at Ghouta in 2013 was perpetuated by the Islamist rebels, but orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to draw America into a major war in Syria to overthrow Assad.

Already in May 2013, a United Nations inquiry led by Carla Del Ponte concluded that chemical weapons had been used in Syria by the Islamist rebels, but that appears to have gone down the memory hole.

So – at the very least – what is needed now is an independent investigation of what happened and who did it, not some hysterical drumbeat for war fuelled by the media, and where the truth is clouded by propaganda from all sides.

As Peter Hitchens says here, this war hysteria and the demands for regime change over WMD are like 2003 all over again.

Update 1
Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer discusses the Syria situation here:



Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Alt-Left Closed Facebook Group
Prince of Queens YouTube Channel
Prince of Queens on Twitter
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2