"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ~ 
Any world is an illusion, but within illusion, another world, a better world, seems possible. In the material world, the one we think is real, the divide between the 'left' and 'right' is an artificial one. This divide serves to keep us separate from each other and prevents us from seeing clearly that we in fact have shared interests and a common enemy. A better way to approach economy, politics, culture and society would be to take note of the ways in which our societies are divided horizontally: the interests of the few (the elite) and the many (ordinary people). The elite wants to oppress and exploit the rest of us. In a material sense, they are our enemy. They are working to establish a One World Company, aka a totalitarian New World Order. World government is the last thing ordinary people need. We need free and open communities with equal rights for everyone and a profound respect for the many differences between us. We want freedom rather than security. We want peace, not war. Above all else, we want truth, dignity and justice. ~ The Editor
XML FeedsThe Great Climate Scam
Des Moore
Should We Believe (All) Scientists?
Some may say it ill behoves an economist to pass judgement on scientists: after all economists are obviously to blame for the current recession.
But reflecting on 28 years in Treasury (and subsequently), I conclude that many proposals by both economists and scientists do not warrant government intervention to “save” the economy and/or society. Modest expertise helped me, but my most important methodology is common sense questions – such as “how exactly will society (rather than a particular group) benefit if this proposal is implemented?”
I confess to having started with the belief that proposals by scientists should generally be accepted. After all, look at the improved living standards from the innumerable machines and medicines that scientific advances have allowed.
But when in 1972 I wrote a paper at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London on “Limits on the Supply of Resources”, I soon realised that even the best scientists need to be challenged. Worryingly, most pay little regard to either the continued upward trend in beneficial technology, or to the natural propensity for markets to encourage such developments through changes in prices. The combination of science and economics, I concluded, meant that we humans would not run out of resources even for the growing world population.
