Who is really in the trenches of the War on Science?

So, who is engaging in a war on science?

Of course, it is those on the right who refuse to genuflect to the dogma of settled science on the topic of man-caused global warming, right?

Not so fast, says John Stossel in a commentary posted on Townhall today. He interviewed veteran science writer John Tierney, who says, “The real war on science is the one from the left.”

It is the left that quashes any attempts to perfect genetically modified foods to feed the masses. It is left that refuses to even look at any scientific evidence of any genetic differences between the races, such as intelligence. It is the left that refuses to even consider that there is a fundamental difference between the sexes.

Here is a video Stossel posted with specific examples of leftists fighting science:

Advertisements

Adam Smith explains quantitative easing

So you want to know how QE1, 2 and 3 work?

You could start with the definition of quantitative easing:

A government monetary policy occasionally used to increase the money supply by buying government securities or other securities from the market. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital, in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity.

Then eyeball the Investopedia explanation of what it could lead to:

Central banks tend to use quantitative easing when interest rates have already been lowered to near 0% levels and have failed to produce the desired effect. The major risk of quantitative easing is that, although more money is floating around, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale. This will eventually lead to higher prices or inflation.

Or you could look to the words of Adam Smith, written in 1776 in “Wealth of Nations“:

When it becomes necessary for a state to declare itself bankrupt, in the same manner as when it becomes necessary for an individual to do so, a fair, open, and avowed bankruptcy, is always the measure which is both least dishonourable to the debtor, and least hurtful to the creditor. The honour of a state is surely very poorly provided

Adam Smith

for, when, in order to cover the disgrace of a real bankruptcy, it has recourse to a juggling trick of this kind, so easily seen through, and at the same time so extremely pernicious.

Almost all states, however, ancient as well as modern, when reduced to this necessity, have, upon some occasions, played this very juggling trick. The Romans, at the end of the first Punic war, reduced the As, the coin or denomination by which they computed the value of all their other coins, from containing twelve ounces of copper, to contain only two ounces; that is, they raised two ounces of copper to a denomination which had always before expressed the value of twelve ounces. The republic was, in this manner, enabled to pay the great debts which it had contracted with the sixth part of what it really owed. So sudden and so great a bankruptcy, we should in the present times be apt to imagine, must have occasioned a very violent popular clamour. It does not appear to have occasioned any. The law which enacted it was, like all other laws relating to the coin, introduced and carried through the assembly of the people by a tribune, and was probably a very popular law. In Rome, as in all other ancient republics, the poor people were constantly in debt to the rich and the great, who, in order to secure their votes at the annual elections, used to lend them money at exorbitant interest, which, being never paid, soon accumulated into a sum too great either for the debtor to pay, or for any body else to pay for him. The debtor, for fear of a very severe execution, was obliged, without any further gratuity, to vote for the candidate whom the creditor recommended. In spite of all the laws against bribery and corruption, the bounty of the candidates, together with the occasional distributions of coin which were ordered by the senate, were the principal funds from which, during the latter times of the Roman republic, the poorer citizens derived their subsistence.

That sounds hauntingly familiar. Perhaps they called them QE I, QE II and QE III.

The Roman Empire eventually fell, for a variety of reasons.

John Stossel has a piece on this topic in the newspaper today.

Here is a trailer for the documentary Stossel mentions:

You may watch the entire movie online. Listen for the explanation from a Washington Post columnist: The way a healthy economy grows is that people earn money and go out and spend it. The way an unhealthy economy grows is people borrow money and then go out and spend it.