Is William Legate Being Assisted By Silicon Valley in Stalking People?

Is Silicon Valley undermining its commercial future?

https://www.republicanrealnews.com/single-post/2017/08/27/Is-William-Legate-Being-Assisted-By-Silicon-Valley-Stalking-PPL

John Galt's timeless advice for defeating the enemy of mankind.

Is there a single phrase or word that is guaranteed to defeat every enemy of liberty? 
Yes - provided we use it while we still have sufficient freedom to speak out, there is such a word: it was identified by Ayn Rand and delivered by John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" 60 years ago. 

The Ethics of Nazism

[Letters to the press August 20th, 2003.]
If the Rev. DAVID A ROBERTSON wonders whether Hitler believed in
self-sacrifice perhaps the following quotations taken at random from vol.
I of "Mein Kampf" may answer his question:

"The readiness to sacrifice one's personal work and, if necessary, even
one's life for others shows its most highly developed form in the Aryan race."

"The renunciation of one's own life for the sake of the community is the
crowning significance of the idea of all sacrifice."

"In the German language we have a word which admirably expresses this
underlying spirit of all work: it is 'Pflichterfüllung,' which means the
service of the common weal before the consideration of one's own interests." 

"For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be
imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal..."

"Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their own individual
interests, but it will praise those heroes who renounced their own
happiness." 

The name of this moral corruption is altruism, an ethical doctrine which
many people today equate with benevolence. 
In reality, however, altruism is far from benevolent: it is a lethal
spiritual toxin which has fueled the destruction of countless human lives
through the elevation of something other than the individual as the very
STANDARD of evaluation.

The solution to this error isn't mysticism, irrationality and
self-sacrifice, but reason, freedom and the right to pursue one's own
self-interest.

Only one social system is compatible with such ideals: capitalism. 

And that is why capitalism is the only truly moral social system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness

Paul Krugman and the heady delights of embracing contradiction.

In former times the example of finding a contradiction in someone's statements was a sign of error or deception but how times have changed. Nowadays, it seems that holding contradictory ideas at the same time is no problem. Take for example, the case of the Nobel prizewinner Paul Krugman.

Here’s Krugman on the minimum wage:

So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda–for arguing that living wages “can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America”… Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects.

And here is the same Mr. Krugman on the “benefits” of the minimum wage in the New York Times:

What this means, in turn, is that engineering a significant pay raise for tens of millions of Americans would almost surely be much easier than conventional wisdom suggests. Raise minimum wages by a substantial amount; make it easier for workers to organize, increasing their bargaining power; direct monetary and fiscal policy toward full employment, as opposed to keeping the economy depressed out of fear that we’ll suddenly turn into Weimar Germany. It’s not a hard list to implement — and if we did these things we could make major strides back toward the kind of society most of us want to live in.

Again in his economics books:

They also argue that because there are cases in which companies paying above-market wages reap offsetting gains in the form of lower turnover and greater worker loyalty, raising minimum wages will lead to similar gains. The obvious economist’s reply is, if paying higher wages is such a good idea, why aren’t companies doing it voluntarily? But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage “compared with other companies” — and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish.

And once more in the New York Times:

What’s interesting, however, is that these pressures don’t seem all that severe, at least so far — yet Walmart is ready to raise wages anyway. And its justification for the move echoes what critics of its low-wage policy have been saying for years: Paying workers better will lead to reduced turnover, better morale and higher productivity.

Tim Worstall summed up this difference as a case of “incentives” – Krugman’s books are written for economists, people who actually understood the subject whereas his column in the New York Times is aimed at those whose “liberal” ideology is rather more important than reality.


Nothing new there – ask Alan Greenspan!