Tidbits Political Quotations
To Accompany the October 30, 2020 Edition of Tidbits
Bob Jensen at
Trinity University

The Jewish Express:  A Brief History of Antifa: Part I ---

The Jewish Experess:  A Brief History of Antifa:  Part II ---

FBI director calls Antifa 'a real thing' ---

According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing ---

My Latest Web Document
Over 600 Examples of Critical Thinking and Illustrations of How to Mislead With Statistics --

Animated  Visualization of the United States’ Exploding Population Growth Over 200 Years (1790 – 2010) ---
A Visualization of the United States’ Exploding Population Growth Over 200 Years (1790 – 2010)

USA Debt Clock --- http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The published national debt is a lie
Here's the real federal debt ---

Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2020 ---

Human Population Over Time on Earth ---

MIT's Links to Covid-19 Trackers Around the World ---

Johns Hopkins University:  Updated Map and Table on the Number of Coronavirus Cases for Every Nation ---
Accuracy is subject to wide margins of error for every nation and varies greatly between nations.

Covid019 in New Hampshire ---

The best maps for comparing counties and towns in your state are provided by your state. For example, here's the map showing the distribution of cases for New Hampshire counties and towns ---


Beautiful News Daily (news and statistics to offset all of today's bad news) ---


 Here's a humorous and serious TED talk that seriously argues why the world needs billionaires


Why did Cuba abandon its socialist/communist dream of equality for everybody?
The Guardian:  This was the egalitarian dream of Cuba in the 1960s: For years in Cuba, jobs as varied as farm workers and doctors only had a difference in their wages of the equivalent of a few US dollars a month.



Here's a somber and serious Guardian article on why the Cuban model of income equality for all is a disaster ---
Fidel Castro says his economic system is failing ---


Miracle of Chile --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Movie:  The Chicago Boys of Chile ---


Cuba’s Dubious Miracle ---


The Singapore Dream:  How Singapore's richest man went from welding in a factory for $14 per hour to owning a $17 billion hotpot restaurant chain ---


After 40 years of capitalism, China’s income is divided almost as unequally as America’s ---
China has more billionaires than any other country in the world (and generating more at a higher rate than any other nation) ---


What's Wrong With a Wealth Tax?


While a move is underway to destroy the American Dream of rags to riches (by taxing away the riches) the Chinese dream is on the rise.
The Chinese Dream
How a Chinese billionaire went from making $16 a month in a factory to being one of the world's richest self-made women with an $8.3 billion real-estate empire ---


Top 50 Billionaires in China ---

Jensen Comment
The question for students to debate is why a supposed communist country allows so many billionaires to rise up from poverty.
That's supposed to happen in the USA where a child growing up in deep poverty (think Oprah Winfrey or Howard Shultz) became a multi-billionaires.
But is it also supposed to happen under communism? If so, why?


One reason is that many billionaires can afford to pour lots of money into high risk ventures. When's the last time you heard about a high risk (think Silicon Valley) venture in Europe?


Here's a humorous and serious TED talk that seriously argues why the world needs billionaires




Wikiquote from Wikipedia --- https://www.wikiquote.org/


I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write ---


"This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House, with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone"
John F. Kennedy at a White House party


Harper's:  A Letter on Justice and Open Debate --- |



The Guardian:  American classics among most ‘challenged’ books of the decade in US (protesters want them removed from libraries and schools) ---
Bob Jensen's threads on banned books

In 1785 the state legislature of Virginia unanimously rejected a proposal from evangelicals to free the state’s slaves ---


When the Great Scorer comes to write against your name, one unforgiveable sin (racial profiling) outweighs all the good you've done in life.

Bob Jensen


Kobe Bryant:  We need to make the most of every minute we have ---


It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment.

Carl Friedrich Gauss


Taiwan’s Crowdsourced Democracy Shows Us How to Fix Social Media ---

Germany and Merkel at Crossroads ---


James Baldwin Talks About Racism in America & Civil Rights Activism on The Dick Cavett Show (1969) ---


Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can’t lose. And it’s an unreliable guide to the future

Bill Gates, “The Road Ahead”


Hermann Weyl born in Hamburg, Germany. He wrote, "One may say that mathematics talks about the things which are of no concern to men. Mathematics has the inhuman quality of starlight---brilliant, sharp, but cold ... thus we are clearest where knowledge matters least: in mathematics, especially number theory." ---
Also see Mathematical Analytics in Plato's Cave


And nevertheless conclude that the optimum amount of restriction of immigration is zero point zero, zero, zero? Amazing. Economics are generally skeptical models that yield corner solutions ---
Jensen Comment
To the list of questions I would add "Do your talk about the Tragedy of the Commons?"
The problem with open borders is somewhat related to the economic problem of "The Sharing of the Commons" where giving everybody the right to use a free resource leads to everybody losing that resource. At what point will allowing billions of people share in the free medical care, free college, and other scarce resources ruin it for everybody ---


A short history of corruption in Illinois ---


History of United States Immigration Laws ---


Open immigration can’t exist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global ---
Paul Krugman


It is by now well known that some of the greatest modern philosophers held racist views ---
https://aeon.co/essays/racism-is-baked-into-the-structure-of-dialectical-philosophy  ---

Also see


Assorted Charlie Munger Quotations ---



Walter E. Williams:  Insults to Black History ---


Walter E. Williams:  The Leftist Effort to Revise American History ---



Walter E. Williams:  Disgusting Professorial Teachings ---


Walter E. Williams:  The True Plight of Black Americans




Walter E. Williams:  Institutional Racism ---


Walter E. Williams: The Fight for Free Speech


Walter E. Williams:  Back to Academic Brainwashing ---

Walter E. Williams:  The Devil and Karl Marx ---


Is Racism Responsible for Today's Black Problems? ---


Some Fatherly Words of Wisdom from Jack Bogle, Founder of Vanguard Investments, to My Sons ---


Walter A. Williams:  The Nation's Report Card
How are K-12 schools doing under President Trump versus President Obama?

Jensen's Comment
Most K-12 schools were probably doing better when I was a child than they're doing today. The downhill slide is greatest in the gang-ridden schools, drug-infested urban schools like Chicago and New Orleans. Throwing money at such schools is not the answer until life at home recovers. Finland knows this, which is why Finland's dads spend more time with school children than the moms or the teachers.


Walter E. Williams:  Insane News Tidbits ---


Milton Friedman:  The Lesson of the Spoons ---
Chopsticks would be even better


Rep. Ilhan Omar Calls For “Dismantling” of US “Economy and Political Systems” (VIDEO) ---
Jensen Comment
Republicans are most grateful that Omar played a huge role in getting Biden nominated


Minnesota State Senate report correctly blames state and city leadership for the summer’s riots ---


New report gives Pennsylvania failing grades on financial condition (before the pandemic disaster) ---


International Tax Competitiveness Index 2020 ---


Funding Short-Term Expenses With Long-Term Debt:  Mayor Lightfoot’s 2021 budget rescued by risky borrowing ---


When should government intervene in price setting in the private sector?


How Decades of Media and Faculty Bias Have Pushed America to the Left ---
Click Here

Children in West Africa are working night shifts to fuel a $100-billion chocolate industry that has failed to crack down on child labor ---


Stratified Sampling --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling
Mathematician Gary Cornell argues that current testing procedures won't tell us much about vaccine efficacy for the elderly because sampling was not stratified ---


Nate Silver Blasts Trafalgar Polls as "Crazy" ---



2020 Election:  What's at Stake for Higher Education?


. . .

Thus, for conservatives, or roughly half the nation, universities are increasingly seen as fortified camps of the opposition. That view has been reinforced by the public appearance of critical race theory that has exploded in the nation’s streets (as well as in its boardrooms), learned by many protestors on college campuses. Lessons about systemic racism are now being translated into “mostly peaceful protests” that have often turned violent, and the tearing down or removal of statues not only of Confederate soldiers, but figures such as Ulysses S. Grant, St. Junípero Serra, and Theodore Roosevelt. While progressives praise such removals, renamings, and reinterpretations as necessary precursors to a more egalitarian society, conservatives regard these actions as puritanical efforts to destroy memorials to imperfect humans who nevertheless exemplified certain virtues worthy of admiration and emulation. A radical divide has opened in how people view higher education’s role in the future of American society.

If Joe Biden wins the election, we can expect his administration not only to reverse many of the executive orders and directives that had been issued under the Trump administration, but to increase support and even require increased programming related to “diversity and inclusion” and, broadly, identity politics. This change will be celebrated on campuses, but its effect will be to further politicize campuses, and — with near certainty — increase opposition and disapproval by conservative voters and their political representatives. Universities will be seen more than ever as an organ of one political party, and — should there be an eventual change in party control, which history suggests will occur at some point — they will find themselves under immediate and direct political threat.

Indeed, this is what to expect in a much more focused and disciplined form if Trump wins re-election. While he has been reviled on college campuses, his administration has exercised scant focus on forcing change on campus culture from above. This has begun to change late in his administration, most notably in recent efforts to defund critical race theory training sessions in the federal government itself and, by extension, any organization using direct federal funding. Under a second Trump term — in which there will likely be a purge of internal bureaucratic opposition — expect focused and aggressive efforts to use the lever of federal funding both to weaken or even eliminate various progressive academic approaches and programs, while potentially requiring more conservative alternatives, such as the hortatory teaching of American history. Indeed, I would expect that there would be a move away from federal funding of liberal-arts colleges and humanities programs altogether, in favor of STEM programs and support for new endeavors to educate in trades and work-based apprenticeships.

Continued in article



Facebook Seeks Shutdown of NYU Research Project Into Political Ad Targeting ---

Facebook Inc. is demanding that a New York University research project cease collecting data about its political-ad-targeting practices, setting up a fight with academics seeking to study the platform without the company’s permission.

The dispute involves the NYU Ad Observatory, a project launched last month by the university’s engineering school that has recruited more than 6,500 volunteers to use a specially designed browser extension to collect data about the political ads Facebook shows them.

In a letter sent Oct. 16 to the researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory, Facebook said the project violates provisions in its terms of service that prohibit bulk data collection from its site.

“Scraping tools, no matter how well-intentioned, are not a permissible means of collecting information from us,” said the letter, written by a Facebook privacy policy official, Allison Hendrix. If the university doesn’t end the project and delete the data it has collected, she wrote, “you may be subject to additional enforcement action.”

The clash between the social-media giant and a major research university comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over political advertising on social media ahead of next month’s U.S. election. Facebook in recent weeks has said it would bar new political ads ahead of Election Day and suspend all political ads indefinitely that evening to prevent the spread of paid misinformation about the election outcome.

Following a furor about the opaque nature of political advertising in the 2016 presidential campaign, Facebook launched an archive of advertisements that run on its platform, with information such as who paid for an ad, when it ran and the geographic location of people who saw it. But that library excludes information about the targeting that determines who sees the ads.

The researchers behind the NYU Ad Observatory said they wanted to provide journalists, researchers, policy makers, and others with the ability to search political ads by state and contest to see what messages are targeted to specific audiences and how those ads are funded.

Facebook’s demand that the project stop its collection drew opposition from proponents of greater ad transparency, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), a sponsor of a bill called the Honest Ads Act that would mandate greater transparency in online political advertising.

“It’s unacceptable that in the middle of an election, Facebook is making it harder for Americans to get information about online political ads,” Ms. Klobuchar said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. Social media platforms have pledged to make online advertising more transparent, she said, but Facebook’s threatened action against NYU “is further evidence that voluntary standards are insufficient.”

After a version of this article was published, Facebook said in a statement to the Journal that it wouldn’t take any action on the NYU project’s data collection until well after the election.

Continued in article


MIT:  The DOJ says Google monopolizes search. Here’s how ---

What America’s biggest antitrust lawsuit in 20 years has to say.

The US Department of Justice and attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google on Tuesday, alleging that the company maintains an illegal monopoly on online search and advertising. 

The lawsuit follows a 16-month investigation, and repeated promises from President Trump to hold Big Tech to account amid unproven allegations of anti-conservative bias. But reports suggest the department was put under pressure by Attorney General William Barr to file the charges before the presidential election in two weeks’ time.

The idea of regulating Big Tech isn’t itself partisan, however. Earlier this month, House Democrats published a 449-page report looking at all the ways in which Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are monopolistic, and arguing for increased enforcement of antitrust legislation against them. Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, has indicated that seven additional states—including her own—were close to filing their own lawsuit and might join the DOJ’s action later. 

The case centers on Google’s tactics and market dominance in search. It currently receives 80% of all search queries in the United States, and the DOJ says it uses the tens of billions of dollars of annual profits from search advertising to unfairly suppress its competition.

Here’s a breakdown of how the DOJ alleges that Google has maintained its illegal monopoly: 

Making Google search the default

The suit says Google maintains its advantage through exclusionary agreements worth billions of dollars that make its search engine the default on web browsers, mobile devices, and emerging search technologies like voice assistants and Internet of Things devices. Because most users do not change their default settings, the lawsuit adds, this ends up “making Google the de facto exclusive general search engine.” 

The lawsuit specifically singles out Google’s behavior on mobile devices, noting that while its Android operating system is free and open source, in reality it maintains control. Contracts with vendors block forking of Google’s Android software, force the pre-installation of Google apps, and include revenue-sharing agreements that are better for companies that play by Google’s rules. 

The lawsuit claims that revenue-sharing agreements with Apple, worth $8 to 12 billion a year and accounting for up to 20% of Apple’s worldwide net income, ensure that Google search remains the default search engine on the Safari browser and iPhones, as well as for Siri and Spotlight, Apple’s system-wide search feature. 

The exclusionary contracts cover almost 60% of search queries in the US.

High barriers to entry

Google’s dominance is such that building a competing product is prohibitively expensive. Google is one of just three generalized search companies in the US that use web crawlers—software that constantly looks for and indexes publicly available web pages. The others are Bing and DuckDuckGo. (Yahoo, which has 3% of the market, actually purchases its search results from Bing.)

Continued in article

Jensen Comment
The following is one of my gripes against Google search (results may vary with mobile devices)

1. Go to Google Advanced Search at https://www.google.com/advanced_search
2. Type in the phrase "Sunset Hill House Hotel" and hit the Enter key
3. Note that Google gave me countless hits without showing the Hotel's current homepage
4. Why do the booking agents get search hit preferences over the Hotel itself on the Google search engine?

Now try the Duck Duck Go search engine

1. Go to Duck Duck Go at https://duckduckgo.com/
2. Type in the phrase "Sunset Hill House Hotel" and hit the Enter key
3. Note that I got the Hotel's homepage as the second hit
4. The Duck Duck Go search engine makes it much easier than Google to seek out homepages

Now try the Bing search engine

1. Go to Bing at https://www.bing.com/ 
2. Type in the phrase "Sunset Hill House Hotel" and hit the Enter key
3. Note that I got the Hotel's homepage as the second hit
4. The Bing search engine makes it much easier than Google to seek out homepages

I suspect the reason Google search gave priority to booking agents like Expedia is that those companies paid more to Google to have their sites listed in front of hits that did not pay to have early listings on search outcomes. Of course, I just guessing here with only anecdotal evidence!

When I want to find a company's homepage Duck Duck Go became my favorite search engine.


Chodorow: How I’ll Teach Trump’s Tax Returns ---

The Alternative Minimum Tax: The New York Times Is Wrong — Trump Paid Millions in Taxes in 2017 ---

Why can’t Sacramento’s financial reporting match private sector standards?



A short history of corruption in Illinois ---

Illinois' and Chicago's budget gimmicks ---



Richard and the revolutionaries: why did lefties love Wagner?
Also see

Everywhere basic income has been tried, in one map ---

Jensen Comment
The parameters and amounts of basic (free) monthly income varied widely in these "experiments." The results are that such income made recipients very happy with a higher standard of living, but the outcomes tended not to change motivation for the chronically unemployed to become employed. The temporary unemployed often had a high motivation to work, and the basic income provided a bridge between jobs, although there are other programs that perform this bridge such as unemployment compensation.

Few programs were sustained, but there are exceptions such as in Alaska. Reasons for ending the basic income programs varied, but in most cases it was politics interacting with the high expense and doubts about goal achievement.

It should be noted that basic income differs fundamentally from Milton Friedman's concept of the negative income tax where taxpayers below a certain income receive funding rather than pay into the government. The difference is that Friedman envisioned the negative income tax as a substitute for the other safety nets such food stamps, housing subsidies, welfare payments, Medicaid free care and medicines, etc. Most basic income experiments left the safety nets in place.

It should also be noted that the above article totally ignores the Cuban experiment in a basic income of free housing, transportation, medical care, and ration books for food and beverages. Additional income for work was strictly capped,  and there were negligible differences in the low wages for all types of work from unskilled sugar plantation workers to physicians and teachers. The above article probably ignored Cuba's experiment because Cuba's basic income experiment failed when Castro discovered that, if when most basic needs were met without working,  Cuban people did not care to work. Many students studying to become physicians and teachers did so for if and when they managed to escape from Cuba, and many escaped with professional job skills --- to Florida.

Why did Cuba abandon its socialist/communist dream of equality for everybody?
The Guardian:  This was the egalitarian dream of Cuba in the 1960s: For years in Cuba, jobs as varied as farm workers and doctors only had a difference in their wages of the equivalent of a few US dollars a month.


How to Mislead With Statistics

Epic miscalls and landslides unforeseen: The exceptional catalog of polling failure ---


How to Mislead With Cherry Picking

Cherry Picking Bias (think Snopes, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.) is a Far Worse Problem Than Fake News ---
Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem ---

Fake news,” broadly defined as false or misleading information masquerading as legitimate news, is frequently asserted to be pervasive online with serious consequences for democracy. Using a unique multimode dataset that comprises a nationally representative sample of mobile, desktop, and television consumption, we refute this conventional wisdom on three levels. First, news consumption of any sort is heavily outweighed by other forms of media consumption, comprising at most 14.2% of Americans’ daily media diets. Second, to the extent that Americans do consume news, it is overwhelmingly from television, which accounts for roughly five times as much as news consumption as online. Third, fake news comprises only 0.15% of Americans’ daily media diet. Our results suggest that the origins of public misinformedness and polarization are more likely to lie in the content of ordinary news or the avoidance of news altogether as they are in overt fakery.

Jensen Comment
The same thing happens in teaching and research when teachers cherry pick course content. Sometimes it's caused by a teacher's political bias ---

More often it's wanting to focus on what teachers spent their lives preparing to teach and overlooking (with content cherry picking) that which is now embarrassing in course content.
It is by now well known that some of the greatest modern philosophers held racist views ---
https://aeon.co/essays/racism-is-baked-into-the-structure-of-dialectical-philosophy  ---

Also see

And cherry picking is not just a political phenomenon. For example, managerial and cost accounting teachers still devote significant modules of a course to ABC costing without mentioning that in the real world ABC costing is seldom used in the 21st Century due to failing to meet the cost-benefit test in practice ---
It is all too common in academe to teach formulas, algorithms, and processes while cherry picking out robustness issues and cost when applied in the real world ---

How to Mislead With Statistics

Epic miscalls and landslides unforeseen: The exceptional catalog of polling failure ---


Threats to U.S. Treasury market liquidity still exist, Fed says --

The U.S. Treasury market still runs the risk of abrupt freezes in liquidity like the one seen in March and April, as the COVID-19 pandemic roiled the financial system, a member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Market Committee said on Friday.

The market shock in March, which helped drive yields across maturities to all-time lows, was “truly an exceptional event,” Lorie Logan said in a speech to the Brookings-Chicago Booth Task Force on Financial Stability.

“However, while it is tempting to dismiss it as a once-in-a-lifetime shock, it is important to take time to reflect and assess if lessons can be learned that could make the Treasury market even more resilient to future shocks.”

The Treasury market is the deepest and most liquid in the world. Nevertheless, at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a large number of investors tried to sell off their Treasury holdings only to find a limited number of buyers.

The major sellers were mutual funds, which sold off more than $200 billion of their Treasury holdings in the first quarter, foreign accounts, which sold off roughly $161 billion between February and April, and hedge funds.

The buyers, Treasury market primary dealers, reported that customer transaction volumes increased from $400 billion a day in February to $650 billion a day in mid-March. In the market for buying and selling all Treasuries save for the most recently issued, the spread between the prices asked and those bid rose to an all-time high, nearly 30 times their normal level.

Primary dealers were prior to the selloff holding historically high volumes of Treasury debt, and were therefore unable to take on more, explained Logan. The Fed stepped in and began purchasing Treasury debt, which returned liquidity to the market.

Continued in article


Jensen Comment
One of the main responsibilities of the Fed is to maintain liquidity in markets. Times like this lead to the controversial Quantitative Easing strategy of the Fed that leads to printing of money without taxing or borrowing --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing 

 Risks and side-effects

Quantitative easing may cause higher inflation than desired if the amount of easing required is overestimated and too much money is created by the purchase of liquid assets.[87] On the other hand, QE can fail to spur demand if banks remain reluctant to lend money to businesses and households. Even then, QE can still ease the process of deleveraging as it lowers yields. However, there is a time lag between monetary growth and inflation; inflationary pressures associated with money growth from QE could build before the central bank acts to counter them.[88] Inflationary risks are mitigated if the system's economy outgrows the pace of the increase of the money supply from the easing.[citation needed] If production in an economy increases because of the increased money supply, the value of a unit of currency may also increase, even though there is more currency available. For example, if a nation's economy were to spur a significant increase in output at a rate at least as high as the amount of debt monetized, the inflationary pressures would be equalized. This can only happen if member banks actually lend the excess money out instead of hoarding the extra cash.[citation needed] During times of high economic output, the central bank always has the option of restoring reserves to higher levels through raising interest rates or other means, effectively reversing the easing steps taken.

Economists such as John Taylor[89] believe that quantitative easing creates unpredictability. Since the increase in bank reserves may not immediately increase the money supply if held as excess reserves, the increased reserves create the danger that inflation may eventually result when the reserves are loaned out.[90]

QE benefits debtors, since the interest rate has fallen, meaning there is less money to be repaid. However, it directly harms creditors as they earn less money from lower interest rates. Devaluation of a currency also directly harms importers and consumers, as the cost of imported goods is inflated by the devaluation of the currency.[91]

Impact on savings and pensions[edit]

In the European UnionWorld Pensions Council (WPC) financial economists have also argued that artificially low government bond interest rates induced by QE will have an adverse impact on the underfunding condition of pension funds, since "without returns that outstrip inflation, pension investors face the real value of their savings declining rather than ratcheting up over the next few years".[92][93] In addition to this, low or negative interest rates create disincentives for saving.[94] In a way this is an intended effect, since QE is intended to spur consumer spending.

Capital flight[edit]

According to Bloomberg reporter David Lynch, the new money from quantitative easing could be used by the banks to invest in emerging markets, commodity-based economies, commodities themselves, and non-local opportunities rather than to lend to local businesses that are having difficulty getting loans.[95]

Increased income and wealth inequality

Critics frequently point to the redistributive effects of quantitative easing. For instance, British Prime Minister Theresa May openly criticized QE in July 2016 for its regressive effects: "Monetary policy – in the form of super-low interest rates and quantitative easing – has helped those on the property ladder at the expense of those who can't afford to own their own home."[96] Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it".[97] Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE "is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality".[97]

Those criticisms are partly based on some evidence provided by central banks themselves. In 2012, a Bank of England report[98] showed that its quantitative easing policies had benefited mainly the wealthy, and that 40% of those gains went to the richest 5% of British households.[97][99]

In May 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but has not done quite as much for working Americans.[100]

Answering similar criticisms expressed by MEP Molly Scott Cato, the President of the ECB Mario Draghi once declared:[101]

Some of these policies may, on the one hand, increase inequality but, on the other hand, if we ask ourselves what the major source of inequality is, the answer would be unemployment. So, to the extent that these policies help – and they are helping on that front – then certainly an accommodative monetary policy is better in the present situation than a restrictive monetary policy.

In July 2018, the ECB published a study[102] showing that its QE programme increased the net wealth of the poorest fifth of the population by 2.5 percent, compared with just 1.0 percent for the richest fifth. The study's credibility was however contested.[103]

Criticism by BRIC countries

BRIC countries have criticized the QE carried out by the central banks of developed nations. They share the argument that such actions amount to protectionism and competitive devaluation. As net exporters whose currencies are partially pegged to the dollar, they protest that QE causes inflation to rise in their countries and penalizes their industries.[104][105][106][107]

The world's leading emerging economies have urged Western governments[108] to pursue "responsible" economic policies, in particular referring to quantitative easing. In a joint statement leaders of Russia, Brazil, India, China and South Africa, collectively BRICS, have condemned the policies of western economies saying "It is critical for advanced economies to adopt responsible macro-economic and financial policies, avoid creating excessive liquidity and undertake structural reforms to lift growth" as written in the Telegraph.[109]

Another criticism prevalent in Europe,[110] is that it creates moral hazard for governments. Central banks’ purchases of government securities artificially depress the cost of borrowing. Normally, governments issuing additional debt see their borrowing costs rise, which discourages them from overdoing it. In particular, market discipline in the form of higher interest rates will cause a government like Italy's, tempted to increase deficit spending, to think twice. Not so, however, when the central bank acts as bond buyer of last resort and is prepared to purchase government securities without limit. In such circumstances, market discipline will be incapacitated.

Political risk

Richard W. Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, warned in 2010 that QE carries "the risk of being perceived as embarking on the slippery slope of debt monetization. We know that once a central bank is perceived as targeting government debt yields[94] at a time of persistent budget deficits, concern about debt monetization quickly arises." Later in the same speech, he stated that the Fed is monetizing the government debt: "The math of this new exercise is readily transparent: The Federal Reserve will buy $110 billion a month in Treasuries, an amount that, annualized, represents the projected deficit of the federal government for next year. For the next eight months, the nation's central bank will be monetizing the federal debt."[111] Ben Bernanke remarked in 2002 that the US government had a technology called the printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), so that if rates reached zero and deflation threatened, the government could always act to ensure deflation was prevented. He said, however, that the government would not print money and distribute it "willy nilly" but would rather focus its efforts in certain areas (e.g., buying federal agency debt securities and mortgage-backed securities).[112][113] According to economist Robert McTeer, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, there is nothing wrong with printing money during a recession, and quantitative easing is different from traditional monetary policy "only in its magnitude and pre-announcement of amount and timing".[114][115]

Continued in article


Cambridge Analytica Scandal --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

The Real Problem Wasn’t Cambridge Analytica, But The Data Brokers That Outlived It ---

Are Nobel Prizes worth less these days?

Updates on Medical Insurance


Open immigration can’t exist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global ---
Paul Krugman




Bob Jensen's threads on health insurance ---


Bob Jensen's Tidbits Archives ---

Bob Jensen's Pictures and Stories

Summary of Major Accounting Scandals --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_scandals

Bob Jensen's threads on such scandals:

Bob Jensen's threads on audit firm litigation and negligence ---

Current and past editions of my newsletter called Fraud Updates ---

Enron --- http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudEnron.htm

Rotten to the Core --- http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudRotten.htm

American History of Fraud --- http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/FraudAmericanHistory.htm

Bob Jensen's fraud conclusions ---

Bob Jensen's threads on auditor professionalism and independence are at

Bob Jensen's threads on corporate governance are at


Shielding Against Validity Challenges in Plato's Cave ---

·     With a Rejoinder from the 2010 Senior Editor of The Accounting Review (TAR), Steven J. Kachelmeier

·     With Replies in Appendix 4 to Professor Kachemeier by Professors Jagdish Gangolly and Paul Williams

·     With Added Conjectures in Appendix 1 as to Why the Profession of Accountancy Ignores TAR

·     With Suggestions in Appendix 2 for Incorporating Accounting Research into Undergraduate Accounting Courses

Shielding Against Validity Challenges in Plato's Cave  --- http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/TheoryTAR.htm
By Bob Jensen

What went wrong in accounting/accountics research?  ---

The Sad State of Accountancy Doctoral Programs That Do Not Appeal to Most Accountants ---


Bob Jensen's threads on accounting theory ---

Systemic problems of accountancy (especially the vegetable nutrition paradox) that probably will never be solved ---

Bob Jensen's economic crisis messaging http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/2008Bailout.htm

Bob Jensen's threads --- http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/threads.htm

Bob Jensen's homepage --- http://faculty.trinity.edu/rjensen/