A strange combination. The post The night Chuck Berry performed with the Bee Gees first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

One of the stronger arguments for public support of universities is that the creation of new knowledge improves the quality of our lives. In the early 1950s, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, Jonas Salk, discovered a vaccine that within a few years essentially ended a ghastly disease that maimed large numbers — polio. The quality of our lives has been importantly improved because of similar advances originating in university offices and laboratories. But a lot of academic research has been far less beneficial, arguably even harmful. Partly this reflects the recently revealed epidemic of fraudulent “research” published by journals to advance the careers of scholars. Not all reported “discoveries” are genuine. But beyond that, there is a lot of published work considered of great importance that in the long run has been shown to have caused more harm than good. And nowhere is that more apparent than in my own field of economics. (RELATED: Lies Abound In Higher Education. Now They’ve Lost Our Respect.) A revolution in economic thinking began in earnest in the 1930s. John Maynard Keynes posited a new theory that suggested collective action could dramatically reduce the menace of high unemployment and economic downturns. The stimulation of “aggregate demand,” for example, could lower unemployment. Simultaneously, a new generation of young university economists were using mathematical techniques and statistical methods to add a more “scientific” gloss to a profession going back to Adam Smith (1776), if not the ancient Greeks. Three economic problems have received much attention. First, how do we maintain “full” employment, eliminating large numbers of people without jobs? Second, how can we let our economy grow at a high rate over time, advancing the material welfare of the population? Third, how can we maintain roughly stable prices so the ravages of inflation do not destroy the wages and savings of workers and investors, or others on fixed incomes, and also disrupt trade? I looked at our success in dealing with these three problems for two time periods. First, I looked at the American experience from 1900 through 1929, the first three decades of the last century when economics was emerging as a major field of study, before the revolutionary modern “advances” of Keynes and his followers, before we even talked about something called “macroeconomics,” or extensively used statistical methods (“econometrics”) and math to analyze economic phenomena. Then I compared that with the first two decades of this century, 2000 through 2019, after the revolution in economic theory and methodology, on each of the three critical indicators of economic performance outlined above. Total Output Using the widely used estimates of Angus Maddison (official U.S. government statistics were not yet collected), from 1900 to 1929 output (real GDP) rose an average of 3.46 percent a year. Walt Rostow said we had entered our “age of mass consumption.” This was when many Americans got their first car, went to their first movie and major league baseball game, bought their first radio, and, for many, got electricity, central heating, and indoor plumbing. By contrast, in the later period, growth was nearly 40 percent lower, only 2.10 percent annually. Unemployment The major issue to Keynes and the new generation of American economists generally was the scourge of high unemployment. The average annual unemployment rate in the early period was 4.70 percent a year, well below the 5.89 percent rate for the modern period. In the early period, in six years (20 percent) the annual unemployment rate was 6.0 percent or more; in the modern era, it was above six percent in seven years (35 percent of the time). Inflation On this measure, the two eras were essentially tied. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.23 percent annually over the 1900 to 1929 period, very slightly above the 2.10 percent increase in the later period. Half of the earlier period, however, was before we even had a central bank ostensibly charged with maintaining price stability (the Federal Reserve); moreover, the observed inflation of the earlier era was virtually entirely due to a major world war, while the later period had none. Prominent Yale economist Arthur Okun once spoke of a “misery index” — the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates. It averaged 6.93 in the earlier period, well below the 7.99 in the modern era. The era of activism by academic economists is associated with greater misery, not less, at least as so defined. Kamala Harris’s Army of Nobel Prize Economists It is no wonder that the American public does not seem overawed by the wisdom of Nobel Prize winners in economics, presumably the best and brightest of the profession. Kamala Harris demonstrated that vividly when she constantly noted that 17 noted economists had endorsed her economic plan. It is uncertain whether that won or lost her votes. Concluding Thoughts There is a lot more, of course, that can be said. One might argue, for example, that what is important for economic welfare is per capita GDP growth, not total growth, and that population growth slowed down considerably over time. Quite true, and GDP growth per capita did not show a serious slowdown. But one might argue that the reduction in population growth itself is a sign of declining economic vitality — immigration was a lessening factor in the latter period, for example, and large in-migration is a strong indicator of economic vitality. One might argue the increase in unemployment did not have huge adverse consequences because of the rise in the welfare state with its income security provisions. Others might suggest other important determinants of economic welfare need consideration, such as income distribution. Still, others supporting the basic argument would argue the modern massive national debt arising from Keynesian economic thinking and political actions has endangered the nation’s future and the standard of living for our children and grandchildren. I suspect the welfare-impeding dimensions of academic research might be found in other academic fields as well, such as in the growing threats to the very existence of the human race associated with extraordinary increases in our ability to kill people because of nuclear and other means of mass destruction, developed partly in university laboratories. Also, I think the factually dubious rewriting of American history by woke academics to promote progressive narratives has certainly been harmful. Economics is far from the only example of how some academic research has not benefited humanity. The net positive spillover effects of academic research are at least debatable. Richard Vedder is a distinguished professor of economics at Ohio University, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, and author of the forthcoming Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education. READ MORE from Richard K. Vedder: Time to Put Our Fiscal House in Order Are We at the Beginning of the End of Homo Sapiens? Jimmy Carter: A Centennial Assessment The post Does Academic Research Advance Human Welfare? Not Always. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Imagine you’ve just been handed the best map to navigate the world — a map so exceptional that everyone chooses to use it. But instead of celebrating this achievement, the government steps in, accuses the mapmaker of unfairly dominating the map market and demands that your new map be ripped in two. You’d be forgiven for wondering why any of this was necessary. This is the unfolding drama of the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, a legal battle that threatens to reshape the technological landscape. Having won its lawsuit challenging Google’s exclusive search engine deals with Apple, the Justice Department is now pursuing remedies that could fundamentally disrupt the digital ecosystem millions of Americans depend on to navigate their daily lives. The original lawsuit argued that Google’s agreements to remain the default search engine on iPhones and MacBooks constituted illegal monopolization. Yet consumers couldn’t care less and continue to overwhelmingly prefer Google over competitors like Bing — much like they choose iPhones over Google’s Pixel or Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones. (RELATED: Is Google a Monopoly? The Federal Government Thinks So.) To understand this legal quagmire, one must first grasp the historical context of antitrust regulation. At its roots, antitrust laws seek to protect competition and undo monopolies. In the 1980s, American lawyers and economists introduced the consumer welfare standard, a legal doctrine that evaluates anticompetitive behavior based on actual harm to consumers. Developed to safeguard capitalism’s competitive spirit, this standard aims to prevent market manipulation that could increase prices or reduce product quality.  Since then, however, the approach of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission has strayed from this foundational principle. Rather than focus on consumer impact, these agencies seem intent on punishing successful technology companies. This represents a dangerous form of government overreach that could potentially undermine American innovation, small businesses, and technological dominance. The proposed remedies of this case go far beyond addressing specific concerns about Google’s distribution agreements. The Justice Department’s recommendations, which include potentially forcing the sale of Chrome or dramatically restructuring Google’s search business, threaten to unravel a technological ecosystem that consumers have embraced. While the Department of Justice seems to believe forcing users to manually configure search engines on every device will improve competition, a similar policy in Europe barely moved the needle in market share.  Furthermore, the potential consequences extend beyond mere inconvenience. Tech giants like Google manage vast amounts of personal and sensitive data critical to numerous services, from search engines to cloud storage and artificial intelligence. Forced divestitures could compromise privacy protections and weaken cybersecurity measures. Fragmented technological systems create vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors, potentially threatening national security. Most importantly, these aggressive regulatory actions send a chilling message to entrepreneurs: Succeed at your own legal peril. While antitrust law was created to bolster competition, this decision could ironically harm startups the most. Many emerging technology companies depend on partnerships with larger firms like Google to reach users, secure funding, and scale their operations. An unpredictable regulatory environment could dry up the collaborative ecosystem that has driven technological progress. This case represents more than a dispute about search engines. It reflects a broader narrative that views successful technology companies as inherently problematic. Such sweeping generalizations oversimplify complex market dynamics and risk stifling the very innovation they claim to protect. Google’s market leadership wasn’t achieved through coercion but by consistently delivering a superior product that consumers freely choose. The proposed remedies appear to be less about protecting consumers and more about pursuing an ideological agenda against successful businesses. Antitrust enforcement should be a precision instrument — carefully targeting genuine consumer harm, not a sledgehammer dismantling growing companies. As this legal drama continues to unfold, we must critically examine the underlying principles at stake. Are we a society that celebrates and rewards innovation? Or are we becoming one that views technological success with suspicion and punitive intent? The future of American technological leadership hangs in the balance. The Justice Department’s case against Google isn’t just about search engines or distribution agreements. It’s about the fundamental principles that drive human ingenuity. America must continue to embrace the entrepreneurial, problem-solving spirit that has made it a global technology leader. Antitrust must remain focused on genuine consumer welfare, not bureaucratic witch hunts against prosperity. We are the home to the greatest cartographers and inventors of the world, but that rests in the balance if we continue down a path of politicizing business activity and market behavior over prioritizing customers. Sam Raus, a recent graduate of the University of Miami, is a Tech and Consumer Freedom fellow with Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter: @SamRaus1. READ MORE:  Trump’s Regime Change at the SEC A Spirit of Bankruptcy in the Air Can Musk Dismantle the Deep State? The National Endowment for Democracy Should be Defunded on Principle   The post Google’s Plight: Toxic Search for Antitrust Remedies appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to cut $2 trillion and make the government more efficient. It’s a high priority since the United States is barreling toward a fiscal crisis. Yet despite the mounting evidence of unsustainable spending and deficits, lots of people seem to believe that the goals of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, are dead on arrival. Why? Because these doubters believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are completely off-limits for cuts. This is nonsense. Spending on these three programs represents roughly half of 2025’s $7 trillion budget, and more if you include Veterans Affairs spending. It’s true that Musk and Ramaswamy will need Congress to help make major changes. It’s also true that cutting as much as they intend to without touching Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would spark serious political drama. And yes, cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits isn’t popular — so much so that politicians would rather ignore the problem. Yet this does not take entitlements off the table for cuts and review. Mindlessly ignoring their unsustainability just because they are popular is shortsighted and actively irresponsible. It perpetuates a political culture in which difficult choices are avoided, fiscal irresponsibility accelerates, and long-term economic stability is sacrificed for short-term political expediency. Besides, doing nothing will lead to Medicare benefits being cut by 11 percent and Social Security Benefits being cut by 23 percent in less than a decade when their respective trust funds expire. Politicians can swear on the Bible that they won’t touch these programs; it’s only true if they let the scheduled cuts take place. So let me tell you why Musk and Ramaswamy’s plan isn’t DOA and how entitlement spending could be on the table without too much pain. First, bury the myth that the so-called entitlement programs — Medicare and Social Security in particular — are somehow sacrosanct or immune to legislative action. The executive branch has limited power to make changes, but Congress has all the powers needed to reform, adjust, or even close these programs if it chooses. It’s simply choosing not to tackle the moderate reforms we need. That could change. The DOGE guys have the biggest microphone any fiscal reformer has ever had. They’ve managed to put fiscal issues, along with the insanity of government inefficiency, on display for every American to see. This should motivate Congress to get off the couch and start taking our problems seriously. Then there is the fact that before Congress thinks about cutting entitlement benefits, there are plenty of other, low-hanging fruit steps to be taken that would save a lot of cash. For instance, as it is now, Medicare pays different rates for the same service based on where it is provided (hospital outpatient department, ambulatory surgical center, or private physician office). Imposing site neutrality would save $100 billion over 10 years. Medicaid and Medicare are the source of at least $100 billion a year in fraud and over $100 billion annually in improper payments. Obviously, ending fraud should be a priority. And, according to the Government Accountability Office, 74 percent of improper payments are simple overpayments. However, the government is making little effort to recover the funds. In fact, to the extent that any effort is expended, it’s by health care providers (mostly hospitals who are large beneficiaries of Medicare’s fee-for-service improper payments) and Congress, who try to slow down the rate of improper payment recovery by audit contractors. Why we should tolerate such a scandal, I don’t know. Congress has also capped the amount that taxpayers need to repay when receiving improper payments through the Obamacare premium tax credit. The result is a massive underreporting of income by taxpayers to get bigger credits, as well as other fraud schemes. Cato Institute scholars calculated that “removing repayment limits would save taxpayers between $44 billion and over $95 billion over ten years.” Social Security suffers from unrecovered improper payments too. According to the program, “at the end of FY 2023, SSA had an uncollected overpayment balance of $23 billion.” That’s not chump change. There could be many more large, attainable savings from Social Security and Medicare that wouldn’t affect benefits if, and only if, Congress decides to pay attention. The bottom line is that there is no reason, political or otherwise, to assert that Musk and Ramaswamy’s plan is impossible to achieve. If they fail, it will be because Congress refused to join the cause. And there is no reason whatsoever to excuse entitlement programs from their scrutiny. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE from Veronique de Rugy: End the IRS’s Worldwide Tax Grab Will Trump Fix Insidious FTC, DOJ Abuses? Bipartisan Bummer: ‘Industrial Policy’ The post Don’t Write Off DOGE appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from The Alex Jones Show: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., Childrens Health Defense: This is the 12th extension of the liability shield for COVID-19 countermeasures since January 2020, when HHS declared a public health emergency under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) extended liability protection to COVID-19 vaccine makers and […]

Legendary Hollywood star Dick Van Dyke described the harrowing escape he and his wife Arlene made from the fire raging in Malibu in southern California this week. Speaking to NBC News, the 98-year-old actor said they were able to get their animals and themselves safely away from the wind-driven Franklin fire thanks to some neighbors who he said saved his life. “I wasn’t ready. This time I messed up … I have a fire hose that hooks up to my pool, and shoots like a 70-foot stream of water,” the actor said. “Well, I wasn’t ready. I went out.” “It was snarled, and I’m out there laying on the ground trying to undo this fire hose, and the fire’s coming over the hill,” he added. “What I did was exhaust myself. I forgot how old I am, and I realized I was crawling to get out. It was coming from over the hill, you could see it.” Dick Van Dyke says neighbors “saved me” during the Malibu wildfires. He had to evacuate his home a few days before his 99th birthday. “I was trying to crawl to the car. I had exhausted myself. I couldn’t get up. Three neighbors came and carried me out and came back and put out… pic.twitter.com/HJBOe46XyE — Variety (@Variety) December 12, 2024 “I was trying to crawl to the car. I had exhausted myself and couldn’t get up. Three neighbors came and carried me out and came back,” the screen legend continued. ““[They] got me out of here, or I wouldn’t have done it. I don’t think I would have made it. They also came back, and my little guest house had started to flame up in the back. They put that out. So they saved my life and my house.” CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE In a post earlier this week on Facebook, Van Dyke said he and his wife had safely evacuated their homes after the blaze swept through the area. “Arlene and I have safely evacuated with our animals except for Bobo [their cat] escaped as we were leaving,” the famed actor, who turns 99 on December 13, wrote. “We’re praying he’ll be OK and that our community in Serra Retreat will survive these terrible fires,” he added. The brush fire started around 11 p.m. on Monday night and thanks to the strong Santa Ana winds, had burned 4,037 acres and was just 7% contained, as of Thursday morning, NBC News noted. Actor Jane Seymour, Cher, and other celebrities were also impacted by the fire.   “While the Franklin Fire continues to burn in Malibu and has gotten extremely close to our home, we remain evacuated and we are safe,” Seymour wrote on Instagram Wednesday, along with sharing pictures showing the flames close to her home. “To everyone fighting the flames and keeping us safe, thank you. Your courage is extraordinary.” A publicist for Cher, Liz Rosenberg, told the Associated Press that the singer/actress had left her home as ordered and was staying in a hotel. Barbara Streisand also has a home in the area and a spokesperson for her told The New York Times she didn’t have to evacuate yet. The cause of the fire is still under investigation. Related: Cher, Dick Van Dyke And Other Celebs Forced To Evacuate Homes Amid Malibu Fire

San Francisco police identified the man accused of assassinating United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City last week several days before he was caught at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania. The news comes as authorities claimed that 26-year-old Luigi Mangione was not previously on law enforcement’s radar when he was arrested on Monday after a customer at the fast food restaurant recognized him based on photos that had been released by police last week. Sources told the San Francisco Chronicle that an officer in the San Francisco Police Department’s Special Victims Unit recognized Mangione on December 5 as being the person in the photos released by law enforcement. The officer recognized him because his family contacted the department to report that he had gone missing after they had not heard from him for several months. The unit reported his identity to the FBI on December 5, the report said, the very day that the photos were released. It was not clear how the information was passed to the FBI or if the FBI received or acted upon it, the report added. The New York Times reported late on Thursday that the suspect disappeared from family and friends over the summer after deciding to go on a lengthy trip to Asia. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE During the trip he reportedly expressed alarm over how people have become over reliant on things like smart phones and social media, the report said. He also bemoaned capitalism and loved the writings of terrorist Ted Kaczynski, commonly known as the “Unabomber.” Authorities found a notebook on him after he was arrested that included a passage where the writer mentions taking out “the CEO at the annual parasitic bean-counter convention.” Thompson was gunned down in Midtown Manhattan on December 4 while he was on his way to the UnitedHealth Group’s Investor’s Conference. “It’s targeted, precise, and doesn’t risk innocents,” Mangione allegedly wrote in the notebook. The suspect considered using a bomb but wrote in his notebook that it “could kill innocents,” CNN reported. According to authorities, Mangione was also in possession of a 262-word manifesto where he allegedly called out “United” and wrote, “To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone.” NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said on Wednesday that a water bottle and Kind snack bar wrapper recovered by police near the crime scene contained fingerprints that match those of Mangione. Tisch also noted that three shell casings recovered at the scene of the crime matched the homemade gun found on Mangione when he was arrested. The 9mm shell casings from the scene of Thompson’s assassination had the words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose” written on them, according to NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny. It was initially reported that the words on the shell casings were “defend,” “deny,” and “depose” before police clarified. Zach Jewell contributed to this report.