Monthly Archives: November 2016

Defining Fake News

Charles Hugh Smith at has posted a pointed counter-argument to the “fake news” issue:

I was amused to find my site listed on the now-infamous list of purportedly Russian-controlled propaganda sites cited by The Washington Post. I find it amusing because I invite anyone to search my 3,600-page archive of published material over the past decade (which includes some guest posts and poems) and identify a single pro-Russia or pro-Russian foreign policy entry.

If anything, my perspective is pro-US dollar, pro-liberty, pro-open markets, pro-local control, pro-free-press, pro-innovation, and pro-opportunities to rebuild America’s abandoned, decaying localized economies: in other words, the exact opposite of Russian propaganda.

My “crime” is a simple one: challenging the ruling elite’s narrative. Labeling all dissent “enemy propaganda” is of course the classic first phase of state-sponsored propaganda and the favorite tool of well-paid illiberal apologists for an illiberal regime.

Labeling everyone who dissents or questions the ruling elite’s narrative as tools of an enemy power is classic McCarthy-era witch-hunting, i.e. a broad-brush way of marginalizing and silencing critics with an accusation that is easy to fabricate but difficult to prove.

Such unsupported slander is a classic propaganda technique. It has more in common with Nazi propaganda than with real journalism.

Try to dig through the hyperbolic language to the meaning behind it.  He’s right.  He doesn’t support the same goals or policies as many, or most, elected officials, and he uses the kind of wording you see above to make his points.  This absolutely does not make him a tool of Russian propaganda, even inadvertently.  Not agreeing with the mainstream cannot be the definition of being a Russian information shill.

IMHO, the biggest issue here is that many, many news sources, including mainstream media, alt-right, and others, present opinion pieces as news.  It is left for the reader to distinguish between reporting of fact and opining.  Additionally, what could legitimately be labeled fake news does exist;  that is, the presentation of “facts” that are not true at all, but are at best misrepresentations of facts and at worst outright lies.  This is the price we pay for a free press.  We must all be cognizant that regardless of the source, we must fact check information for ourselves, as well as determine what is fact and what is opinion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Nobel prize in Economics causes harm – Edesess

Michael Edesess has written a review of The Nobel Factor: The Prize in Economics, Social Democracy, and the Market TurnThe history of this Nobel prize is fantastic:

The originator of the idea was Per Åsbrink, Governor of the Riksbank, Sweden’s central bank. For a variety of reasons in the 1960s the bank had accumulated a substantial fund from its profits. It decided to use part of it to create a “special jubilee” to take place on May 15, 1968, to celebrate the bank’s tercentenary (300th anniversary). About 100 central bankers and other dignitaries would be invited.

As the date approached, Åsbrink, in 1967, reluctant to hand the bank’s profits back to the Treasury, came up with the idea of using them to establish a Nobel Prize in economics. He discussed it with his young special advisor Assar Lindbeck, who pursued it from there. There were some objections from scientists, who didn’t believe economics merited such an award, and from the Nobel family itself. However, since the money didn’t come from Nobel family funds but from the Swedish taxpayer, they had little say in the matter.

The only concession to the family was made when its oldest living member, an 87-year-old woman, insisted on setting the prize apart by naming it “The Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel,” versus the other, more simply named awards, such as the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. As Offer and Söderberg say, “This showed a remarkable presence of mind, since the awkward title has continued to tarnish the award ever since.” Peter Nobel, Alfred’s great-great nephew, according to Offer and Söderberg, later wrote that “The Economics prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it were a Nobel Prize. But it is a PR coup by economists to improve their reputation.”

That’s funny!  Seeing the role that VaR had in the global financial crisis of 2008, I would agree with the book’s premise that the Nobel prize in economics results in a net loss to the global economy over time.

Not sure if the book follows the same path as the review, but Edesess goes on to detail how in the US, what he calls market liberalism has caused great harm, with the other choice being social democracy.  That is, social security is more efficient and offers better returns than privately managed IRAs, single payer is implied to be a better health care system, etc.

One point is overlooked here, and that is that what has increased is not free markets, but corporate cronyism.  Free markets vs. socialized services is not a dichotomy, and what we have is neither.  Free markets are likely to be an improvement, and socialism would probably not be much worse, or not much different, at least as far as the amount of goods reaching the most people.

Leave a comment

Filed under Financial, Government