Tag Archive for: Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Is Wrong on College and Jail by Kevin Currie-Knight

/in , , , /by

In a December 15 tweet, Senator Bernie Sanders intimated that graduating from college decreases the likelihood that you will go to jail:

Sanders has long supported dubious measures for making college more affordable and hence accessible to all, and this may be why: he believes that “no college” is a path to jail.

Mike Rowe, the former TV host of the Discovery Channel series Dirty Jobs and a longtime opponent of the “college for all” message, responded to Sanders with outrage. Rowe challenged Sanders’s idea that the most viable option without a college degree is jail. He also brought home a favorite point of his, to throw into question whether a cost-benefit analysis of college really shows that college is the best path to a successful career.

I’ve written before against the “academic training for all” mentality that Sanders and so many others seems set in, but Rowe, unfortunately, also gets a few things wrong.

Upcredentialing and Downvaluing

While Sanders is right that college degrees significantly increase one’s job prospects, he’s wrong to think that “college for all” will increase job prospects for everyone. Rowe is right to note that there are viable career options that don’t require college degrees, but he overlooks that they are vanishing by the year.

We all strive to “outcredential” each other, and in short order, the college degree is the new high school diploma. 

As a recent study documents, more employers are demanding a college degree as a qualification for careers that never used to require one — from positions at an IT help desk to positions as a receptionist, office manager, or file clerk. What is behind this “upcredentialing” phenomenon?

College degrees and other certificates of learning are what economists call positional goods: their value partly hinges on how they stack up relative to what others have. If I live in an area where few have finished college, my degree will be of great value and probably open many doors. But if I live where college degrees are commonplace, mine will do little more than put me on an even footing with my equally credentialed peers. In that case, distinguishing myself from others may require me to get still more education than my peers.

The Education Arms Race

We can think of higher education as a game of chicken, where each person’s strategy is to outdo others without completely breaking their bank. Since I want to compete in the job market, and I have reason to think that many other people are getting college degrees, my strategy should be to get one, too, and perhaps one more impressive than theirs. But my competitors are probably thinking the same thing, and each of us knows what the other is thinking. We all strive to “outcredential” each other, and in short order, the college degree is the new high school diploma.

This is basically what Americans have done for the last several decades, at least since the GI Bill expanded college accessibility.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, college enrollment in 1983 was 10.6 million, and, after a small dip between 1984 and 1985, it has steadily increased each year. In 2012, the number stood at 17.7 million. Data also show that more Americans than ever have college degrees, though the percentage of people with college degrees (20 percent to 40 percent) varies by state.

Upcredentialing occurs because it can. Employers want ways to differentiate candidates. When college degrees were scarce, the candidate with the college degree distinguished himself from everyone else right off the bat. But when more and more people have a college degree, employers can afford to make having one a requirement.

If this process looks circular, that’s because it is. Bachelor’s degrees are a pathway to many more career options because many careers now require bachelor’s degrees. But the reason many careers now require bachelor’s degrees is because people en masse get bachelor’s degrees because they are a path to a better future.

Trapped in a Vicious Circle

While I generally support Rowe’s “college isn’t the only way” message, I am more pessimistic than he is because I don’t see the circle breaking easily.

If the best way to have the best career prospects is to outdo my competition, how likely is it that I will decide not to go to college if I suspect that others are better satisfying employers’ expectations by going? I could take a chance, but it’d be a big chance; if I’m right, I save a lot of tuition money, still get a decent job, and accumulate four extra years of earnings and experience, but if I’m wrong, my career prospects are slim. Rowe might point out that many careers don’t require a college degree, but I’d remind him that the pool of such jobs is shrinking. Fifteen years ago, those jobs included file clerks and construction supervisors, both of which now require degrees.

If this process looks circular, that’s because it is.

Some companies are bucking the upcredentialing trend and recognizing that there is little reason for them to require college degrees for certain positions. I hope that as those companies find success with that model, others will follow suit and we will reach a tipping point. Rowe probably shares that hope.

None of this lets Sanders off the hook. Not only is his tweet horribly oversimplified (and to be fair, one can’t be terribly nuanced in a tweet). But “college for all” ceases to look so good when you understand that education is a positional good. Increasing college access to all will do little more than deflate the value of a college degree for everyone by fueling the very upcredentialing that is already making the degree ever less meaningful.

“At the end of the day,” some future tweet may opine, “a second PhD is a helluva lot cheaper than prison.”

Kevin Currie-KnightKevin Currie-Knight

Kevin Currie-Knight teaches in East Carolina University’s Department of Special Education, Foundations, and Research. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Harvard Poll: Trump, Carson Lead Republican Primary — Sanders Edging Clinton Among Democrats

/in , , , /by

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new national poll of America’s 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) locked in a dead-heat as young Republicans’ first choice in their party’s presidential primary – and young Democrats giving the edge to Bernie Sanders (41%) over Hillary Clinton(35%) as the top selection in their presidential primary.  Overall, a majority (56%) of 18- to 29- year-olds prefer a Democrat win the 2016 campaign for president over a Republican, a net increase of five points since the IOP’s spring 2015 survey was released.

The IOP’s newest poll results also show – in the wake of the mid-November Paris terrorist attacks – a solid majority (60%) support the U.S. committing ground troops to defeat ISIS.  When asked how likely they would be to serve, 16% said they “have already,” “would definitely” or “would strongly consider” joining the U.S. military to combat ISIS if additional troops were needed.  A detailed report on the poll’s findings is available online: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/harvard-iop-fall-2015-poll.

“For 15 years, the IOP has polled Millennials, the largest generation in U.S. history,” said Harvard Institute of Politics Director Maggie Williams.  “Our fall poll shows they are deeply divided about who should lead America, focused on candidate integrity and split over whether the American Dream is alive or not.  We are hopeful that political leaders will inspire and include this generation in conversations about the future of their country.”

The IOP’s 28th major release since 2000, the GFK-KnowledgePanel® survey of 2,011 18- to 29- year-old U.S. citizens has a margin of error of +/– 2.8 percentage points (95% confidence level) and was conducted online with the Government and Academic Research team of GfK for the IOP between October 30 and November 9, 2015.  The poll finds:

Solid Majority of America’s 18- to 29- Year-Olds Support Sending Ground Troops to Combat ISIS.  Early fall 2015 IOP polling fielded before the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks showed America’s youth split over whether to send U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS, with 48% saying they supported the action (48%: oppose) – a nine percentage-point drop in support over the past eight months (Mar. 2015: 57% support, 40% oppose).  However, IOP polling re-fielded the question following the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks – finding a 12 percentage-point swing in support with a strong majority (60%) of young Americans supporting sending U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS (40%: oppose).

Entering 2016, 18- to 29- Year-Olds Prefer Democrats Maintain Control of White House.  As shown in spring 2015 IOP polling, young Americans prefer that a Democrat win the White House over a Republican in the 2016 race for president.  November IOP polling indicated a majority (56%) prefer a Democrat, with less than four-in-ten preferring a Republican (36%).

Donald Trump and Ben Carson locked in Dead-Heat, Ahead of Republican Presidential Candidate Field.  Among potential Republican primary voters (definite, probable or 50-50; n=472), fall 2015 IOP polling showed Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) in a statistical dead-heat – with a strong lead over the rest of the Republican candidate field.  Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz captured seven (7%) percent, closely followed byRand Paul and Jeb Bush (each with 6%), Carly Fiorina (3%), Mike Huckabee (3%), Rick Santorum (3%), John Kasich (2%), Lindsey Graham (1%), Bobby Jindal (1%), Chris Christie (1%), and George Pataki (<1%) – with 17% undecided.  Regardless of whom potential Republican primary voters plan to support, forty-three percent (43%) say they believe Ben Carson is “qualified to be president” (17%: “not qualified;” 41%: don’t know).  Slightly more than one-third (38%) said the same about Donald Trump (39%: “not qualified;” 22%: don’t know).  Seventeen percent (17%) said they were “very satisfied” with the Republican candidates for president this year (47%: “somewhat satisfied;” 25%: “not very satisfied;” 11%: “not at all satisfied”).

Starting at 1% in Spring 2015, Bernie Sanders Now Holds Lead (41%-35%) over Hillary Clinton; Most Don’t Believe “Democratic Socialist” Label Makes a Difference.  While Hillary Clinton maintains double-digit leads over Bernie Sanders in national polls of likely Democratic primary voters, November IOP polling showed 18- to 29- year-old potential Democratic primary voters (definite, probable or 50-50; n=751) as an outlier – with Sanders holding a slight edge and leading Clinton 41%-35% (22%: don’t know).  Less than one percent (<1%) said they supported Martin O’Malley.  A strong majority (66%) of 18- to 29- year-old potential Democratic primary voters said the fact that Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist made “no difference” in their likelihood to support his candidacy.  Slightly less than one-quarter (24%) said the label made them “more likely” to support Sanders, with only nine percent (9%) saying it made them “less likely.”  In addition, nineteen percent (19%) said they were “very satisfied” with the Democratic candidates for president this year (53%: “somewhat satisfied;” 21%: “not very satisfied;” 6%: “not at all satisfied”).

Nearly Half of Young Americans Believe the American Dream is Dead for Them. When November IOP polling asked 18- to 29- year-olds if the “American Dream is alive or dead” for them personally, respondents were nearly evenly split (49%: “alive;” 48%: “dead”).  While no significant difference was found based on race or ethnicity (whites – 49% said “alive;” African-Americans – 44% said “alive;” Hispanics – 52% said “alive”), respondents’ level of education did play a role.  Nearly six-in-ten (58%) college graduates said the American Dream was alive for them personally, compared to only 42% of those not in college/never enrolled in college saying the same.  Additionally, a significant majority of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters said they believed the American dream was “dead” (Trump voters – 61%: American Dream “dead,” 39%: “alive;” Sanders voters – 56%: American Dream “dead,” 44%: “alive”).

America’s 18- to 29- Year-Olds Say Integrity, Level-Headedness and Authenticity – Not Experience – Most Valued Attributes in Future President.  When the IOP’s fall poll asked 18-29 year olds what attributes they valued most in a presidential candidate, integrity (51%), level-headedness (33%) and authenticity (26%) topped the list – with political experience (18%) and business experience (11%) trailing behind.

70% of 18- to 29- Year-Old Republicans, 31% of Democrats Support Building a Wall on the Border of the U.S. and Mexico.  Forty-three percent (43%) of America’s youth said they supported building a wall on the border of the United States and Mexico, with a slim majority (53%) saying they oppose the idea.  Support differed among Republicans (70%: support; 28%: oppose), Democrats (31%: support; 68%: oppose) and Independents (42%: support; 56%: oppose).

Engagement Slipping Since 2011: 20% of America’s Youth Say They Are Politically Engaged; Less Than Half Say They Are Following 2016 Campaign.  Only two-in-ten (20%) of America’s young adults said they considered themselves “politically engaged and active,” a drop of five percentage points compared to IOP polling conducted during the same pre-election time period four years ago (fall 2011: 25%).  When fall 2015 IOP polling asked America’s young adults “how closely do you follow the 2016 presidential race?” – only 46% said they were following the campaign “very” or “somewhat” closely (52%: “not very” or “not at all”).

Methodology

The goal of the project was to collect 2,000 completed interviews with young Americans between 18- and 29- years old.  The main sample data collection took place from October 30 through November 9.  A small pretest was conducted prior to the main survey to examine the accuracy of the data and the length of the interview.

Four thousand four hundred and forty-one (4,441) KnowledgePanel members were assigned to the study.  The cooperation rate was 45.2 percent which resulted in 2,011 completed interviews included in this report (after data cleaning).  Eighty-three (83) interviews were conducted in Spanish with the remainder done in English.  The web-enabled KnowledgePanel® is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population.  Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides a laptop and ISP connection at no cost. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and are sent e-mails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html and by request to the IOP.

Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, was established in 1966 as a memorial to President Kennedy.  The IOP’s mission is to create the future of politics and public service every day, inspiring undergraduates to lead lives of purpose by committing themselves to the practice of politics, governing, public service and the countless opportunities to make a difference in the world. More information is available online at www.iop.harvard.edu.   

GfK is one of the world’s largest research companies, with more than 12,000 experts working to discover new insights into the way people live, think and shop, in over 100 markets, every day. GfK is constantly innovating and using the latest technologies and the smartest methodologies to give its clients the clearest understanding of the most important people in the world: their customers. In 2012, GfK’s sales amounted to EUR 1.51 billion. To find out more, visit www.gfk.com or follow GfK on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gfk_group.

Social Tag: #HarvardIOPPoll

‘Democrats seem determined to defend Islam more than America’

/in , , , , , , /by

Republican presidential candidates respond to the ridiculous Democratic National Committee ad you can see here. Huckabee’s comment is most apposite, and is true not just of the DNC, but of the Obama Administration and the mainstream media — as well as much of the Republican establishment.

“EXCLUSIVE: Republicans Slam DNC Ad Attacking Them for Using Term ‘Radical Islam,’” by Patrick Howley, Breitbart, November 21, 2015:

WASHINGTON -Republicans are slamming the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) new attack ad criticizing the GOP for using the term “radical Islam.”

After radical Islamists carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, the DNC released an ad hitting Republicans from George W. Bush to Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for even using the word “Islam” while talking about terrorism.

The GOP is outraged.

“Democrats seem determined to defend Islam more than America,” Gov. Mike Huckabee told Breitbart News. “No one in the GOP blames all Muslims but no one in the DNC blames any Muslims, even the ones who shout Allah Akbar just before cutting off the head of a person who professes being a Christian.”

“You can’t defeat the enemy if you are unwilling to even call it by name,” Jeb Bush campaign spokesman Tim Miller told Breitbart News.

“The Democrat ad is a poignant reminder of why the world has become less safe under an Obama administration: denial and political correctness have become the default strategies. That’s not how you lead, that’s not how you win and that’s not how we are going to keep America free and safe,” said Ben Carson spokesman Doug Watts….

RELATED ARTICLE: Sharia UK: London police dive into canal to rescue Qur’ans

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

/in , , , , , /by

The format of the Democratic debate was altered at the last minute to give each candidate time to give a statement about the Paris terror attacks at the beginning of the debate.

Speaking first, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.” However, it remains to be seen how Sanders would lead this fight since he advocates a non-interventionist approach and says that theU.S. should only have a very limited supporting role in the fight in Syria. Sanders believes that the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly identified the enemy as jihadists, rejecting the non-descript terminology used by the Obama Administration who calls them “violent extremists.” Clinton made no sweeping promises as Sanders. Rather she said she would be laying out “in detail what I think we need to do to with our friends and allies — in Europe and elsewhere — to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorisim.” She stressed that “all the other issues we want to deal with depend on us being secure and strong.”

In his opening statement, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that the events in Paris spoke to the new face of “conflict and warfare” in the 21st century, and as such, required “new thinking, fresh approaches.” O’Malley remarked that “we have a lot of work to do to better prepare out nation and to better lead this world into this new century.”

Polling shows that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated last night’s Democratic presidential debate, particularly on national security.

Public Policy Polling came out with the first post-debate poll that showed 67% of Democratic primary voters declaring Clinton the overall winner of the second presidential primary debate and 75% saying they most trust her on national security of the three candidates. The following is a summary of the national security positions taken by each candidate during the debate:

Hillary Clinton

She aligned herself closely with President Obama throughout the debate but presented three areas of difference on Islamist extremism: Identification of the enemy; support for Syrian rebels and an implicit criticism of President Obama for suggesting that “containment” of the Islamic State is a sign of success.

Right off the bat, Clinton repeatedly used Islamic terminology to define the enemy as “jihadist.” She also seemed to understand that the root of violent jihad is in the Islamist ideology, which she emphasized is not subscribed to by most Muslims. She described the adversary as “Islamists who are jihadists,” but she did not discuss whether she believes that “moderate Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood should be embraced as allies against “jihadists” like the Islamic State.

The second point of difference came when she was asked about President Obama’s claim that the Islamic State is “contained” shortly before the Paris attacks. While Clinton avoided criticizing the president directly, she rejected containment as a measure of success, saying it is impossible to contain a group like the Islamic State and only its defeat is acceptable.

The third point of difference was on Syria. She explained that she urged President Obama to equip moderate Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war to prevent jihadists from creating a safe haven. Clinton believes that developing allies on the ground in Syria would have given us a valuable ally today.

Clinton also suggested a tougher approach towards the Gulf states and Turkey. She said it is time for them to “make up their mind about where they stand” on the fight against jihadism.

On the topic of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that preceded the rise of the Islamic State and the collapse of Iraqi security forces, Clinton said that the withdrawal was in compliance with a U.S.-Iraqi agreement signed by the Bush Administration. After U.S. forces left, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decimated the Iraqi security forces with his sectarianism and cronyism. This, combined with the civil war in Syria and other regional variables, enabled the Islamic State to seize large parts of Iraq.

She defended the NATO military intervention in Libya to topple Gaddafi by pointing out the large amount of American blood he had on his hands from supporting terrorism. Clinton also mentioned how the Libyans elected moderate leaders after he fell. She addressed the civil war in Libya by saying the U.S. should provide more support to the current moderate Libyan government.

On the topic of Syrian refugees, Clinton said she agrees in principle with bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. (as O’Malley advocates) but only if they are completely vetted. Her tough language on vetting suggested that she envisions overhauling the process to become stricter, but she did not present a specific proposal.

Unlike Sanders, she would not commit to cutting the defense budget but promised to closely review military spending. She cited Chinese moves in the South China Sea and the increased aggressiveness of Russia, such as its broadcasting of a new drone submarine that can be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.

Clinton is currently the frontrunner by a mile. She leads nationally with 55% in an average of polls; leads Iowa with 54%; is in second behind Sanders in New Hampshire with 43% and leads in South Carolina with 65%. You can read our factsheet on Clinton’s positions related to Islamism here.

Bernie Sanders

As we mentioned in our coverage of the recent Democratic forum, Sanders views the threat as being rooted in an Islamic ideology but—unlike Clinton—advocates a non-interventionist approach. His argument is that the U.S. should only have a very limited supporting role because the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims. He again stated that the fight with the Islamic State is part of a “war for the soul of Islam.”

Sanders rejected a strategy of pursuing regime change, apparently referring to the Syrian dictatorship and the removal of the Gaddafi regime in Libya when Clinton was Secretary of State. He cited U.S.-backed regime changes in places like Chile and Guatemala as counterproductive mistakes.

He spoke out in favor of cuts to the defense budget. He argued that U.S. military spending is far too high and that much of the excess costs are not even necessary for fighting terrorism.

Sanders is currently in second place overall. He is the runner-up nationally with 33%; is in second place in Iowa with 30%; leads in New Hampshire with 44% and is in second place in South Carolina with 17%. You can read our factsheet on Sanders’ positions related to Islamism here.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

At the recent Democratic forum, O’Malley embraced the camp that believes Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of political grievances against the U.S. He did not repeat his ludicrous claim that U.S. troops overseas and the operation of Guantanamo Bay are the chief reasons for the strength of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

However, during the Saturday night debate, he acknowledged that the threat comes from an Islamic ideology. Unlike Clinton who defined the enemy as “jihadism,” O’Malley defined it as “radical jihadists”—which begs the question: What is a “non-radical jihadist?”

In describing where the Islamic State threat emerged from, O’Malley pointed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and especially the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He said that many of ISIS’ current members used to be a part of the Iraqi military until we fired them. There is truth to that statement, but it seems to suggest that O’Malley remains committed to the belief that the “root cause” of the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorists are mistreatment and political grievances, rather than ideology.

O’Malley continued to embrace a non-interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. should not be trying to overthrow dictators. He then seemed to contradict himself when he said the U.S. should take the lead in fighting “evil.”  He said his “new” foreign policy would be one of “engagement” and “identifying threats” as they gather.

On several occasions, O’Malley cited the need for human intelligence sources as part of his strategy—but that’s nothing new and it’s not a strategy. Everyone agrees that more human intelligence is needed.

He reiterated his support for bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., up from the current 10,000 that President Obama plans to bring in. He did not address how they would be vetted and taken care of, especially when a poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% feel positively or somewhat positively towards the Islamic State.

O’Malley is in last place among the three remaining candidates. He is in last with 3% nationally; last in Iowa with 5%; last in New Hampshire with 3% and last in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on O’Malley’s positions related to Islamism here.

You can read the Clarion Project‘s comprehensive factsheets on each party’s presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism by clicking here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin: GOP Debate

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

Bernie Sanders: Climate change is directly related to the growth of Muslim terrorism

/in , , , , , /by

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” That is true. However, it contradicts Sanders’ other claim, that climate change, that is, “limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops,” led to the rise of terrorism. If it were really all about fights over diminished resources, then these jihad groups would have arisen even without the U.S. taking out Saddam Hussein, no? In any case, if climate change has given rise to terrorism, why don’t we see Arab Christian or Yazidi terrorists? After all, they lived in Iraq and Syria alongside the Muslims. So why weren’t they driven by the lack of water and land to form their own terrorist groups?

It is astonishing that a man this deluded could be taken seriously as a candidate for President. But his view here is a mainstream Democrat Party position.

“Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is Directly Related To Terrorism,” by Michelle Fields, Breitbart, November 15, 2015:

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Saturday that climate change is directly related to terrorism.“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties [sic] all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.

Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.

When Sanders was asked his thoughts about Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war he added: ” I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.”

“I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States,” hr [sic] claimed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

FBI top dog won’t release motive in Chattanooga jihad shootings: “We don’t want to smear people”

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , /by

The remaining three Democratic presidential candidates participated in a forum with MSNBC last Friday and it exposed very important divisions within the party about the sources of Islamist terrorism. One side sees it as an ideological battle and the other sees it as a repercussion of Muslim grievances against American policy.

Senator Bernie Sanders described the war with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a battle for the “soul of Islam” whose primary participants must be Muslim. Because he sees it as a Muslim-on-Muslim conflict where the West is caught in the crossfire, Sanders thinks it is counterproductive for the U.S. to take the lead in fighting the Islamic State.

Sanders said he disagrees with President Obama’s decision to send ground troops to Iraq to aid the Iraqi security forces. The U.S. should play a supporting role, he argued, but the surrounding Muslim countries should be the only ones to send in ground forces to fight it out with the Islamic State.

The viewpoint of Sanders about the nature of the war puts him more in line with Clinton than with Martin O’Malley.

“Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories,” Clinton said in an interview withThe Atlantic in August 2014.

She also said the U.S. needs to have an ideological strategy like it had during the Cold War, when we had “a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism.”

The difference between her and Sanders is in how to respond to the ideological threat. Clinton is far more interventionist and believes in pro-actively promoting democratic values, whereas Sanders sees the threat as something that is mostly in the hands of the Muslim world to solve.

O’Malley separated himself from the two at the Democratic forum by claiming that military experts have informed him that the two biggest recruiters for Al-Qaeda and ISIS are the presences of U.S. military forces on the ground in the Muslim world and the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists.

The statement means that O’Malley sees Islamist terrorism as a byproduct of perceived mistreatment of Muslims by U.S. policymakers. This puts him more in the camp of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (whose son, Rand Paul, is currently running) and President Obama. This viewpoint is contradicted by the words of Islamist terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and basic logic.

The three candidates represent three different camps within the Democratic Party: An interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Clinton); a more non-interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Sanders) and a non-interventionist view that blames “blowback” from U.S. policy for sparking the Islamist threat (O’Malley).

Click here to read the Clarion Project’s fact sheets on each presidential candidate’s positions related to Islamism.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

Carson Calls on IRS to Terminate CAIR’s Tax-Exempt Status

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Democratic Candidate (L to R): Marin O’Malley, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders denounces “Islamophobia,” Hamas-linked terror organization thrilled

/in , , , /by

A Muslim student, Remaz Abdelgader, said to Sanders: “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society. I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.” Sanders replied: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country. I will lead that effort as president.”

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting. What race is Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays again? I just can’t seem to recall. That is what this controversy is really about: Ben Carson raised a legitimate question about the compatibility of Sharia and the U.S. Constitution. Sharia denies the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims before the law, and contravenes the Constitution in other ways as well. In 1960, John Kennedy was subjected to baseless prejudice as a Roman Catholic, and today Sanders and others consigns concerns about a Muslim President to an analogous baseless prejudice. But Kennedy actually addressed concerns, and assured Americans that he would obey and enforce the Constitution and no other law. Nowadays, asking a hypothetical Muslim candidate if he would obey and enforce the Constitution and not Sharia is “racism.”

So what would happen if a Sharia-compliant Muslim candidate did become President, and began working against the freedoms that the Constitution allows but Sharia does not? Would all those who voted for him simply congratulate themselves on their resistance to “racism” as their freedoms were eroded away?

“CAIR Welcomes Bernie Sanders’s Pledge to End Islamophobia and Racism,” Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, October 29, 2015:

CAIR logo(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/29/15) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today welcomed Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s pledge to end Islamophobia and all other forms of racism during a town hall hosted at George Mason University on Wednesday.

Yesterday, Sanders invited Muslim George Mason University student Remaz Abdelgader to join him on stage during a campaign stop and responded to her remarks about Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson’s position that a Muslim should not be president.

Abdelgader expressed to Sanders the personal impact that Islamophobia in the presidential election was having on her. “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society,” Abdelgader said. “I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.”

Sanders responded: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country,” Sanders said. “I will lead that effort as president.”

“What should have been an unremarkable statement against racism was made noteworthy because only a handful of presidential candidates have gone on the record to denounce Islamophobia,” said CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw. “Bernie Sanders’s willingness to vow to stand together in eradicating Islamophobia and all forms of racism is inspirational.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry: Middle East “home of populations that are energetic, youthful, forward-looking. It is in them that we place our faith.”

Islamic State on recruitment spree in Russia, “moderate” imams can’t counter the jihadis’ appeal

Bernie Sanders and the Fixed Pie Fallacy by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

“The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.” Senator Bernie Sanders first said those words in 1974 and has been repeating them ever since.

Senator Sanders is not alone in his belief. Three out of four Americans agree with the statement, “Today it’s really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer.”

Senator Sanders is half right: the rich are getting richer. However, his assertion that the poor are becoming poorer is incorrect. The poor are becoming richer as well.

Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institute showed that between 1979 and 2010, the real (inflation-adjusted) after-tax income of the top 1% of U.S. income-earners grew by an impressive 202%.

He also showed that the real after-tax income of the bottom fifth of income-earners grew by 49%. All groups made real income gains. While the rich are making gains at a faster pace, both the rich and the poor are in fact becoming richer.

label

In addition to these measurable real income gains, decreases in prices have given the poor increased purchasing power, helping to raise living standards for the worst off in society. As a result of falling prices such as for groceries and material goods, along with gains in real income, Americans have more income left after basic expenses.

Technology has also become cheaper, improving our lives in unexpected ways. For example, consider the spread of cell phones. There was a time when only the wealthiest Americans could afford one. Today, over 98% of Americans have a cellular subscription, and the rise of smart phones has made these devices more useful than ever.

Unfortunately, progress has been uneven. In those areas of the economy where competition is hobbled, such as education, housing, and healthcare, prices continue to increase.

Still, the percentage of the population classified as living in relative poverty has decreased over time. Why then do three quarters of Americans, including Senator Sanders, believe that the poor are “getting poorer?”

A simple logical error underlies Sanders’ belief. If we assume that wealth is a fixed pie, then the more slices the rich get, the fewer are left over for the poor. In other words, people can only better themselves at the expense of others. In the world of the fixed pie, if we observe the rich becoming richer, then it must be because other people are becoming poorer.

Fortunately, in the real world, the pie is not fixed. US GDP is growing, and it’s growing faster than the population.

Poverty remains a pressing issue, but Senator Sanders is incorrect when he says that the poor are becoming poorer. In the words of HumanProgress.org advisory board member Professor Deirdre McCloskey,

The rich got richer, true. But millions more have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, lower child mortality, adequate nutrition, taller bodies, doubled life expectancy, schooling for their kids, newspapers, a vote, a shot at university, and respect.

This post first appeared at HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea German

Chelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Bernie Sanders’s Plan to Fix College Is Worse than Nothing by Ariel Deschapell

/in , , , /by

Bernie Sanders has tapped into a frenzied millennial base by proposing “free” college tuition (that is, tuition paid for by the government). Bachelor degrees are pitched as the primary means by which individuals can gain skills and increase their incomes, so skyrocketing tuition is becoming a hot election topic. But are more subsidies to the university system a legitimate solution to the problem, or simply a stunt to capitalize on youthful outrage?

There’s no denying that the price of higher education is unrealistically high, and a fix is needed. But Sanders’ plan doesn’t even purport to be a solution. It does nothing to address the root problem of rising costs. It merely spreads those costs to society as a whole by socializing them.

Proponents of this idea don’t ever seem to explore the more fundamental question of why the cost of college continues to increase, let alone how socializing those costs stops the inflationary trend.

The assumption seems to be that rising costs are simply a law of nature that we have to deal with. Fortunately, this isn’t the case. If we look at the wider economy, the cost of higher education is clearly an anomaly. Products across the economic spectrum, from smartphones to automobiles, decrease in cost and increase in quality year after year, despite heavy demand. Indeed, consumer demand is what drives continuous innovation in these industries.

Could the problem be something as simple as decreased public funding? Even if that were true, it still wouldn’t explain why universities seem incapable of cutting costs and maximizing performance. Apple, Samsung, and most any other firms seem perfectly able to do so without any regular source of taxpayer funding.

Higher education possess no unique characteristic that prevents it from improving and adapting as every other industry regularly does. But incentives matter, and the market incentives that drive competitive innovation in other industries are heavily distorted in the college and university system.

For starters, under the Higher Education Act signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, universities and colleges gained a de facto monopoly on higher education.

As Senator Mike Lee explains,

Under the federal Higher Education Act, students are eligible for Title IV student loans and grants only if they attend formally accredited institutions. That makes some sense, for purposes of quality control.

Except that under the law, only degree-issuing academic institutions are allowed to be accredited. And only the U.S. Department of Education gets to say who can be an accreditor.

That is, the federal government today operates a kind of higher-education cartel, with federally approved accreditors using their gatekeeper power to keep out unwanted competition.

Can this explain why higher education seems perpetually stagnant and inefficient? Since 1965, computers have gone from being the size of a small building to vastly more powerful, more common, and more affordable pocket-sized devices. Whole other industries have been continuously disrupted again and again, giving way to newer and better models for doing business.

Yet despite a relentlessly increasing price tag, a college education is largely the same beast it was decades ago. In 21st century America, our higher education system is still governed by rules written in 1965.

Because of these rules (and a flood of taxpayer-backed loans), more students are funneled into accredited higher education every year, while the supply remains artificially restricted. Even the smallest regional colleges turn away more students than they could hope to take in.

Is it any surprise then that tuition continues to climb when there exists so little competitive pressure to keep it in check? Without the risk of losing potential students to superior alternatives, universities lack the basic incentives to maximize the value they provide while minimizing the cost.

With this in mind, what does Sanders’s proposal do to address the underlying structural problem in higher education? As it turns out, worse than nothing.

Instead of seeking to weaken the cartel and drive down prices by increasing competition, free tuition goes the exact opposite way. Like decades worth of failed higher education programs, Sanders seeks to continue stimulating demand while doing nothing to address the artificially limited supply and dearth of innovation. Unchecked by any last remnant of market forces college costs will continue to run away at an even faster rate than before.

Were it still 1965, the Senator might suggest we deal with the AT&T telephone monopoly by demanding free landlines for all Americans forever. Thankfully, this isn’t what happened, and instead of a sprawling federally subsidized landline monopoly, we have a cheap, competitive nationwide market for cellular and mobile internet providers.

But this is exactly what Sanders proposes for higher education: a stagnant, expensive, uncompetitive industry, stuck in the past and eating up billions in subsidies. In doing so, he threatens to deny us the creative destruction sorely needed to bring higher education into the 21st century.

Socialized college tuition may provide a popular and illusory respite for students, but only the competition present in free markets can actually reduce costs and spur sustainable innovation.

Ariel Deschapell
Ariel Deschapell

Ariel holds the Henry Hazlitt Fellowship for Digital Development at FEE. He is a student of Florida International University with a focus in finance and economics.

Trump Solidifies Support in GOP Field, Carson and Rubio Pull Away From Pack

/in , , /by

BOSTON /PRNewswire/ — A new poll shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton extending her lead over Senator Bernie Sanders by a margin of 68% to 20%. This sizable boost may indicate she is winning over would-be supporters of Vice President Joe Biden, who was included in a prior poll in September, but not the most recent one. Support for Sanders has remained flat since September at 20%. Biden’s window of opportunity to join the race may be closing; when asked if he should run, 43% of respondents said no, compared to 32% who said he should.

Clinton’s bounce might also be attributed to last week’s Democratic debate. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of those surveyed watched the debate, with 36% saying Clinton won, 17% giving the nod to Sanders, and 40% saying they were undecided about the outcome.

On the Republican side of the race, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson continue to lead the GOP pack. Trump’s 32% support reflected a 1-point drop from the September poll, while Carson edged up 3 points, from 20% to 23%. Marco Rubio improved from 8% to 14%, appearing to draw voters away from Jeb Bush, who fell to 8% from 12%. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, with 6% each, trailed well behind the leaders.

The general election remains very tight. In head-to-head matchups, Clinton trails Trump (46% to 44%) and Carson (47% to 45%). She is tied with Rubio at 44%, and holds a slight margin over Bush (45% to 43%).

Of all the candidates, Carson is the one most favorably viewed by women and younger voters. His favorable/unfavorable ratio with women is 54/31 (+23) compared to Trump’s 42/50 (-8) and Bush’s 38/59 (-21). By a wide margin, women view Clinton unfavorably, 38/60 (-22). Sanders’ has the biggest gender disparity gap, -31 points among females. In the 18-34 age group, Carson’s net favorability is +14, compared to Trump (0), Clinton (-22) and Sanders (-10).

While religion has been a major element of discussion and coverage in past presidential campaigns, it appears Sanders being Jewish is at this time, not an issue.  The majority of voters are unsure of Sander’s religious views with 23% identifying him as Jewish, while 48% were not sure. If elected, Sanders would be the first Jewish president.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does Class Warfare win elections?

ABOUT THE EMERSON COLLEGE POLLING SOCIETY POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted from Friday, October 16 through Saturday, October 17. The polling sample for the Democratic and GOP primaries consisted of 390 and 403 likely primary voters, respectively, with a margin of error of +/-4.9% and +/-4.8%, margin of error and 783 registered general election voters with a +/-3.4%, and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

The Economics of a Toddler and the Ethics of a Thug by Donald J. Boudreaux

/in , , , , /by

Reflecting on the recent Democratic debate, Dan Henninger reports that Bernie Sanders said that he would fund his plan to make college free for students “through a tax on Wall Street speculation” (“Bernie Loves Hillary,” Oct. 15).

This statement reveals the frivolousness of Mr. Sanders’s economics. If such speculation is as economically destructive as Mr. Sanders regularly proclaims it to be, the tax on speculation should be set high enough to drastically reduce it.

But if — as Mr. Sanders presumably wishes — speculation is drastically reduced, very little will remain of it to be taxed and, thus, such a tax will not generate enough revenue to pay for Mr. Sanders’s scheme of making all public colleges and universities “tuition-free.”

That Mr. Sanders sees no conflict between using taxation to discourage (allegedly) harmful activities and using taxation as a source of revenue proves that he ponders with insufficient sobriety the economic matters on which he pontificates so sternly.

Excerpted from Cafe Hayek.

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Hypocrites and Half-Wits.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Look Inside the Courtroom Where Property Owners Fight the Government to Get Back Their Cash, Homes, and Cars

Bernie Sanders Wants Us to Be Like Denmark by Marian L. Tupy

/in , , , /by

For those of you who did not watch the Democratic Party presidential debate last night, Senator Bernie Sanders says he wants America to be more like Denmark.

In some ways, that is an excellent idea. Denmark, it turns out, has freer trade and better business environment than the United States. Its overall economic freedom is almost identical to that of the United States, as is its well-being index.

But don’t take my word for it. Look at the United Nations and World Bank data brought to you courtesy of HumanProgress.org.

The one area where the United States might not want to copy Denmark is the size of government, which is a proxy measure of taxation and redistribution.

1. Free trade

2. Business environment

3. Overall economic freedom

4. Human development index

5. Size of government

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Marian L. Tupy
Marian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

RELATED ARTICLE: No, Bernie Sanders, Scandinavia is not a socialist utopia

Bernie Sanders Is Wrong: Trade Is Awesome for the Poor and for America by Corey Iacono

/in , , , , /by

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential hopeful, is no fan of free trade. In an interview with Vox, Sanders’ made his anti-trade position clear: “Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people.”

He also noted that he voted against all the free trade agreements that were proposed during his time in Congress and that if elected President he would “radically transform trade policies” in favor of protectionism.

Sanders and his ilk accuse their intellectual opponents of promoting “trickle-down economics,” but that is precisely what he is advocating when it comes to trade. The argument for protectionism ultimately relies on the belief that protecting domestic corporations from foreign competition and keeping consumer prices high will somehow benefit society as whole.

However, the real effect of protectionism is to increase monopoly and consequently reduce overall economic welfare. In fact, according to a paper by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, “Government policies…such as tariffs and other forms of protection are an important source of monopoly” that lead to “significant welfare losses.”

In contrast to Sanders’ assertion that the expansion of free trade has been a disaster for the American people, there is a near unanimous consensus among economists that the opposite is true.

An IGM Poll of dozens of the most renowned academic economists found that, weighted for each respondent’s confidence in their answer, 96 percent of economists agreed, “Freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment.”

When the vast majority of economists of all sorts of ideological stripes agree that free trade is a good thing, maybe, just maybe, they’re onto something.

In fact, they surely are. Using four different methods, economists at the Petersen Institute for International Economics estimated the economic benefits from the expansion of technology that facilitates international trade (such as container ships), as well as the removal of government imposed barriers to international trade (such as tariffs). Since the end of World War II, they generated “an increase in US income of roughly $1 trillion a year,” which translates into an increase in “annual income of about $10,000 per household.”

This result is mostly driven by the fact that foreign businesses produce many goods which are used in the production process at a lower cost than their domestic competitors. Access to these low-cost foreign inputs allows American businesses to decrease their production costs and consequently increase their total output, making the nation as a whole much wealthier than it otherwise would have been.

Moreover, contrary to common conjecture, the benefits of international trade haven’t simply accrued to the wealthy alone. Low and middle income individuals tend to spend a greater share of their income on cheap imported consumer goods than those with higher incomes. As a result, international trade tends to benefit these income groups more so than the wealthy.

Indeed, according to the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, middle income consumers have about 29 percent greater purchasing power as a result of international trade.

In other words, middle income consumers can buy 29 percent more goods and services as a result of the access to low-cost imports from foreign countries.

Low income consumers see even greater gains with 62 percent higher purchasing power as a result of trade. In contrast, the top 10 percent of income earners only saw an increase in purchasing power of 3 percent as a result of trade.

On top of that, international trade has provided benefits by bringing new and innovative products to American consumers.

According seminal research by Christian Broda of the University of Chicago and David E. Weinstein of Colombia University, the variety of imported goods increased three-fold from 1972 to 2001. The value to American consumers of this import induced expanded product variety is estimated to be equivalent to 2.6 percent of national income, about $450 billion as of 2014. That’s not exactly small change.

The spread of free trade has also made considerable contributions to environmental protection, gender equality, and global poverty reduction. As a result of the spread of clean technology facilitated by freer trade, “every 1 percent increase in income as a result of trade liberalization (the removal of government imposed barriers to trade), pollution concentrations fall by 1 percent,” according to the Council of Economic Advisers.

The CEA also has found that “industries with larger tariff declines saw greater reductions in the [gender] wage gap,” suggesting that facilitating foreign competition through trade liberalization reduces the ability of employers to discriminate against women.

In regards to global poverty reduction, research has shown that in response to US import tariff cuts, developing countries, such as Vietnam, export more to the US, leading to higher incomes and less poverty.

Despite the large gains from trade America has already reaped, there is still room for improvement (contrary to Sen. Sanders’ accusations of “unfettered” free trade). The PIIE economists estimate that further trade liberalization would increase “US household income between $4,000 and $5,300 annually,” leading the them to conclude that, “in the future as in the past, free trade can significantly raise income — and quality of life — in the United States.”

Ultimately, the conclusion that most economists seem to reach is that, from being a disaster, the expansion of free trade has been a tremendous success, and that further trade liberalization would most likely make Americans, and the rest of the world, considerably better off.

Don’t let fear-mongering about foreigners and China scare you: free trade benefits everyone, especially the poor, while protectionism benefits only the politically powerful.

Corey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

Capitalists Have a Better Plan: Why Decentralized Planning Is Superior to Bureaucracy and Socialism by Robert P. Murphy

/in , , /by

To early 20th-century intellectuals, capitalism looked like anarchy. Why, they wondered, would we trust deliberative, conscious guidance when building a house but not when building an economy?

It was fashionable among these socialist intellectuals to espouse “planning” as a much more rational way to organize economic activity. (F.A. Hayek wrote a famous essay on the phenomenon.) But this emphasis on central planning was utterly confused both conceptually and empirically.

Ludwig von Mises made the most obvious rejoinder, pointing out that there is “planning” in the market economy, too. The difference is that the planning isdecentralized in a market, spread out among millions of entrepreneurs and resource owners, including workers. Thus, in the debate between socialism and capitalism, the question isn’t, “Should there be economic planning?” Rather, the question is, “Should we restrict the plan design to a few supposed experts put in place through the political process, or should we throw open the floodgates and receive input from millions of people who may know something vital?”

This second question came to be known as the “knowledge problem.” Hayek pointed out that in the real world, information is dispersed among myriad individuals. For example, a factory manager in Boise might know very particular facts about the machines on his assembly line, which socialist planners in DC could not possibly take into account when directing the nation’s productive resources. Hayek argued that the price system in a market economy could be viewed as a giant “system of telecommunications,” rapidly transmitting just the essential bits of knowledge from one localized node to the others. Such a “web” arrangement (my term) avoided a bureaucratic hierarchy in which every bit of information had to flow up through the chain of command, be processed by the expert leaders, and then flow back down to the subordinates.

Complementary to Hayek’s now-better-known problem of dispersed knowledge, Mises stressed the calculation problem of socialist planning. Even if we conceded for the sake of argument that the socialist planners had access to all of the latest technical information regarding the resources and engineering know-how at their disposal, they still couldn’t rationally “plan” their society’s economic activities. They would be “groping in the dark.”

By definition, under socialism, one group (the people running the state, if we are talking about a political manifestation) owns all of the important productive resources — the factories, forests, farmland, oil deposits, cargo ships, railroads, warehouses, utilities, and so on. Thus, there can be no truly competitive markets in the “means of production” (to use Karl Marx’s term), meaning that there are no genuine prices for these items.

Because of these unavoidable facts, Mises argued, no socialist ruler could evaluate the efficiency of his economic plan, even after the fact. He would have a list of the inputs into a certain process — so many tons of steel, rubber, wood, and man-hours of various types of labor. He could contrast the inputs with the outputs they produced — so many houses or cars or bottles of soda. But how would the socialist planner know if this transformation made sense? How would the socialist planner know if he should continue with this operation in the future, rather than expanding it or shrinking it? Would a different use of those same resources produce a better result? The simple answer is that he would have no idea. Without market prices, there is no nonarbitrary way of comparing the resources used up in a particular process with the goods or services produced.

In contrast, the profit-and-loss test provides critical feedback in the market economy. The entrepreneur can ask accountants to attach money prices to the resources used up, and the goods and services produced, by a particular process. Although not perfect, such a method at least provides guidance. Loosely speaking, a profitable enterprise is one that directs scarce resources into the channel that the consumers value the most, as demonstrated through their spending decisions.

In contrast, what does it mean if a particular business operation isunprofitable? It means that its customers are not willing to spend enough money on the output to recoup the monetary expenses (including interest) necessary to buy the inputs. But the reason those inputs had certain market prices attached to them is that other operations were bidding on them, too. Thus, in Mises’s interpretation, an unprofitable business enterprise is siphoning away resources from channels where consumers would prefer (indirectly and implicitly) that the resources be deployed.

We must never forget that the economic problem is not to ask, “Will devoting these scarce resources to project X make at least some people better off, compared to doing nothing with these resources?” Rather, the true economic problem is to ask, “Will devoting these scarce resources to project X make people better off compared to using the resources in some other project Y?”

To answer this question, we need a way of reducing heterogeneous inputs and outputs into a common denominator: money prices. This is why Mises stressed the primacy of private property and the use of sound money as pillars of rational resource allocation.

Robert P. Murphy
Robert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and the New Deal.

Clinton in Jeopardy of Losing New Hampshire to Sanders

/in , , /by

WASHINGTON /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential New Hampshire Poll results conducted by Gravis Marketing. The poll results show that Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders has increased his support to 39%, with Hillary Clinton only 4 percentage points ahead at 43%.  The results represent a major surge in the polls for Sanders, landing him within the margin of error away from Clinton.  Undeclared Elizabeth Warren received 8% with Joe Biden achieving 6%.  Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb both received 2% with Lincoln Chafee not registering a reportable percentage.

GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump continues his large lead with 32%, followed by John Kasich at 15% with Chris Christie coming in third at 9%.  Rounding out the top five are Ben Carson and Scott Walker, both achieving 8%.  Jeb Bush just missed the top five with 7% of the vote from polled Republican participants.

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “Bernie Sanders is surging in New Hampshire and threatening to win this early State.  With 14% of the participants voting for two undeclared candidates, we may see a Sanders victory in New Hampshire.  Kasich is also gaining in the polls and will be the challenger to watch.”

Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 1179 registered voters across the U.S. regarding the presidential election.  The sample includes 599 Republicans and 475 Democrats.  The poll has an overall margin of error of +/- 2.9%, 4.0% for the Republican results and 4.5% for the Democrat results.  The total may not equal exactly 100% due to rounding.  The polls were conducted on July 31st throughAugust 3rd using interactive voice response, IVR, technology and weighted separately for each population in the question presented.  The poll was conducted exclusively for One America News Network.

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.  One America News Network will be releasing on-going 2016 Presidential polling results, including national Presidential polling results at the end of July.  Complete poll results will be posted tomorrow at http://www.oann.com/pollNH

ABOUT ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren.  While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday.   Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visit www.OANN.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: O’Malley Blasts Democrats for Limiting Debates