Nein, Justiz ist für die Gerechtigkeitsfindung, Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten und Bestrafung da!
Was für ein Wischiwaschi!
Showing posts with label propaganda and demagoguery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda and demagoguery. Show all posts
Monday, October 19, 2026
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Again Nature journal uses the term "people" instead of women!
Disturbing LGBTQ ideology!
Citing Washington Compost: "Oncologists and gynaecologists are urging people who were tested decades ago for breast cancer and ovarian cancer genes to be tested again. ..."
Monday, October 12, 2026
The Lancet Commission on 21st century global threats to health. Really!
Lot's of usual alarmism and hysteria! Lot's of hot air!
We have learnt to live with nuclear weapons for over 80 years!
Of course, machine learning and AI is now a global threat too!
Of course, the Covid-19 pandemic is cited! Fact is that SARS-CoV-2 was a fairly harmless virus, but it spread quickly. The lab leak was the most dangerous aspect of it.
I also have serious doubts about the claim "first decline in global life expectancy since 1950"!
"... Two of these major catastrophic threats [???] have extinction potential: nuclear conflict [???] and the malicious use of artificial intelligence (AI) [???]. ...
A good example of the challenge facing the Commission is the assessment of the impact of climate change [???]. ..."
"The world has lived through an extraordinary global health threat, the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to nearly 20 million deaths, staggering economic losses, a generational decline in human capital, and the first decline in global life expectancy since 1950 [???] (the first year when UN estimates were published). ..."
"... The global community and many nations have launched commissions, task forces, and panels to draw lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. ..."
Friday, October 09, 2026
43% of Young Voting Age Adults in America Support Sharia. Really!
Most of these young age adults probably do not even know what Sharia law is!
I suspect some serious flaws here!
"... But a new poll finds a disturbing trend among young Americans, that they support the Sharia in even greater numbers than Muslims themselves. “Poll: 4 In 10 Young Americans Support Sharia Law,” by Sarah Lee, The Federalist, October 6, 2026: ..."
"A set of polls released this week by Our Republic and Rasmussen show a concerning trend among American youth, especially in light of recently revealed immigration numbers under [46th President]: A quarter of 18-35 voters polled would support a community implementing Sharia law as the legal code for the entire town, city, or state if the majority of residents living there desired its adoption. ..."
Poll: 4 In 10 Young Americans Support Sharia Law "‘Groups perceived as marginalized are often treated sympathetically without much scrutiny of what those groups or their belief systems actually teach.’"
Monday, October 05, 2026
Postpartum hemorrhage kills nearly 43,000 people a year. Really!
Women not people you morons at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health! This is disgusting!
"The leading cause of maternal death worldwide—postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), excessive bleeding after childbirth—kills nearly 43,000 people a year. ..."
Saturday, October 03, 2026
The US spent billions on border surveillance. Why can’t it catch people before they die? Really!
What kind of a moronic headline is this by the MIT Technology Review!
What are these people doing at the border?
She died at the San Diego border. A surveillance camera was in plain sight "In Southern California’s Otay Mountain Wilderness, the federal surveillance network seems unavoidable. But year after year, migrant deaths persist. "
Again the AAAS used pregnant individuals instead of pregnant women!
Disgusting and disturbing!
AAAS = American Association for the Advancement of Science
"... Höbler et al. analyzed tissue and blood samples from pregnant individuals ..."
Saturday, September 12, 2026
AOC and Mamdani seen laughing and smiling as 9/11 families weep at Ground Zero. Really!
This is a piece of lousy, deplorable junk journalism!
Some other junk news article even titled it "giggle-gate"! What a nonsense!
"House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, who is leading efforts to gird America against future terror threats, is blasting fellow Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for failing to display appropriate decorum during Friday's solemn commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
"It's an absolute travesty [???]," Crawford, R-Ark.,"
Thursday, September 10, 2026
Males are more difficult to birth than females for many mammals. Really!
Amazing stuff! This about the obstetrical dilemma. Was it not known for thousands of years that male babies are on average larger than female babies and thus impose more risks during childbirth?
Apparently, the only new discovery here is that these risks are found across mammal species.
I am not sure why the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) picked this article to promote it!
Again the AAAS gets caught using the ideological term "people" instead of women! DEI demagoguery is still alive!
The costly son hypothesis is a very unfortunate term. I hope it will be quickly end up in the dustbin of history and gain no traction!
"Every day, about 700 [women] people die giving birth around the world. A leading cause is obstructed labor, often due to the baby’s head exceeding the size of the birth canal. ...
Reviewing birth data for 140 species, the authors argue that sons are more difficult to birth than daughters for many mammals, including humans and our ancient ancestors.
The authors found this pattern in five domesticated animals: cattle, water buffalo, sheep, goats, and a breed of American racehorse.
That’s also the case in captive antelope and Asian elephants.
The pattern holds in cattle and sheep, even when controlling for birth weight, suggesting in addition to sheer size, factors such as sex differences in fetal shape and behavior could contribute to males causing more trouble during birth. ...
This added risk of this phenomenon, which the researchers dubbed the “costly son” hypothesis ..."
From the abstract:
"Human childbirth has often been considered uniquely difficult among mammals, yet recent evidence suggests that obstructed labor and fetopelvic disproportion are widespread across placental mammals.
Here, we propose the “costly son” hypothesis: because male offspring are typically larger at birth, they impose greater obstetric risk on mothers and themselves by increasing the likelihood of fetopelvic disproportion and dystocia. We compiled sex-specific birth weight data for 140 placental mammal species across 11 orders and reviewed published evidence on sex differences in dystocia risk.
Male neonates were more commonly larger at birth than females, and male-biased birth size differences were strongly associated with male-biased adult sexual size dimorphism. Species with male-biased adult size dimorphism had sixfold greater odds of exhibiting male-biased birth weight differences than species with female-biased dimorphism.
Male-biased birth weight differences existed irrespective of developmental mode (precocial or altricial), indicating that sex differences in fetal growth arise early in gestation.
Evidence from humans, livestock, and at least one non-human primate suggests that male fetal sex is associated with elevated dystocia risk, that is, precocial taxa where birth size approaches the mechanical limits of the maternal birth canal.
We further hypothesize and discuss how parity and sex ratio adjustment may modulate these risks and associated trade-offs in a Trivers–Willard context.
Our findings identify fetal sex as an underappreciated dimension of mammalian obstetrical dilemmas and suggest that the evolutionary benefits of producing larger sons are balanced by increased risks of birth complications and mortality."
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
What do popular terms like disparity, equity, equality, and justice have in common
They are perfect examples of terms in the toolkit of alarmists, ideologues and demagogues! One of their most favorite terms "disparate impact".
Whenever you see these terms or their derived terms used in research and journalistic articles be immediately alert! It is almost like a red flag! If there is a combination of these terms used in an article be alarmed!
Often the use of these terms identify the author immediately as a simple minded terrible simplificateur!
Then there is the pretense of knowledge that these authors implicitly invoke. E.g. so called intellectuals want to appear as smart and convincing!
Like Karl Marx, many times the world/subject is divided into two supposedly distinctive dogmatic categories aka as dichotomy (e.g. capitalists and laborers). Many times this division is artificial or too coarse or is very incomplete and ignores dynamics/interactions etc.
If we want a better humanity going forward, then this cheap demagoguery needs to stop!
Monday, August 24, 2026
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
56 million years ago fossil forest during the PETM offers chilling window into climate change future. Really!
This demagoguery and alarmism and hysteria was again spread quickly by many of the usual climate change religion suspects (like e.g. the AAAS)!
When medieval superstition trumps science!
Some of this research seems to be speculative, e.g. "possible tree mortality" and other vague terms.
The climate demagogues try hard to link a 56 million years ago event to today's warming by stressing the "anthropogenic" cause of higher CO2 in the atmosphere. Let's not forget CO2 is only a minute trace gas in our time!
Notice also this study appears to be based on computer modeling not on hard facts. Has any third party validated these computer model scenarios? Computer models and their 100 year forecasts also play a major role in the propaganda of the global warming hoax/climate change religion.
Very strange, notice these climate demagogues don't tell what the approximate CO2 and methane concentration in the atmosphere was 56 million years ago. Either they don't know or it was so much higher than today that they better not disclose it or otherwise their demagoguery would be exposed immediately! What if it was not higher CO2 that caused the warming period 56 million years ago?
"Palaeontologists have reconstructed a 56-million-year-old forest, offering a sobering view of what happens in a period of rapid warming due to rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) came at the end of the Palaeocene epoch. Over this period, global average temperatures rose by 5–8°C over just a few thousand years.
This warming was triggered by a massive, rapid release of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere and oceans primarily through volcanic activity which would have been intensified through feedback loops, including melting permafrost and large-scale wildfires.
Research published in the journal Science shows how the PETM impacted on an ancient forest fossilised in rocks in US state Wyoming and vegetation globally.
The team found reduced canopy cover and plant species migrating toward the poles. ..."
"“We are putting CO₂ into the atmosphere faster than any known natural process,” [???] says paleobotanist Dr. Regan Dunn, Assistant Deputy Director and Associate Curator of the Samuel Oschin Global Center for Ice Age Research at La Brea Tar Pits and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. “The Earth has never experienced a carbon release at the pace we're creating today." ..."
"... This sudden warming event, called the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), was one of the most notable climatic upheavals in Earth’s history. The volume of CO2 released [??? so how much was released?] during that period is thought [???] to be roughly equivalent to the total human emissions that would [???] be released by the end of the twenty-first century under a pessimistic scenario. The ancient surge of CO2 raised global average temperatures by between 5 and 9 °C, changing the climate for more than 150,000 years. ..."
"... Understanding how forest structure changed during the PETM is really important, because it tells us about how plant growth, biomass and productivity are affected by adding a lot of carbon dioxide [??? how much?] to the atmosphere,” Currano [Ellen Currano, senior author of the study] says. “It turns out that too much carbon dioxide is a bad thing for forests, because the accompanying warming and drying stresses the trees and kills many of them.” ..."
From the editor's summary and abstract (Notice, the abstract does not mention the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere):
"Editor’s summary
Predicting the effects of climate change depends on complex feedbacks between climate and vegetation. Although elevated carbon dioxide from anthropogenic emissions could make photosynthesis more efficient, leading to greater vegetation productivity and carbon storage, coincident warming and drought can reduce primary productivity. Dunn et al. examined how these factors interacted to influence forest productivity in another period with elevated carbon dioxide and 5° to 9°C of global warming, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago. Based on an analysis of leaf cuticles from fossils, the researchers found that there was elevated canopy opening early in this period, possibly due to tree mortality, which occurred along with major vegetation and hydrological changes. ...
Abstract
Uncertainty remains regarding the impact of rapid anthropogenic [???] warming on forest ecosystem structure, biodiversity, and function.
As an analog [???], we reconstruct forest canopy density and compositional change in Wyoming, USA, through the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), an interval of abrupt carbon increase and warming ~56 million years ago. We develop a proxy to quantify leaf area index and assess shifts in floral composition using palynomorphs.
Forest canopies opened abruptly at onset of PETM warming, landscape erosion increased, and vegetation shifted from broad-leaved angiosperm to fern- and palm-dominated ecosystems.
When combined with regional data, these patterns suggest that continental-scale changes in plant communities cause landscape destabilization. These shifts also have implications for multimillennial-scale hydrologic and carbon cycle feedbacks in the climate system."
Ancient global warming drove forest canopy decline and ecosystem restructuring "A widespread dieback of forests due to climate change 56 million years ago has parallels with today [???]."
Ancient rise in CO2 was catastrophic for forests: what that means for today’s plants
Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum Carbon Release Study "A Tar Pits researcher reconstructed forests of 56 million years ago—with chilling parallels for our warming planet: climate change led to a widespread browning of Earth's landscapes—against a backdrop of elevated atmospheric CO₂, global warming, and reduced rainfall triggered by volcanically driven carbon release—and trees are at the root of these drastic changes."
UW’s [University of Wyoming] Currano Helps Reconstruct Ancient Wyoming Forest Canopy (original news release)
(Left) Fisheye view of a forest canopy above a corresponding estimate of forest structure. (Top Right) Leaf cuticle collected from modern forest soil. (Bottom Right), Fossilised leaf cuticle from the Hanna Basin.
Satellite data shows a browning trend across the planet since around the turn of the century. [Demagogues like to use shocking photos like this]
Sunday, August 16, 2026
Slavery linked to mortality gap between Black and white Americans today. Really!
Update of 8/17/2026: Of course, the lefty Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health would pick up this junk science in a news article! "Historical U.S. slavery has been linked to contemporary health disparities and the mortality gap between Black and white Americans today"
This article reeks of junk journalism and junk science! More horrible demagoguery spread by the AAAS and this time also by the National Academy of Sciences! Shame on them!
The term "racial disparities" is ideological and racist! A sign of junk science! This article published in the PNAS seems to be pure ideological junk science! It should be retracted!
What about individual lifestyle of black Americans v. white Americans with similar lifestyles or black Americans who moved away from formerly slave holding counties and so on! What about the age structure between white and black Americans in those counties?
Caveat: I did not read the article.
"... researchers studying racial health disparities in the United States today. A new study finds slavery still casts a long shadow on the country’s well-being, worsening the health outcomes for Black people in certain locations more than 150 years after abolition. ..."
From the significance and abstract:
"Significance
Black–White mortality disparities remain a persistent form of inequality in the United States. This study provides evidence that the proportion of enslaved people across U.S. counties in 1860 [???] predicts contemporary Black–White mortality disparities.
Counties with greater reliance on slavery in 1860 [???] have higher contemporary mortality rates for Black Americans but lower rates for White Americans. The association persists in analyses designed to address confounding from unobserved historical factors and in tests of alternative explanations. Structural inequalities [???] in segregation, economic conditions, and educational access emerge as key pathways linking historical slavery to contemporary mortality disparities [???]. This work underscores the need for interventions [???] that address not only proximal determinants but also the historical and structural foundations, of racial health disparities.
Abstract
We tested whether contemporary Black–White mortality disparities in the United States may be rooted in the historical legacy of slavery and perpetuated through structural inequalities.
Linking county-level data on the proportion of enslaved people in 1860 with structural inequality indicators from 1990 to 2000 and mortality outcomes from 2010 to 2020, we find that historical slavery is robustly associated with contemporary racial mortality gaps.
Our model estimates ~22 additional deaths per 100,000 among Black Americans relative to White Americans for every 10% increase in the 1860 enslaved population.
Path analysis models showed that segregation, economic inequality, and racial disparities in poverty and education statistically mediated this effect.
We test the plausibility of a causal pathway using an instrumental variable analysis and explore the robustness of our theoretical model in multiple supplemental analyses.
Our analyses held even after controlling for a comprehensive suite of historical and contemporary covariates.
These findings are consistent with a model wherein slavery’s legacy continues to shape present-day Black–White racial health disparities via enduring structural inequities."
Historical slavery predicts contemporary disparities in mortality between Black and White Americans (open access)
What a garbage Chart (reminds of the infamous Hockey Stick chart)!
Fig 1 Figure displays the estimated relationship between the proportion of enslaved population in 1860 and Black and White mortality rates (2010–2020).
Saturday, August 15, 2026
Verpulverte Billionen, Die USA haben seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg Billionen Dollar für Kriege ausgegeben. Wirklich!
Dumm, dämliche linke Propaganda, die seit den 1960ern immer wieder wiederholt wurde! Wer bezahlt für diese Propaganda/Unsinn? Iran, Putin der Schreckliche, China, Nord Korea?
Wieviele Billionen haben z.B. die ehemalige Sowjet Union und China ausgegeben?
"Ein aktueller Kommentar von Rainer Rupp auf apolut, der sich auf einen bemerkenswerten Beitrag des früheren Biden-Beraters Michael Fuchs in der Zeitschrift Foreign Affairs bezieht (1, 2), bringt eine Zahl in Erinnerung, die man kaum fassen kann: Allein der sogenannte „Krieg gegen den Terror“ nach dem 11. September 2001 hat die Vereinigten Staaten nach Berechnungen des Costs-of-War-Projekts der Brown University rund acht Billionen Dollar gekostet (3). Was diese Summe tatsächlich bedeutet, erschließt sich erst im Vergleich — und dieser Vergleich lohnt sich. ..."
When should you switch to an EV? Right now! Really!
More horrible climate demagoguery coming from the AAAS! This is written by a senior editor of Science!
Reminder: So called greenhouse gases (a propaganda term) gases are trace gases!
What is perhaps the most significant cause of climate change/global warming: Varying solar activity and cycles!
"Over the last 3,000 years, Earth experienced two major notable ... warm periods—the Roman Warm Period (roughly 1st to 3rd centuries AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 950 to 1250 AD)" (Google Search)
This research is most likely ideologically driven junk science! It was written to give some politicians pseudo science arguments for government subsidies and government paternalism!
This pamphlet of a journal article was written by only two authors!
"When should you switch to an EV? Right now!
H. Jesse Smith, Senior Editor, Science
Campbell, J. E. & Geyer, R. The climate benefits of retiring a fully operational internal combustion engine vehicle. Science 393, 591–595 (2026). 10.1126.science.adv5441
Internal combustion engine vehicles are a major source of carbon dioxide emissions and therefore there has been a strong push to increase the proportion of electric vehicles (EV) in the transportation sector.
Operating an EV [???] typically produces much less CO2 per-mile than driving a “gas-guzzler,” but knowing when to replace a combustion vehicle with an EV in order to minimize lifetime CO2 production is complicated by the fact that considerable emissions are produced in the manufacturing of a vehicle, before it ever hits the road.
An accurate assessment also must consider emissions from the activities that support manufacturing, such as mining for component materials, and end-of-life management requirements like disposal or recycling.
In order to answer the “When is the best time to switch?” question, at least from the greenhouse gas perspective [???], Campbell and Geyer employed a wide range of scenarios. Ultimately, they found that retiring even a brand-new combustion-driven car for an EV can result in lower total CO2 emissions. [???] ..."
From the editor's summary and abstract:
"Editor’s summary
Electric vehicles (EVs) produce much lower emissions of greenhouse gases than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), but when in the life cycle of an ICEV does it make sense to replace it with an EV? Campbell and Geyer conducted life-cycle analyses of different vehicle types and concluded that the energy impact benefits from swapping an EV for an ICEV begin to accrue as early as the first day of the life of the ICEV [???], and that replacement early in the life cycle consistently provides reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Financial considerations will also affect when people choose to make the replacement, of course, but from the perspective of emissions, it is almost never too soon to switch. ...
Abstract
Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles represent the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions for most US households. Although battery electric vehicles (BEVs) considerably reduce use-phase emissions, the transition poses a fundamental life cycle optimization challenge:
Is there a net climate benefit to retiring a functional ICE vehicle before its end of life? Retiring a functioning ICE vehicle incurs a fundamental trade-off between BEV manufacturing emissions and decreased vehicle operation emissions.
In this study, we evaluated this trade-off across a comprehensive range of retirement scenarios and found that scrappage-and-replacement yields consistent emissions reductions across most contexts, including the retirement of new ICE vehicles. Although scrapping a functional asset remains economically prohibitive under current market conditions, these results demonstrate a major mitigation potential for policy interventions [???], such as enhanced scrappage subsidies, to address the emissions of an increasingly durable ICE fleet."
Thursday, August 13, 2026
The permafrost link between methane emissions and climate change. Really!
More of the horrible climate demagoguery and indoctrination by the AAAS! Again junk science and junk journalism?
Remember CO2 and methane are trace gases in the atmosphere measured in few hundred (CO2) or even few (methane) parts per million!
I bet there also arsonists in Siberia! Or is Putin the Terrible doing some deforestation in Siberia so the megalomaniac can finally conquer the rest of the world? 😊
"Northern hemispheric permafrost stores twice as much carbon as is found in the atmosphere. As permafrost thaws due to climate warming, it becomes a potential source of methane emissions caused by microbial decomposition of soil organic carbon in wetlands, which could cause further warming. Zhu et al. report that methane emissions in Siberia have increased at a rate of around 5% per year since 2010 due to a combination of fires and permafrost melting. This source of methane is projected to become more important as climate continues to warm."
From abstract:
"The northern permafrost region, which stores double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, is vulnerable to accelerated warming.
Methane emissions from thawing permafrost may eventually result in a climate-carbon feedback.
Our analysis of atmospheric methane data shows that Siberian growing-season methane emissions have increased by 12.0 ± 1.9 teragrams of methane (TgCH4) (5% per year) over the period 2010–2023.
We reveal contrasting Siberian hydrological trends linked to high-pressure systems and distinct air-sea-land interactions.
Warmer, drier conditions over eastern Siberia enhance fire-related emissions (0.7 ± 0.1 TgCH4 year−2), and wetter conditions over western Siberia promote wetland-related emissions (0.4 ± 0.1 TgCH4 year−2).
Weakly nonlinear relationships between temperature maxima and emissions suggest that by 2050 [???], higher Siberian emissions could offset about 20% of the global methane reduction required for climate targets [???], with eastern Siberia dominating the projected increase."
US National Academy Of Sciences Pulls Key Climate Science Chapter From Website
Good news! What took so long! Shame on the NAS to promote such ideology and indoctrination!
"... NAS pulled the climate science section, which appeared in the fourth edition of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” while it reviews the process used to develop the guidance, following scrutiny over the chapter’s contents and the involvement of a lawyer connected to climate litigation against energy companies.
The chapter, which critics liken to “left-wing plaintiff propaganda,” claims climate attribution — “climate change” linked to human activity and specific companies — is established science. ...
The manual is produced by the National Academies in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center (FJC), and assists federal judges in evaluating scientific and technical evidence that arises in litigation.
Although the exact amount of judges who use the reference manuals isn’t known , the fourth edition is publicly available online. Reuters reported since 1994 that the reference guide has been cited by over 1,300 judges. ...
President Donald Trump had also criticized the climate science section before its removal, arguing that the material contained faulty information and should not be supported by taxpayers. ..."
What a joke! NAS logo (source)
Saturday, August 08, 2026
AI Is Hyper-Scaling Digital Inequality The next AI divide is about who gets to build, govern, and benefit. Really!
When the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) regurgitates lefty ideology and demagoguery!
Terms like "digital inequality" or "digital divide" are a giveaways! Sounds like primitive communist dialectic!
To look at this issue from a country by country perspective is already a serious flaw!
Given all the open source models, cloud computing etc. that are out there, this technological revolution of AI is probably the most accessible and disseminated technology in human history!
Caveat: I did not read the whole article.
"... The stakes extend far beyond access to AI. Countries that remain primarily consumers rather than creators of AI [???] risk losing opportunities to build local innovation ecosystems, strengthen public-sector capacity, and ensure that their own languages, cultures, and societal priorities are reflected in AI systems. In this sense, the AI divide is also becoming a divide in economic opportunity and technological influence. ...
The core agenda-setting power [???] often remains with a narrow set of industry actors and a small group of technologically advanced states. Most other countries remain in a perpetual catch-up posture, adapting imported models, standards, and templates for “trustworthy AI” to their own contexts, and may have limited local capacity to assess trade-offs or propose alternatives. ..."
The ongoing data center scaremongering in Western countries
Western news media almost daily spread demagoguery about data centers! It is mostly alarmism and hysteria!
Who is behind or fueling this disinformation too? China, Russia, Iran ...?
I bet electricity consumption of data centers will go down as time goes on due to better, more efficient chips etc. In the near future perhaps more biological brain inspired data centers will be developed and so on.
Water consumption of data centers can be fairly easily controlled e.g. by closed systems and so on.
What about superconductivity and nuclear fusion? Maybe with the help of machine learning & AI we will finally be able to harness these two in the very near future!
Again, what the heck is this noise/bickering and irrationality all about! As if medieval superstition still runs our lives!
We are living now at the beginning of the second quarter of the 21st century!
The moral paradox of extreme wealth: Why people oppose it yet are reluctant to take steps to reduce it. Really!
Some dim witted, naive psychology college professor wrote this piece! Most likely, she has no clue about a free market economy!
Her lifetime citation count on Google Scholar is 3466! This is very low!
This piece was published by
What a joke!
Caveat: I did not read her piece!
"... Given the prevalence of such stark inequality, it would be easy to assume that most people accept it as fair – but they don’t. As a psychologist who studies how people navigate moral problems, I suspect that one major challenge to effectively reining in extreme wealth is that doing so forces people to navigate between opposing moral demands. ...
Some argue that people chronically underestimate the scale of inequality – in the 2014 study, Americans underestimated the actual pay ratio at the time as being only 30-to-1.
Others argue that the primary driver of the disconnect is people’s unwillingness to abandon their beliefs in merit – that wealth is the product of hard work, talent and risk. ..."
The author Jennifer Cole Wright (Source)
This is her portrait photo on Google Scholar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)