'Economic Scientists' ? (Page 3 of 3)
"Remember when the bleeding-heart set used to say that if only we'd spend as much to alleviate the poverty and suffering in our midst as we were willing to spend on a useless thing like sending a man to the moon, we could achieve wonders? Well, as Charles Murray points out in this brilliant new study, we have spent that much. 'From 1965 to 1980,' he writes, 'the federal government spent about the same amount on jobs programs, in constant dollars, as it spent on space exploration from 1958 through the first moon landing.'" -- "LOSING GROUND" by Charles Murray reviewed by Jeff Riggenbach, November 1984 |
| "Where Are the Female Einsteins?" | By Charles Murray | Posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 | ARTICLES | National Post (Canada) | Publication Date: November 22, 2005 | "Last January, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers offered a few mild, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard's faculty as if he were a crank. The typical news story portrayed the idea of innate sex differences as a renegade position that reputable scholars rejected." |
| "Sex, Science, and Economics" By Charles Murray, Malcolm Kline, and April Kelly-Woessner | "Harvard President Lawrence Summers set off a firestorm when he suggested at a recent academic conference that discrimination was not the key explanation for lagging numbers of women in science and engineering, or other professions. Much more important, he suggested, are differences between men and women in innate aptitudes, and a reluctance among many mothers and wives to make a total commitment to work at the expense of family life." ("Published in How Political Correctness Damages Policing June 2005") -- The American Enterprise | From The American Enterprise Institute website | AEI is a qualified 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions to AEI are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law. |
"In his controversial remarks about the underrepresentation of women in engineering and science, Lawrence H. Summers, president of Harvard University, argued that top leadership positions in academia, business, and law require a time commitment that many women are unwilling to make." -- Laura D'Andrea Tyson is dean of London Business School, Business Week Online, "What Larry Summers Got Right: Yes, many women opt out of the workplace. What can business do?," March 28, 2005
"The Lawrence Summers affair last January made me rethink my silence. The president of Harvard University offered a few mild, speculative, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard's faculty as if he were a crank." | The Orwellian disinformation about innate group differences is not wholly the media's fault. Many academics who are familiar with the state of knowledge are afraid to go on the record." -- Charles Murray, "The Inequality Taboo," Commentary Magazine, September 2005
| "Some economists say the president of Harvard talks just like one of them." | By Virginia Postrel | "The New York Times," February 24, 2005 |
"BEFORE he went into government at the World Bank and Treasury Department, Lawrence H. Summers was a star economist. The habits of mind that made him a successful researcher -- including the style and rhetoric that economists use when they talk to each other -- help explain why he is now embroiled in controversy as president of Harvard. | First and by far most important, he argued, was what he called the 'high-powered job hypothesis' -- that women are, for whatever reason, less likely to enter jobs that demand enormous time commitments." |
"Many women do resist the 80-hour workweek. The problem is men who don't..." -- Emily Yellin, "What Larry Summers Got Right," Time Magazine, Feb. 28, 2005 | time.com/time/archive
"Nothing exemplifies the corruption and decay of American intellectual culture more grotesquely than The Larry Summers Show Trial." -- Steve Sailer, "The Larry Summers Show Trial," February 20, 2005 |
"Men give away nothing so liberally as their advice."
-- La Rochefoucauld
"I am glad that I paid so little attention to good advice..." -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
"We are entitled to require a consistency between what people write in their studies and the way they live their lives." -- John Pocklinghorne
"How will Canada generate the revenues to fund its government services if its economy stalls because its products are simply not selling? -- Globe and Mail editorial, "Fixing Canada's productivity gap (1)," November 5, 2005
"The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself." -- Jane Addams
CONCLUSION: Of course, many media pundits routinely blame 'the government' for causing economic problems. But what about when free market, fiscal conservatives are elected to office? Who gets blamed then? Obviously, poor people. But the problem with blaming 'poor people' for causing systemic poverty is that statistically mothers and children make up the majority of the poor.
Therefore, the current mainstream solution to poverty is for 'everyone' to: 1) Not have children or as few as possible. 2) Go university and get a degree. 3) Find jobs with businesses such as The Globe and Mail and Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. 4) Be willing to put in 80-hour workweeks. 5) Save as much money as possible and invest it to make more money.
Thus one basic question the media could ask 'economic scientists' is how will countries generate any revenues at all if their economies are stalled because their products are simply not selling due to fact that women have stopped having babies and everyone is working 80 hours a week and saving all her or his money for fear of losing their jobs and ending up poor?
***
