Computer Models for Me but Not for Thee

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ has long found it strange that "progressives" are willing to implement social /government policies on the basis of complicated computer models IF such policies involve a) increased taxation or b) regulation of human activity i.e. limiting liberty. If implied/proposed policies result in the reduction of taxes or regulation, they are strenuously opposed.

By Jerry Schmitt
Let's compare and contrast Liberals' view of two mathematical models:

On the one hand, Liberals demand immediate drastic and costly policies to curtail man-made greenhouse gases based on complex mathematical climate models that predict global warming sometime in the distant future - models based on questionable data resulting in predictions that cannot be tested for at least 50 years. Meteorologists and Climatologists who dissent with this liberal view are equated with holocaust-deniers with demands made to withdraw their professional credentials.

On the other hand, Liberals ignore and discount the enormous historical evidence showing the accuracy and efficacy of "supply-side" economic models developed by Nobel-prize winner Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer and others that were implemented as tax-cut policies by John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. This evidence includes sustained economic growth, sustained employment growth resulting in low-rates of unemployment, and enormous (albeit minimally reported) increases in Federal Tax revenues and reductions in the Federal budget deficit - all of them accurate predictions of the models!

Further confirming evidence can be found elsewhere in the world in countries such as Chile, Estonia and Britain under Margaret Thatcher. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Liberals still question the utility of tax-cuts as means for government to stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues. Indeed, despite his unrelieved record of erroneous forecasts of impending economic recession over many, many years now, no Liberal is questioning Paul Krugman's credentials as Princeton Professor of Economics or New York Times columnist.

This dichotomy only underscores the conviction that modern Liberalism is a quasi-religious set of beliefs that cannot be perturbed by facts or evidence.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/liberal_math.html
By Jerry Schmitt
Let's compare and contrast Liberals' view of two mathematical models:

On the one hand, Liberals demand immediate drastic and costly policies to curtail man-made greenhouse gases based on complex mathematical climate models that predict global warming sometime in the distant future - models based on questionable data resulting in predictions that cannot be tested for at least 50 years. Meteorologists and Climatologists who dissent with this liberal view are equated with holocaust-deniers with demands made to withdraw their professional credentials.

On the other hand, Liberals ignore and discount the enormous historical evidence showing the accuracy and efficacy of "supply-side" economic models developed by Nobel-prize winner Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer and others that were implemented as tax-cut policies by John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. This evidence includes sustained economic growth, sustained employment growth resulting in low-rates of unemployment, and enormous (albeit minimally reported) increases in Federal Tax revenues and reductions in the Federal budget deficit - all of them accurate predictions of the models!

Further confirming evidence can be found elsewhere in the world in countries such as Chile, Estonia and Britain under Margaret Thatcher. Despite this overwhelming evidence, Liberals still question the utility of tax-cuts as means for government to stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues. Indeed, despite his unrelieved record of erroneous forecasts of impending economic recession over many, many years now, no Liberal is questioning Paul Krugman's credentials as Princeton Professor of Economics or New York Times columnist.

This dichotomy only underscores the conviction that modern Liberalism is a quasi-religious set of beliefs that cannot be perturbed by facts or evidence.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ would go even further and aver that the insistence on forcing a rigid set of dogmas on a hapless population in order to achieve new taxes and strict compliance with an unprovable doctrine is in fact religion.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ