Yep, they're so politically astute that they can't see their entire system unraveling right in front of their eyes and are completely unable to identify the culprit. Chalk up another great victory for the self appointed intellectuals. It's no wonder the American left adores them.
Their brains were formed in college and since most of them never joined the real world they are still stuck mentally back in college. They can't change because that means they are getting old.
I brought this up the other day. Independent of this author... because I have not read him. I am seeing this new formula from the left. This is the new one 2 punch we see so often form the left. 1. The system is so large or complex it can't be fixed. 2. Its what we voted for. You need to understand, since progressively leftist policies are failing more and more... they now argue that the system is too complicated and can't be fixed. We saw this argument being made about california. its too big. I don't even know that single payer or any other big socialist policies would not work had one thing been changed. (although I prefer conservative policies which certainly would have worked and can change things around.) Part of the reason the system is failing is that - a. We now have 80 million Americans who are either immigrants or anchor babies. b. Immigrant led household receive 41 percent more govt aid then non immigrants. Imagine how much more money we would have to fix things... Imagine how much more responsive the govt would be to the needs of those who pay taxes if their votes were not so diluted by people from a new culture who depend on govt handouts. The system is being caused to collapse by those who own our politicians and set these crazy policies. Don't give up on the system just halt immigration for now so we can absorb all the new people we have into a working economy and get rid of the parts of the system which concentrate all the money and the power in the cronies through inflation and taxation.
Preview of Trump-Clinton presidential debates. John Dickerson’s Face the Nation Interview with Hillary a Disgrace to CBS News; Here’s Why http://www.mediaite.com/online/john...ith-hillary-a-disgrace-to-cbs-news-heres-why/ See BS asked Clinton in this past weekends interview fifteen questions. Eight of the first nine were about Trump. When he asked questions about her, it was stuff like 'name your greatest accomplishments' kind of nonsense. I hope Trump doesn't fall for the same old crap that republicans always get, which is just asking the republican why he wants to hurt people and then ask the democrat what they'll do to stop the republican from hurting people.
you aint seen nothing yet.I don't even watch political tv anymore. It's been taken over by hysterical women.
I would like to add Governing must be taken away from governments Affiliation must be taken away from political parties Prosperity must be taken away from a [corporate] wage Retake the telling of factual news from the corporate media outlets "The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them." - Thomas Jefferson
Both sides are ignoring intellectuals, to their distress. A part of me says it is necessary, even though I hold these people in the highest regards. Sometimes the only people that can achieve the impossible are the ones that don't know it is. I wonder what the colonists had done had they listened to British intellectuals on the impossibility of their hopes. Remember, the best way to hide a lie is between two truths. See if you can spot it in the article. How the expert class got Trumped & Berned Daniel Libit | @daniellibit 2 Hours Ago "It's the stupidity, stupid. For the nation's public policy experts, the 2016 presidential race has proven to be an increasingly demoralizing lesson in the imperviousness of the American voter. "The gap between what the candidates are saying and the complexity of the problems is mind-boggling and disappointing," said Democratic former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who is now director of Indiana University's Center on Congress. "I find myself distressed that this gap is so large, and I don't think it will change." The current election, with its populist zeal, has only served to add — asDonald Trump might say — another 10 feet to the wall between the ivory tower and Main Street. And given the amount of fantasy claims — from Trump's mass deportation plans to Bernie Sanders' universal free college proposals — that fly free on the campaign trail, social scientists are confronting an intellectual crisis. Worse yet, as the nation's first responders, they are finding themselves woefully unprepared. "The gap between what the candidates are saying and the complexity of the problems is mind-boggling and disappointing."-Former Rep. Lee Hamilton "Many of us feel powerless against it," said David Autor, a labor economist at MIT who serves on the executive committee of the American Economic Association. "We feel we can train our students, but our students aren't the public and we don't know how to school the public." The challenge is by no means new: The callowness of the American voter over the years, produced a library of academic research, media reportage and exasperated-sounding book titles. What it hasn't produced is much in the way of an organized effort to inculcate the low-information, high-mistrust voter. Now, with a presidential election animated by anti-establishment fervor on both sides of the political divide, the practitioners of social science are feeling particularly hard up. It has traditionally been the case that conservative policy experts would clash with liberal policy experts in a conventional war of ideas. But with Trump and, to a lesser extent, Sanders, this election has repeatedly found policy experts scrambling to keep their own sides in check. In February, a group of former Democratic White House economic policy advisors penned an open letter to the Sanders campaign, accusing it of making dubious economic claims about its domestic economic agenda. Among the concerns raised by the advisors was that Sanders was damaging the party's "reputation for responsibly estimating the effects of economic policies." Other liberal economists have voiced similar worries with the Vermont senator, but their chastisements have done little to curb his proclamations or stem the enthusiasm for his message. Trump's campaign, meanwhile, has behaved like a reality distortion field for public policy. Last week, in an interview with CNBC, the presumptive GOP nominee proposed paying down the national debt by simply offering less than the full balance to America's creditors — a notion that drew rebukes from all corners. The moment occasioned a round of "dire warnings" from analysts and think-tankers, but it also showed how feeble the expert class can be at marshaling its authority, even when it is in agreement. "It is hard to know where to begin," confessed Autor. Two top economists spar on Obama's jobs record With a few exceptions (most notably economist-turned-New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for example, social scientists have traditionally not been pressed into the role of public advocates for their findings. "Many researchers, regardless of where they are publishing their work, treat every means of communication as if it is some background paper or academic journal article," said Jon Schwabish, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute." Schwabish, who worked at the Congressional Budget Office from 2005 to 2014, has made his specialty helping researchers and think-tank denizens "communicate effectively" with politicians and the general public. In particular, he focuses on the visual presentation of data, noting the successes of data-driven hubs like The New York Times' The Upshot and Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com. Some experts who spoke with CNBC hailed a future where social science would be able to organize around its consensus views like climatologists did starting in the late 1980s, with the forming of the International Panel on Climate Change in 1988. But Anil Kashyap, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, says there is actually quite a bit more consensus in his field than the general public may assume, and thinks it's important to promulgate it to the public. In 2011, Kashyap, began surveying a group of economists from around the country (and across the political spectrum) on popular questions of the day. The former has continued apace since and Kashyap says it has demonstrated quite a bit of agreement among scholars. But that is only step one. "It is very hard for most economists to get your head out of the foxhole and say here is a mainstream view," said Kashyap, noting that the forum has made some notable cameos in media reports and congressional testimony. Autor, who is among the 40-some participants in Kashyap's poll, describes it a "good faith effort," but adds: "I don't think any of us think it has moved the dial in one direction or the other." http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/10/how-the-expert-class-got-trumped-and-berned.html
what? the irony of this article is that it was clearly an example of the real issue. The writer found a few "experts" who were willing to bark like dogs for the meme the story was trying to establish. the members of the D.C. "expert" class are rarely true intellectuals they are typically paid surrogates for the cronies or people who wish to become paid "expert" talking heads. Sure enough the author of the article was able to find some "experts" to make shit up for the story. just look at this pablum... and see if it could really be the output of an intellectual.... do we really wish to have a consensus among experts? "Some experts who spoke with CNBC hailed a future where social science would be able to organize around its consensus views like climatologists did starting in the late 1980s, with the forming of the International Panel on Climate Change in 1988. But Anil Kashyap, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, says there is actually quite a bit more consensus in his field than the general public may assume, and thinks it's important to promulgate it to the public. In 2011, Kashyap, began surveying a group of economists from around the country (and across the political spectrum) on popular questions of the day. The former has continued apace since and Kashyap says it has demonstrated quite a bit of agreement among scholars. But that is only step one."