Labor Shortages
We've talked about the problem that the National Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation faked a labor shortage during the 1980s under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, passing to Eric Bloch, as head of the NSF, and passing to Peter House as head of the Policy Research and Analysis Division. We've heard nothing on this front, even though we claim that there was a study done in 1986, that clearly showed that we were going to fake a science and engineering shortage that could have been cured by the market, which is what happens in the market economy.
- Eric Weinstein on The Portal Ep. 40
I feel gaslit when grown-ups talk about labor shortages in market economies w wage mechanisms.
It's basically an admission that capitalism is meant as a TRICK where workers can't benefit from markets.
Let's talk about the ongoing equities shortage & printing shares for workers.
You see, longterm labor shortages don't exist in large market economies.
But the news media counts on workers being too dumb to understand the wage mechanism. So everyone in media pretends to believe in labor shortages. Like they were jackalopes.
Let's print shares & not visas.
Letâs talk about âequities shortagesâ which are no more real than âlabor shortagesâ. That way every S.O.B. who whines about a labor shortage will hear: âOh. Itâs because of the Stock Share Shortage. You just have to print new shares of your company to get your workers energized.â
Letâs stop this âlabor shortageâ dead in its tracks. Letâs not print visas. Itâs time to recognize workers are suffering from a *share shortage*. We need to print shares not visas and add them to compensation packages.
Bingo! Look at that: totally fictitious problem solved.
- Eric Weinstein on X, August 19, 2022
On X
2009
New Topic: "What's your vision of true academic freedom?" [Asks @Philip_Girvan.]
An old joke about the diference between the Soviet and US constitutions. Both give freedom to dissent. The US gives freedom the day after.
Academic freedom is about making secure heroes out of Margot O'toole, Doug Prasher & Nassim Taleb instead of pushing them to the periphery.
Academic freedom is freedom to invite a senior colleague to self-copulate for inserting himself before your name on YOUR paper..and survive.
Academic freedom comes from the academic *obligation* to schedule lectures if you have even the possibility of strong disruptive results.
Academic freedom entails a right for a non-expert theorist of high ability to cross boundaries and live on merit without seeking permission.
Academic freedom is the insulation from threat or want to continue in good standing for *any* and *all* contributions & reasoned dissent.
What few people admit is that opposing "String Theory", "The Great Moderation", "Scientist Shortages" etc...leads to excommunication.
This was best put by @BretWeinstein: "Selection is to be feared only when just individuals are prevented from returning costs."
So @ahaspel asks what institutional reforms are needed (which was where I was headed when a birthday party occured in physical reality).
First of all, I am focused primarily on science. If universities can't provide Academic freedom, science needs to move homes.
Next: Basic research in science is a public good (inexhaustible and inexcludible). Therefore we need higher levels of public funding.
To maintain academic freedom we need to move resources from what is falsely called 'scientific training' to the compensation of researchers.
To get strong individuals, our target for researchers should be something like MA by 21-22 PhD by 25-26, permanent job by 26-28 (approx.).
Graduate training is actually much shorter than assumed. Typically one is a graduate 'student' in year 1,2 of a PhD and working thereafter.
Raising PhDs should be Eusocial. Giving students to PI's in a 1 on 1 relationship is like parking choir boys with priests. Better in theory.
We must also fund entirely different sorts of people. Without Huxleys, Grossmans, & Hardys you don't get Darwins, Einsteins, & Ramanujans.
A central point: scientists are supposed to be K-selected but universities are hell bent for leather to r-select PhDs.
Yet that's insane.
Research & Teaching in Universities are as perfectly linked as Skiing & Shooting in the Biathalon: tenuously for all but Professors / Finns.
Last point for now: Freedom for academics is precisely freedom from academics. A real marketplace of ideas beats the pants off peer review.
Something occurs to me. If you've never had reason to test your own academic freedom, you may have absolutely no idea what animated me.
On May 23, 2003 an extraordinary talk at NAS called âExactly Backwards: Scientific Manpower Theoryâ was given.There is no record of this.
The talk was so extraordinary that it was repeated again at NAS 11 days later on June 3, 2003. Again there is no meaningful record of this.
The talk presented evidence to the National Academy of Sciences that NAS & @NSF partnered to manipulate markets over scientist salaries.
Now ask yourself why would @NSF be trying to weaken American scientists? Why would NAS help? How would NSF dependent scientists self-defend?
Gauge theoretic economics interest has come recently from @mathpunk @dabacon @diffeomacx @riemanmzeta @tylercowen @ahaspel etc... Loving it.
I should say that Gauge theoretic economics is also all about academic freedom, quashed as it was by the rennegade Boskin Commission idiocy.
2017
Spoiler Alert: Our US 50+ Year âSTEM labor shortageâ is *totally* 100% faked & rigged ... by the same political class that rigs primaries.
Just listened to my friend @SamHarrisOrg w/ @RadioFreeTom.
I was unexpectedly bewildered. Given the right forum, it would be an honor & privilege to steelman the substantive case against experts & their institutions into coastal-friendly PhD-style expert terminology & language. https://t.co/qVf4udNnco
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg First of all, nice to meet you Tom.
Iâm concerned that many of those rejecting the highly trained, experienced & credentialed are trying to send a cogent & reasonable message that can be strawmanned because they donât speak the language of the academy. I think we can translate.
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg 1/ Great. It sounds like we agree on a lot. Letâs agree we shouldnât attack real expertise or fetishize the simple wisdom of laypeople in expert matters. What I think is happening is that lay people are catching on that they are being priced out of the market for expert loyalty.
2/ I think most lay people believe in experts...and the new words for expert are personal, private, etc. They believe experts are now private doctors. Personal chefs. Private pilots. Private police and fire depts. So thereâs awareness, but no loss of confidence in experts.
3/ This then leads to the public experts & intellectuals. Here laypeople are increasingly conscious of real games played in back rooms & razzledazzle at the podium. This is the realm of the Esoteric/Exoteric experts w public theories for the out-group & real ones for insiders.
4/ Here again, lay people believe that there *are* experts but that without special access (e.g. lobbyists) they canât command the expected loyalty of a public servants and thinkers. Who, after all, is informing the public about the minute to minute changes in a tax bill?
5/ If I take what I saw as the big three trust breakers in the 2016 election:
I) Free Trade
II) immigration
III) Terror
Each was defended by experts to the public by a suite of out and out lies that were maddeningly self evident. As if outsiders and morons were the same thing.
6/ In all three cases there was essentially a reality embargo to the public by expert cartels. Krugman called the case for freer trade an elite scam. The Immigration act of 1990 *actually* involved an expert conspiracy to promote a fictitious âSTEM shortageâ to lower tech wages.
/End And in the case of terror, it was so weird that politicians would look for any motive except *religion* for some reason that must be from some policy. The level of fiction given to the public was beyond insulting. It was outright derision & contempt. And the derided saw it.
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg Okay. I'm claiming that if we put the adjective 'private' in front of nouns associated w expertise (physician --> private physician, school --> private school, etc.) you'll find lay people believing it represents real expertise & thus an unfair advantage. They believe in experts.
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg What they intuitively don't believe in as much are their experts: ones they pay for/elect (H&R Bloch, their HMO, their senator etc..) or the ones provided for them (news analysts, columnists, public intellectuals). And this distrust is about expert loyalty, not expertise itself.
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg
These are from trade theorist @paulkrugman in his âProtectionist Momentâ piece. Iâm not trying to win here. Iâm worried that you arenât watching how this neo-liberal edifice is being abandoned because the expertâs public stance was a lie.
Â
Â
@RadioFreeTom @SamHarrisOrg @paulkrugman What are your thoughts here @RadioFreeTom? I can go into detail on a number of these. We could do the fake STEM shortage backed by the @NSF and @theNASciences if you donât believe in such things.
2019
Nothing would be better for the United States than a 50 year dire âlabor shortageâ without a drop of âlegislative relief.â This will never happen. Nevertheless, itâs important to laugh at industries pretending to believe in labor shortages in mkt economies with wage mechanisms.
US Job Opening Soar To All Time High: 800K More Than Unemployed Workers https://zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-12/us-job-opening-soar-all-time-high-800k-more-unemployed-workers
This is the elephant in the lab.
A secret reason (which we collected anonymously multiple times at NBER/ASCB) for delaying tenure decisions beyond healthy fertility is departmental fear of committing to top women in research for fear they will find motherhood more fulfilling.
Nearly half of US female scientists leave full-time science after first child
Â
You can blame the Principal Investigators who told us this (both male & female). You can blame the universities. You can blame the messenger. But we need to talk about getting STEM moms a LOT more money for help in the house & make more allowances for staying home for 5-10 years.
And yes, Dads can be more present. But before you go too far down that road, consider that some of the STEM women we spoke to said that they would have WANTED to be at home, particularly with little children (<7) and what they really wanted was a way back to research afterwards.
What we need is a multi-decade âlabor shortageâ in STEM that brings technical employers howling in pain about employee wage demands. Family demands. Maternal demands. The answer is simple: in STEM the wrong people are in pain. It should be our beloved administrators & employers.
The extractive structures suffused throughout Higher Ed are on death watch for collapse:
Grant Overhead
Student Debt Slavery
Far Above Inflation Tuition Hikes
Administrator Displacement of Profs
Prestige Journal Premiums
Labor reclassified as âTrainingâ
Weâve been lying about a shortage of scientists continuously since Sputnik. We have too many scientists relative to our anemic level of interest in paying for the basic research that created our modern economy.
Why do we believe a >60YO lie? Because of who tells it.
Scientists.
Job opportunities for science graduates have failed to match the push to get more students to study science, technology engineering and mathematics (STEM). https://smh.com.au/business/workplace/glut-in-demand-for-science-graduates-challenges-stem-hype-20190327-p517zj.html
Interesting that so many assume this is referring to US situation. I guess the problem is widespread
@whereisdaz Itâs originally driven by the US and the Cold War. But it spread to every developed nation with a decent scientific research enterprise. Itâs now world wide as a problem.
We are our so often own worst enemies
We train undergraduates in STEM. That gives science professors a salary. Then as graduate students, profs make them teach & do their research work while denying theyâre workers. Then as post-docs we âapprenticeâ them for more extraction.
Then after multiple PDs we push them out. https://x.com/locoono2/status/1117450902946729985
The tweet quoted was apparently deleted. It asked why scientists would want to glut their own market and drive wages down. The answer is that we glut the bottom of the pyramid and make sure that those people used to glut the entry never reach the top of the pyramid to compete.
Want to follow an unsung hero?
Norm has been fighting the lies of the academy as a STEM professor for years. There were times in the â90s when it felt like he and I plus 2 folks at the Sloan foundation were the only STEM PhDs who hadnât been zombified by the STEM shortage myth.
Some years ago, some grad students sued UC, claiming they were workers. Then someone from my campus administration ordered faculty to disagree. Yes, you read this right. Of course, we just ignored them.
Pipeline = âpush out the supply labor curveâ to make wages FALL.
Wouldnât you want to push up the Demand Curve to make talent crazy expensive and want STEM employers in pain so they would hire every competent soul?
Politicians/employers always get this wrong. Huh. I Wonder why.
Women, people of color, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ Americans are often underrepresented in STEM jobs. Fixing the problem starts with investing in our classrooms. That is why Iâve introduced a bill to build a pipeline of diverse talent for these good-paying jobs.
Why wouldn't an employer want to increase the pipeline? It's 100% in their interests.
And why wouldnât politicians want to please rich STEM donors rather than poorer STEM workers??
But thatâs so cynical Iâm told. So....letâs forget the whole supply and demand thing and go back once again to concern for the marginalized groups we want to lure into the pipeline...
Q: Is the key to getting @Kasparov63 back on top over the robots just mumbling âeducation & retrainingâ with ever greater conviction?
Good for @AndrewYang for pointing out that âThe key is more education!â is just a slogan not a plan. Heâll take real heat...but heâs on target.
8% of US jobs are in STEM fields. 92% are not. If someone thinks they can train 92% of workers for roles presently occupied by 8% of workers they have a rather fanciful view of both people and work.
The retraining, education, and âSTEM shortageâ myths are some of the most persistent in our society. Facing them will be unusually painful.
Time to bite the bullet anyway.
I know of no truly working profession.
Medicine: broken.
Law: broken.
Research: broken.
Banking: broken.
Mgmt consulting: broken.
Youâll say âSTEM, Tech and CS FTW losers!! Woot!!â
And Iâll whisper âBro, thou dost protest way way too much.â Me thinks.
Â
Let me tell you the secret as a US PhD in Math: the answer is under-compensation.
We got it into our head decades ago that we were entitled to STEM-serfs. So we started a rumor that our own US students are so dumb & lazy that we need STEM visas to protect us from our own kids.
With U.S. students lagging in science, should scientists be elevated to celebrity status? https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/12/11/should-scientists-be-considered-celebrities-to-inspire-kids/
Â
Thus began one of the craziest lies in US history: the market couldnât be used in STEM! Somehow, despite the theory that compensation should rise to direct our efforts, we started lying about scientist shortages. Math was now so critical that STEM PhDs should be practically free!
If Math & science are so critical, where are our young PhDs with country homes, sports cars, high ranking jobs, multiple offers from top employers at mouth watering levels inducing envy from lawyers, management consultants & investment bankers?
Now watch your reaction to that Q.
Youâre probably thinking: âWhy should math & science folks need all those toys, money, security & freedom for their families? They should be happy to work for much less!â
Well the market says otherwise. The market says that analytic skills are fungible and we canât accept that.
And with your reaction you have your answer: we have weirdly decided that STEM talent should work for our national wealth and security but should not unapologetically participate in the power, freedom and pleasure they provide for everyone else. They are STEM serfs to be used. đ
If you are interested in how this nauseating game has been played for decades and just how conscious the market tampering is, you should find this rather interesting. It is the national scandal that cannot be fully reported by any major news source:
https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf
I want everyone to remember who is deliberately destroying STEM R&D in the US. Itâs Americaâs scientific employers conspiring within the national science complex to flood the market for almost 50Yrs by tampering with the wage mechanism to undermine scientist leverage. April 1990:
Â
Here is what no one will say:
If youâre too weak to demand US-market level compensation for your family, youâre too weak to tell an exploitative advisor to buzz off when youâre right. Youâre too weak to do US style science & challenge orthodoxy.
Youâre too weak to do the job.
Itâs MUCH more important to have strong scientists managing real risk than to fetishize anything else. There is no way to measure, manage or price control breakthrough science.#
The only way to screw up US science is to undermine bargaining ability.
Which weâve done for >45Yrs.
The national science complex lives by tricking each generation into believing massive opportunity is just around the corner. But the market is always flooded.
And no one will seriously report the idea that the Science Complex is built around this lie, which killed our vitality.
Let me see if I follow: the NSF is actually not supporting science/innovation but working actively to destroy it by ... "flooding" the market (and lowering STEM wages) with foreigners? I would usually ignore such nonsense, but you call yourself a "math guy," so what's your proof?
First of all, âsuch nonsenseâ is a pretty disappointing indication from a Math PhD asking for âproof.â Thatâs not how we do things in math. If you claim it is nonsense sir, what is your proof?
Second of all, with that out of our way. Letâs try again. Nice to meet you, Alex.
They are not thinking they are trying to destroy it. They are thinking that they are entitled to interfere with the wage mechanism. Which they have conspired and lied to do. Sir.
2020
Both @IngrahamAngle & @realDonaldTrump arenât getting it here. This isnât about cheap labor. This isnât about brain power. This is about US capitalism for labor.
Let me put it in simplistic terms: Americans are walking away from markets because our capitalists hate capitalism.
God Bless You @IngrahamAngle for Holding Pres. Trump's Feet to the Fire on His Immigration Promises!
Laura expresses the concerns of many America First Conservatives at the WH's plan to import more foreign "high-tech" workers to compete w/ Americans.
"You ran on America First."
Â
It is time...past time...to have our CEOs howling like little wimps. We need something like a 50 year deep labor shortage with zero âWage Reliefâ. So what if wages go up a bit? Let them go up more and more and MORE until they take an ENORMOUS chunk out of Capitalâs share of GDP.
Whatâs the answer to any wage gap for women?
Whatâs the answer to Millenial family formation?
Whatâs the answer to discrimination against Seniors and Youth?
Whatâs the answer to careers after child rearing?
Whatâs the answer to Minority unemployment?
A: TIGHT LABOR MARKETS.
Iâm going to overdo it so that the point is understandable to everyone:
When corporations whine about not being able to find smart people to hire, we all win as a society. The goal of making capitalism serve society is to get CEOs to perjure about non existent labor shortages.
Oversimplifying only slightly: The proper job of politicians is to laugh at such corporate CEOs debasing themselves & to ask them about the ratio of their total compensation packages to the compensation packages they are offering: âWhat happened when you offered 7 or 8 figures??â
This message has been brought to you by the pro-market, pro-freedom, Pre-Clinton, Pre-Identity Politics, and Pre-Batshit crazy Patriotic American Left.
[Note: people will ask about what the simplifications are about. They are about automation, singular talents that are quite rare, infant industries, temporary shortages, path dependencies, endowment variation, etc., etc.]
A correct initial point. Wrong (business school friendly type) frame.
Given not Zero sum: do you think more or less innovation would happen if labor access rights were securitized & traded as in Coasian theory or if they were confiscated and used as seigniorage as they are now?
Itâs not zero sum.
Do you think wages (and innovation and profits) would be higher or lower if fewer of the very smartest people came to Silicon Valley from the rest of the world? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-ring_theory_of_economic_development
Next point: do you think that it is more or less efficient to pretend STEM workers are âgraduate studentsâ being paid with immigration lures and not allowed to unionize or is it better to use markets?
Additionally, how many of the H1Bs are tethered to âsponsoring employersâ or masters? What happens when wage signals are distorted by servitude? How many niche businesses founded by immigrants would have been founded by natives? Why is this often not estimated or set to zero??
Overarching point: our entire immigration discussion is framed & structured to come to conclusions favored by employers. It excludes rights issues, efficiency issues, tampering, dilution, externalities. You are interpreting my frame rejection as my not having thought about this.
Well, Iâve thought about this. Even published.
No. We need to stop having our big hearts used against our own economic interests. True refugees once rescued make FANTASTIC citizens. A tiny number of Geniuses give us an edge & families often need to be together.
What's evil is the campaign to destroy worker bargaining power.
I don't know how many immigrants we'll need. What I do know is coward CEOs want to tame the famously disagreeable & independent US worker and make her/him more pliant. And by threatening that worker with a steady supply of 'the best and the brightest' he or she becomes docile.
Since we're drowning in oceans of STEM talent in a market economy where long term labor shortages are impossible, we easily see who those cowards are. They're STEM employers insisting on a French kiss from our government & threatening to take the ball abroad if they don't get it.
Well, maybe they should go. I hear China is hiring! Also maybe Russia. Posssibly Saudi & Iran too.
So go run to your new masters STEM employers. Maybe you weren't cut out to make it in the dynamic freedom loving US economy.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out though.,,
This is hard to keep saying: almost everything we think about STEM is wrong.
A) We the US are GREAT at science.
B) Workers are mislabeled as students/trainees.
C) We underfund research.
D) China sends workers valued by Unis as they not as free or expensive as our own people.
Are you suggesting that US universities should have had fewer STEM doctoral candidates in total, or that they should have excluded foreign nationals, or only foreign nationals from a country with an âincompatible form of government?â 1/x
Think of it as âIntellectual Munchausen By Proxyâ where the leadership of STEM at @NSF and @theNASciences have historically made up stories about how their own children (US STEM) are too sickly/greedy/unruly to do research. But our pliant temp visa holders are obedient wiz-kids.
The US STEM complex is induced to murder careers of our own people because we are not trained to be obedient workers. We use freedom & irreverence based education. Our edge is our middle finger and US STEM folks rightly demand market level US salaries to power our market economy.
So hereâs our choice.
Either:
A) Stop whining and pay US STEM costs for some of the best and most irreverent mavericks in the world.
B) Shut down the programs that canât compete.
C) Prepare to have PRC work its way into every corner of US R&D by supplying our workforce.
đ
I didnât follow âFlatten the curve!â
I canât grasp the mask instructions.
I donât grok âHerd Immunity.â
I donât follow the âItâs not the Wuhan Lab!â logic.
I donât get the vaccine target dates.
NB: I also didnât get âThe great Moderationâ, NAFTA or âThe STEM Labor Shortageâ.
The CDC has released six "decision trees" aimed at helping businesses, communities, schools, camps, day cares and mass transit decide on whether it's safe to reopen https://www.cnn.com/webview/us/live-news/us-coronavirus-update-05-14-20#h_621046cd0ac22fb4e65953265da78130
Â
Hereâs the thing: I think this is all proxy speak. I donât think any of this is real. No one is making real sense.
Weâre simply repeating incantations to each other. This isnât science or normal public health. This is what you do when you are pretending too hard to be competent.
America: Up to 1/2 of your STEM workforce is imported from four of the biggest military spending nations in Asia so that your own wealthy donât have to engage in wage negotiation with American Scientists.
But by all means, letâs focus on this as if we arenât giving it all away.
SCOOP/BREAKING NEWS: The Energy Department and National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, have evidence that hackers accessed their networks, officials directly familiar with the matter said. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/17/nuclear-agency-hacked-officials-inform-congress-447855
We have been faking a continuous unrelenting labor shortage of Scientists and Engineers since Sputnik. We replaced our own genius based research system with a cheap labor system. We give everything away to the CCP so we donât have to pay market price to scientific families.
Thanks for opening my eyes to this artificially constructed shortage of american STEM students, Eric. As a younger guy who didn't experience the history, I've never heard anyone else ever talk about this (real life or media)
And despite decades of work, no mainstream news desk can cover and stay on this bizarre story. All the books, peer reviewed papers and conferences on this issue later...and the big enormous lie continues.
There is no such thing as a long term labor shortage in a market economy.
I still just marvel at how complete & beautiful the multi-decade lies are.
It would never occur to me that you could shout about the danger & madness of these things from an account and podcast of this size in front of this many journalists and the lies just remain. Perfection.
2021
One of many journalists to wake up to the idea that the US STEM shortage is an employer hoax...but she was open & honest that she had been played. And she may have been first in MSM to call Bullshit.
She was very kind to me for opening her eyes.
I admire her integrity greatly. https://x.com/dabeard/status/dabeard/status/1350967115528994817
Prof. Norm Matloff was one of a tiny group of Left leaning patriots who led the fight against the hollowing out of American science and technology.
This is one hero of mine saluting another from a movement whose story has never been written.
We tried. We failed. But we fought.
She was the first writer in the mainstream press to expose abuse of the H-1B work visa, long before bipartisan recognition of the problems. See this article quoting @EricRWeinstein https://www.sharonlbegley.com/scientists-engineers-will-work-4-food
Thanks for the invitation. I can try to explain my concern.
There really *is* a problem w MAGA, Trump, Qanon & conspiracy theories running rampant. And it will result in death & destruction if it spins out of control.
However it is being fueled by those who claim to fight it.
The entire war over fact checking is a war of 2 low resolution teams.
One team wants absolute freedom to spread wild eyed theories that just about everything is a psyop or a false flag.
The other team wants to impose institutional consensus reality on everyone via media & tech.
Unfortunately, I canât live under either. So each of the warring parties thinks Iâm against them & for the other team. In their mentalities if you arenât on their simplistic team you are, de facto, working for the other side. Thereâs no basic concept of *responsible* heterodoxy.
No the Freemasons do not run everything on behalf of pedophile reptilians who faked Sandy Hook with crisis actors.
Yes there are/were conspiracies behind Epstein, H1B, @MSNBC, PPE, climate science, the âGreat Moderationâ, Great Reset...everywhere institutions want a âconsensusâ.
Having spent a good portion of my 20s at Harvard, I know *exactly* how this game works. Our betters sit down and try to figure out how to control others behind closed doors. They see themselves as the intrinsically enlightened people who need to do the thinking for all of us.
When they wanted to cut our Social Security payments & raise our taxes they opted to try to change the CPI rather than pass legislation. When they wanted to pay less for scientists they knew to keep *silent* about NSF Labor Shortage claims even though such shortages donât exist.
These are the folks who tell you âmasks donât workâ rather than âsave masks for doctors as we forgot to restock them and moved all manufacturing to China like moronsâ. They will then spin on a dime to tell you âOnly bad dumb people donât wear masksâ. This is the worst of Harvard.
So I donât want Alex Jones and Qanon nor do I want @TwitterSafety, @msnbc and @Harvard. I see them as very different forms of the same thing: people who want to take away our ability to see clearly.
And, I assure you, @Harvard tries to paint anyone it canât control as dangerous.
So, my belief is that anyone who rejects/questions Davos, Consensus Reality, Institutional Narrative, Public Health Campaigns, High Immigration, Peer Review, Primary Election Coverage, Trust & Safety...will be treated as Alex Jones sooner or Later.
This is Managed Reality âą.
I cannot live in Managed Reality âą because I think it defeats the purpose of being a human being. It negates being an American. It abdicates responsibility for our children.
I have defeated Harvard about half the times we have fought. How? Because they just arenât that good.
Managed Reality âą has a weak spot. Itâs not run by our A-team anymore. Fauci isnât Francis Crick. Biden isnât Elon. Janet Yellen isnât Satoshi.
In general, the A-Team is going independent because tech/media/Ed are enforcing way too much conformity through personal destruction.
So why am I worried?
Well, Iâve been trying to save the institutions. Itâs probably doomed, but almost no one is trying to do what I do: rescue the institutions from their death spiral by reinserting their critics in positions of prominence (eg Chomsky at MIT).
Hence my fear.
If I were a tech guy Iâd retreat into wealth. If I were a professor Iâd shut up and collect my salary with job security. If I was a politician or journalist Iâd follow the other sheep.
But Iâm a science guy, an American and a dad. And I want my kids to have a particular future.
Thanks.
âIn todayâs regulatory environment Itâs virtually impossible to violate rules. And this is something the public really doesnât understand...Itâs impossible for a violation to go undetected; certainly not for an extended period of time.â -Former NASDQ Chairman, Bernie Madoff
This is what institutional betrayal looks like when you stare straight in its eyes: relaxed, confident, respectable, smooth, knowledgeable.
Itâs COVID pronouncements. Or String Theory. Or CPI revisions. Or âLabor Shortagesâ. Or fast-track trade treaties:
Many years ago 2002-6, I would give talks about Madoff & Epstein using âBlack Arts Capital LLCâ as a proxy, with the tag line âWeâd tell you what weâre doing, but then...â
I guessed BM might be front-running his own business. Boy was I wrong on the specifics.
RIP Bernie Madoff.
35 years after @nsf âPolicy Research and Analysisâ conspired w/ NAS Government University Research Roundtable to sell out STEM-America.
Iâve been on this over 30 years. Is it finally happening? I doubt it.
Why? B/C itâs the *entire* STEM labor system.
https://www.newsweek.com/over-500-us-scientists-under-investigation-being-compromised-china-1586074
Â
And here is a prediction. After we gut all of our advanced math and science, we are going to have a huge employer sponsored push to flood STEM markets with workers from abroad who were not subjected to âDiversity and Inclusion(tm)â re-education. Genius.
If I had to predict what will happen, Iâd guess that the system will come to the mild conclusion that it needs better conflict reporting. And it will reclassify all of this as ânormalâ except a few outlying cases. Then there might be a bit of scapegoating.
Just a guess.
You may thus gauge your media, think tanks, economics departments, political parties, corporations etc. by whether they discuss âlabor shortagesâ:
What the US may need most is what employers will consider a deep and crippling 50 year âlabor shortageâ.
Bring on these scary âlabor shortagesâ.âLabor shortagesâ mean strong families. âLabor shortagesâ mean inclusion & diversity *organically*.
âLabor shortagesâ mean happiness.
Kayfabrication of the US Senate & economics.
Fiat money, String Thy, âlabor shortagesâ, COVID origin, CRT, 2wks to âFlatten the Curveâ, etc. I donât think people take me seriously that itâs now everywhere.
But that is the claim: Lack of growth led to Kayfabe becoming universal.
"In the early 2000s, I was involved with one of the larger professional wrestling organizations" writes @Motoconomist "In 2018, I worked in the US Senate as an Economics Fellow...The crossover between politics and professional wrestling is quite real" https://ordinary-times.com/2021/05/10/professional-wrestling-is-more-real-than-politics/
Â
Underrated tweet.
âLabor shortagesâ are the ultimate diversity and inclusion program.
The Labor Shortage Is So Bad They Are Now Encouraging Long Haired, Freaky People To Apply.
For those of you new to this account, long term Labor Shortages donât exist in large market economies with a wage mechanism.
Silents/Boomers running out of time to return wealth siphoned by jacking tuition, eliminating mandatory retirement, making student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, declaring phony labor shortages in a mkt economy w/ a wage mechanism, lying about NAFTA wealth transfer impact.
A post-Covid economic boom may be the last opportunity for millennials to build wealth before heading off into retirement
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-millennials-are-running-out-of-time/
Â
There is no such thing as a long term STEM labor shortage in the United States faced by technical employers:
Then listen closely.
A) You stop giving CEOâs an ear when they whine about labor shortages. Cut off the visas.
B) You *spend* on STEM R&D. Sky-High Compensation w High Standards.
C) You purge *everything* that says âDiversity, Equity & Inclusionâ anywhere close to a STEM kid.
D) Kick the CCP out of US labs. Make them do their own scientific research, as to do it well requires freedom. Force CCP towards freedom through science & STEM rather than letting them pick the fruits of our freedom to challenge and question orthodoxy.
E) Hire our own heterodox.
F) Incentivize the leadership of our most critical institutions to promote people who wonât play well with others who are captured by groupthink. Earmark money to promote those who wonât easily get along with co-workers when their co-workers are standing in the way of progress.
More or less we have to kickstart the American dream. And to do that requires a public spirited elite.
We need to purge ourselves of our fake elite. We are coming to hate fake experts.
We need real ones who are well paid. By us. Not by some revolving door baksheesh arrangement.
But I was cheering when Blake said one income. Because raising kids is about the most important job in the world. And if we are going to get rich enough to do it we need innovators worried about their next family vacation, not how to find two adjunct positions in adjacent states.
Moral: take care of the innovators you task to make you wealthy & secure. Particularly the heterodox leaders that wonât always get along with others. Then get out of the way w the social engineering. Share the STEM benefits with your NATO allies before giving them to your rivals.
The point is who labels others crackpots. Or havenât we noticed?
Itâs the class who said Hilary would win easily. That weâd banished volatility before 2008. That the Wuhan Lab Leak was racism. That labor shortages exist in mkt economies. That carbs are good, while fat is bad.
@EricRWeinstein was the first talking about Epstein being an intelligence âagentâ (Mossad IIRC), that was a long time ago, his brother @BretWeinstein was the first to speak about the lab leak, a long time ago, both were labelled as crackpots, now both being shown to be accurate
Those who believe Jeffery Epstein was a âdisgraced financierâ rather than a construct of an Intelligence Community & who never ran a billion $ forex hedge fund. People who think String Theory is our leading theory of physics. Or who said NAFTA lifts all boats like a rising tide.
People who believe an octave has 12 notes, but canât say why 12. Those who think MSNBC just kept misreporting Andrew Yangâs candidacy by accident over and over again. At some point you just have to realize that those who canât think for themselves HAVE to call those who do names.
Itâs tough getting things wrong over & over again as per the above. And every time we go through the exercise the increasingly desperate normies who cling to groups/experts should become more obvious to you. If youâve followed this account, know that this behavior will NEVER die.
The sheep among us will always be angry because their gods will always fail them until we reform our institutions. Which may or may not happen. Time will tell.
But have some compassion: Hug a sheep or NPC today. Tell them there is still hope and itâs not to late to become human.
- too
2022
âImmigration has no negative effects.â
âI wonât make you pregnant.â
âTwo weeks to flatten the curve.â
âNAFTA is a rising tide lifting all ships.â
âUS STEM employers are facing a deep labor shortage.â
âInflation is transient.â
âCPI is a measure of the COL.â
âIraq has WMD.â
genuinely curious:
the fed has smart people. how were they so wrong about inflation being transient, when it seemed so obvious to most people that it wasn't going to be?
One reason that tech executives are so wealthy is that they lie about shortages to get government to flood their specific labor markets, and so donât have to make their STEM workers truly wealthy. They make STEM workers weak instead.
I wish it werenât true. But it is what it is.
Â
Eric Schmidt filled the WH science office with allies -- and picked up their salaries https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/google-billionaire-joe-biden-science-office-00020712 via @politico
I feel gaslit when grown-ups talk about labor shortages in market economies w wage mechanisms.
Itâs basically an admission that capitalism is meant as a TRICK where workers canât benefit from markets.
Letâs talk about the ongoing equities shortage & printing shares for workers.
Joining @Morning_Joe in a few to discuss the ongoing labor shortage and inflation. Where are Americaâs workers?
You see, longterm labor shortages donât exist in large market economies.
But the news media counts on workers being too dumb to understand the wage mechanism. So everyone in media pretends to believe in labor shortages. Like they were jackalopes.
Letâs print shares & not visas.
Â
Letâs talk about âequities shortagesâ which are no more real than âlabor shortagesâ. That way every S.O.B. who whines about a labor shortage will hear: âOh. Itâs because of the Stock Share Shortage. You just have to print new shares of your company to get your workers energized.â
Letâs stop this âlabor shortageâ dead in its tracks. Letâs not print visas. Itâs time to recognize workers are suffering from a *share shortage*. We need to print shares not visas and add them to compensation packages.
Bingo! Look at that: totally fictitious problem solved. đ
If someone wants to fly me to the border Iâm happy to go. I may be highly xenophilic, but I am more restrictionist than both parties so it is likely unnecessary.
I donât believe in âlabor shortagesâ in market economies and I donât believe in âundocumented citizens.â
I respect your opinion a lot, but I highly recommend you visit the border, unlike our VP. This is a protest. Many towns on the border have had more people crossing than live there. How do you suggest calling attention to this?
Â
I believe in strong borders, deporting those who come illegally, and various ugly things that donât play well optically but are needed to have a diverse market based free society that can welcome the persecuted, family members, visitors/friends and the extraordinary individual.
My motto is something like: show me a person with a simple inspiring immigration message and Iâll show you the absolute misery it will create.
Show me a person with an ethical approach to immigration that actually works and Iâll show you optical ugliness that will be demonized.
I donât think either party wants to hear what Iâd have to say.
Immigration to America was the greatest thing that ever happened to my family. Everyone who wants to come should try. I WISH we could make that miracle happen for everyone.
We simply CANâT without losing our nation.
If I have 1 piece of advice: Vote for whoever in Congress is most likely to hold PUBLIC hearings on
COVID Origins
Epstein Connection to IC
UFOs
CPI as Tax Increase/SS Reduction
Fake Labor Shortages
DHS meddling in Social Media
Etc.
I donât believe the US is still on the ballot.
2023
âGraduate Students in STEMâ is mostly a euphemism for Americaâs dirt cheap scientific workforce. Everyone in Science knows this by the way & admits it behind closed doors. Everyone.
[We lie in public just to save millions FYI.]
Now letâs talk about that overflight by a balloon.
Â
Moral: China already knows what we are doing by and large. American science is built on a model: they supply highly reliable workers, we supply our asymmetric scientific advantages born of our freedom. Donât hate the PRC and their students. The US is always giving away the store.
Now I feel completely alone.
I want our wanting out of this story. I have a huge dog in this fight. I spend every day fighting my own human desire for GU to be proven correct.
I believe this is how String Theorists stopped being scientists.
I just want our data & the physics.
I want this to be real. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
Â
If biological aliens were here from others star systems in crafts that defy the current physics of the standard model and, more importantly, general relativity, I would be one of the few people who would have a guess on day one as to how they must have gotten here. Itâs tempting.
I donât think biological interstellar alien visitors using GR and the SM make much sense. So I try to have a war *inside* my own mind as to what is true. I have a genuine âNeed to Knowâ as to whether this is BS NatSec space opera disinformation theater. Because to me, it is data.
What just happened isnât data. Itâs that a sober individual just pushed one of the many longstanding highly conserved NHI narratives collected from *many* diverse sober NatSec informants over the sworn testimony line. And it gets a LOT crazier from here. But itâs not science yet.
As Iâve been saying, there is so much deliberate NatSec BS out here that our own scientists are being propagandized. Weâre drilling holes in our own scientistsâ lifeboat. Last time we saw this it was virologists/immunologists/epidemiologists being gaslit. Now itâs physicists.
Let me be very careful in what I am about to say. We have at least the appearance and optics of scientific self-sabotage. And wanting things to be true is how science dies.
I fight like hell to promote my theory. But Iâd sign on to another to know the truth if I was wrong.
We may be looking at the birth of a new UFO religion. Or a moment of contact. Or a long running Disinformation campaign. Etc.
To go beyond GR, letâs be scientists & get NatSec out of our data first. Where is our data pruned of space opera disinformation and cultic religiosity?
What I want to know:
Why was the Mansfield Amendment passed?
Why did NSF fake a labor shortage in our MARKET economy destroying American STEM labor markets?
What stopped the Golden Age Of General Relativity?
Why was the SSC really cancelled?
StringTheory & STAGNATION: WTF?
What the hell was the 1957 Behnson funded UNC Chapel Hill conference actually about?
Why are we not stopping to QUESTION quantum gravity after 70 years of public *FAILURE* inspired by Babson-Behnson patronage of RIAS, the Institute of Field Physics and the precursor to Lockheed?
This is the 50th year of stagnation in the Standard Model Lagrangian. It is AS IF we are deliberately trying to forget how to do actual physics. Everyone who has succeeded in Particle Theory in standard terms is now over 70. This is insane. In 25 years there will be no one left.
Why are we not admitting that quantum gravity is killing physics and is the public respectable face of 1950s anti-gravity mania that lives on to murder all new theories in their cradle?
Quantum Gravity is fake and works to stop actual physics.
There. I said it. Now letâs talk.
If you want to know whether there are biological interstellar visitors here observing us, the short answer is âAlmost *certainly* not if they are using our current stagnant non-progressing theories of physics.â
Letâs finally get serious about this whacky subject? Thanks. đ
I swear I didn't write my tweet to make you feel alone and I'm genuinely sorry if that was the result. That said, I think it's better to acknowledge one's hopes and desires than to pretend they don't exist and thereby overestimate one's own rationality.
@skdh I acknowledge my desires as you see from what I wrote. But a stagnant community always wants outcomes. It wants SUSY. Or Strings. Or some g-2 muon anomaly. Etc.
I want too. But what I want is mostly just a desire to get the BS out of physics so we can get back to succeeding.
Which is why we got:
Low Energy Spacetime Supersymmetry
Superlative Index Numbers replacing the Konus Index
Contradictory directives on Masks
âThe Great Moderationâ before 2008
Labor Shortages claimed in Market Economies
Vioxx
Anti-Biological Redefinitions of Gender
The Reproducibility Crisis in Peer Reviewed Literature
Citation Cartels
An admonition to ask no questions about the Wuhan Institute of Virology
The Death of Sociobiology at the hands of Marxists
40 yrs of modern String Theory
70 years of Quantum Gravity
The food pyramid
For people not in the scientific world: âdebateâ is not something that generally happens. Instead, scientists give talks, present posters at conferences, and publish, all of which offer opportunities for peer review, critiques, and discussion of the data or its interpretation.
Â
2024
There is no such thing as a labor shortage in a large market economy. This is due to a concept called the wage mechanism. There are two curves called supply and demand which intersect at a point that determines the wage.
You are probably confusing this with a centrally planned economy. We discussed this in my office in Littauer. We were colleagues in the same dept. You spoke in the seminar of the program I co-founded with Richard Freeman about women in Science. It was called the science and engineering workforce project. SEWP. At NBER?
You were Harvardâs President.
It was a long time ago.
I think every sensible American thinks we need to do more to secure our border. But if you're talking about deporting millions of people, that is an invitation to labor shortage and bottlenecks. I hope Trump will get the message from this election and adjust his program so that it is not inflationary. I certainly hope that if his program is inflationary, it will not be accommodated by the Federal Reserve.
Here is the paper we discussed at NBER. The first line is literally this:
âLong term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies.â
You said âObviously.â
We last discussed it in Arizona. October 24, 2019 when we both spoke. Am I imagining this Larry?
Â
Itâs been up for about a quarter of a century:
https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf
2025
Michael Shermer: you are quite incautious about what I say. Your world is dominated by careful scientists and wild eyed conspiracy theorists. The idea of wild eyed scientists (e.g. Francis Collins, Gerald Bull, Peter Daszak, Edward Teller) and careful conspiracy theorists (e.g. Seymour Hersh, William Davidon, Jack Raper, Gary Webb, etc) doesnât occur to you nearly enough.
Roughly speaking I claimed that the U.S. government was, at a minimum, faking UFOs and that there is ample evidence that we FAKE exactly such things (which I documented) and destroy our own peopleâs sanity, reputations, careers and lives on a regular basis playing the âThat sounds like a conspiracy theory!!â game.
Which is *exactly* what just happened in UFO land. We admitted we did what I claimed we were likely doing when I was on Rogan.
And what I claim about our failed 40 year âQuantum Gravityâ and âString Theoryâ program is simply that it completely disabled a potentially dangerous activity: successfully discovering and sharing the power of new physics in open universities with foreign nationals of rival nations well beyond the Manhattan Project era nuclear physics. Is that deliberate? It sure as hell would be a lot less suspicious if we ever had the string theorist/quantum gravity people at the same conference head to head with their rivals and detractors. Wouldnât it?
Iâm sorry this seems crazy to you. But the U.S. government makes shit up. Itâs called âCovert Operationsâ. In laymenâs terms: we conspire to gaslight our own people. And we do it a lot around national security.
Now would you please consider that you are carrying water for the very people that do this particularly vile form of reputational wet work? Is that what you want to do??
Enough.
I was writing about the danger of a manipulated CPI in 1996 (now admitted). The fake NSF labor shortage (now discredited) in the 1980s. Bidenâs cognitive crisis for all 4 years of his presidency (now known to all). The fake racism charges against the Wuhan Lab leak theory (ahem).
Etc. See the pattern?
Michael: you do not get to do this cheaply. You live in a simplified world of good rational people and bad madmen. I live in a different world and the scourge of that world is the shitty debunker making fun of the scientists with the courage to say âUh, ya know the mainstream position just doesnât add up.â
Conspiracy is everywhere. And those of us who are disciplined in talking about them do not need you telling us what is possible based on heuristics.
I donât think our secret federal scientists are in possession of the final theory at all. I have never said âWe have anti-gravity.â
Stop stirring the pot. You are not the amazing Randi and I am not a spoon bender. I debunk debunkers. Deal with that first.
If you want to go head to head with my track record, let me know. I would LOVE that.
If not: be more careful.
Like a scientist. Thanks.
No hard feelings.
Dear @EricRWeinstein The history of technology strongly indicates that UAP-type "anti-gravity" tech cannot be Earthly. Here's my explanation of why from my forthcoming book Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters:
An alternative to ordinary explanations for UAP sightings is that they represent Russian or Chinese assets, drones, spy planes, or some related but as yet unknown (to us) technology capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all known physics and aerodynamics. Pilots and observers describe âmultiple anomalous aerial vehiclesâ accelerating from 80,000 feet down to sea level in seconds, or making instantaneous turns and even sudden stops, or shooting off horizontally at hypersonic speed, breaking the sound barrier but not making a sonic boom, which should be impossible, not to mention that it would kill the pilots instantly. And these vehicles appear to be able to do so with no apparent jet engine or visible exhaust plume, suggesting that theyâre using some anti-gravity technology unavailable to even the most advanced experimental programs worked on at DARPA. When 60 Minutesâ correspondent Bill Whitaker asked former Navy pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who had seen with his own eyes UAPs buzzing around Virginia Beach in 2014, âcould it be Russian or Chinese technology?â Graves responded âI donât see why not,â adding that âif these were tactical jets from another country that were hanginâ out up there, it would be a massive issue.â Top Gun navy pilot and commander of the F/A-18F squadron on the USS Nimitz, David Fravor, told 60 Minutes âI donât know whoâs building it, whoâs got the technology, whoâs got the brains. But thereâs something out there that was better than our airplane.â
The hypothesis that the objects are terrestrial and developed by some other nation or corporation, or some genius working in isolation, is highly unlikely, given what we know about the evolution of technological innovation, which is cumulative from the past. In his seminal work The Evolution of Technology, the historian George Basalla busts the myth of the inventor working in isolation, dreaming up new and innovative technologies out of sheer creative genius (the ping of the light bulb flashing brilliantly in the mind). All technologies, Basalla demonstrates, are developed out of either pre-existing artifacts (artificial objects) or already existing naturfacts (organic objects): âAny new thing that appears in the made world is based on some object already in existence,â he explains. But some artifact had to be firstâan invention that comes from no other invention, ex nihilo as it were. If this is the case then that artifact, Basalla shows, likely came from a naturfact. (Barbed wire is a famous example. Its inventor, Michael Kelly, in 1868 explained: âMy invention [imparts] to fences of wire a character approximating to that of a thorn-hedge. I prefer to designate the fence so produced as a thorny fence.â )
In How Innovation Works, Matt Ridley demonstrates through numerous examples that innovation is an incremental, bottom-up, fortuitous process that is a result of the human habit of exchange, rather than an orderly, top-down process developing according to a plan. Innovation is different from invention, Ridley argues, because âit is the turning of inventions into things of practical and affordable use to people that makes innovation possible.â Innovation, he continues, âis always a collective, collaborative phenomenon, not a matter of lonely genius. It is gradual, serendipitous, recombinant, inexorable, contagious, experimental and unpredictable. It happens mainly in just a few parts of the world at any one time.â Examples include steam engines, jet engines, search engines, airships, vaping, vaccines, cuisine, antibiotics, mosquito nets, turbines, propellers, fertilizer, computers, dogs, farming, fire, genetic engineering, gene editing, container shipping, railways, cars, safety rules, wheeled suitcases, mobile phones, powered flight, chlorinated water, toilets, vacuum cleaners, shale gas, the telegraph, radio, social media, block chain, the sharing economy, artificial intelligence, and hyperloop tubes.
It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation, or lone individualâno matter how smart and creativeâcould have invented and innovated new physics and aerodynamics to create an aircraft of any sort that could be, essentially, centuries ahead of all known present technologies. That is not how innovation works. It would be as if the United States were using rotary phones while the Russians or Chinese had smart phones, or we were flying biplanes while they were flying stealth fighter jets, or we were sending letters and memos via fax machine while they were emailing files via the Internet, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.
Consider the Manhattan Project, arguably the most secretive program in US history to date, leading to the successful development of atomic bombs in 1945. The Russians had an atomic bomb by 1949. How? They stole our plans through a German theoretical physicist and spy named Klaus Fuchs. Modern tech companies like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft are notoriously secretive about their inventions, forcing employees to sign Non Disclosure Agreements (NDEs), enforcing extensive security protocols for their offices, and protecting intellectual property rights through countless lawsuits. And yetâŠall of our computers, smart phones, computer chips, and software programs are essentially the same, or at least in close parallel development. Countries and companies steal, copy, back engineer, and innovate each otherâs ideas and technologies, leaving no one company or country very far ahead or behind any other.
Â
Â
Grok believes in long-term labor shortages in market economies with wage mechanisms.
Or rather @grok was trained on a corpus in which that was perseverated over reality.
We need a new concept, and I donât know what to call it. Cognitive Poisioning by Mid Level National Security/National Interest. Or something. Anybody?
Â
Essentially our national interest infrastructure appears to be wholesale dumping low level cognitive sludge into the public discourse absolutely everywhere. On TECHNICAL issues.
Who came up with this??
How do you expect to get away with it?
Biden is sharp as a tack (anti-neuroscience).
COVID came from a wet market pangolin (anti biology).
The CPI is a Cost of Living measure (anti-mathematical economics).
All humans should be represented equally in all elite activities (anti-Evolution).
There is only one theory in fundamental physics (anti mathematics and physics).
We have labor shortages in STEM (Anti market economics).
Vaccines are absolutely safe (anti-medicine).
Steel Buildings just collapse like that (anti structural engineering).
Etc.
That is bad enough. But somehow, we are willing to absolutely revoke the credentials of any expert who is not in on the fiction via this one crazy tool: reputational destruction.
Here is how it works.
Some collection of your government attached professional colleagues lose control of a cover story. Thatâs their problem. It shouldnât be a âyou problemâ.
Francis Collins and Toni Fauci lost control of a virus cover story. Tough shit boys.
Prof Dale Jorgenson and Senators Moynihan and Packwood lost control of a CPI cost of living story. Shouldnât have cooked the books gentlemen.
The Military lost control of a FAKE UFO special access program. What were you thinking?
The Whitehouse installed a committee to replace a Parkinsonâs president. And you want neuroscientists to lie on behalf of an unelected committee?
You wasted 40 years of physicist putting an end to the career of anyone who wouldnât believe in Ed Witten as the quantum gravity fairy. And that makes the people who called it into crackpots?? Walk us through the logic.
You blew up the world financial system on a story called âThe Great Moderationâ. And this makes those of us who called it into charlatans? How exactly? Be specific.
We canât afford to kill all our strongest minds, all the time on EVERY botched operation.
Letâs face facts. Our national interest folks suck at their jobs if they have to take down people smarter than them to do their work.
Period.
We canât pollute every technical area for national interest. These people just arenât very good or ethical. Iâm sorry.
You canât just pollute all technical fields. You are just bad at your jobs. And we arenât going to cover for you out of modesty any more. Youâve just gotten too agreessixe.
Youâre simply preposterous.
We are better. You are worse. All you have over us is your cloak of covert authority. And that is it. That one thing.
Tough shit, gentlemen in the shadows.
Related Pages
- Academic Freedom
- Eilberg Amendment (1976)
- How and Why Government, Universities, and Industry Create Domestic Labor Shortages of Scientists and High-Tech Workers
- IMMACT90
- Immigration
- Issues of Legislation and Merit in Scientific Labor Markets
- Migration For The Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm for Migrant Labor
- National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
- National Science Foundation (NSF)