Universal Healthcare and Utter Nonsense

For the past twenty seven years I have been writing on healthcare. Since the original Hillary Care plan which was cooked up in secret and then unloaded with no explanation, through Obamacare and now Socialist Medicine.

The NY Times, the 21st Century Daily Worker, has a writer who opines sans facts. It seems that facts are a burden that they cannot sustain. The author states:

Although the financing details of Medicare for All remain provisional at the moment, a RAND report on a more concrete single-payer proposal for New York State found that the plan would cut health care costs dramatically for the lowest income group, while increasing them by about 50 percent for the highest income group. Middle-class people would also experience net savings on health care equal to around 10 percent of their income, with only those earning 10 times the federal poverty line or above — that’s $134,000 for an individual or $276,000 for a family of four — paying more than they do now.

I wrote and commented on this report. It is weak at best and outright wrong at worst. It is for a New York Plan that forces everyone into the State controlled plan. Read it if you want to see what it does.

Now here are some facts.

1. Healthcare currently costs about $12,000 per person per year. Really.

2. However, 80% of the expenses are for 20% of the people.

3. And surprisingly it is not those in Medicare. They seem to just die off.

4. Those in Medicare now have paid into the system for fifty years or more. Furthermore they still pay in.

5. However, the costly Medicare patients are mostly those who are under 65 and are under Social Security because of some massive health problem. For example a 19 year old with Hodgkin's Lymphoma and no insurance and a subsequent cardiac problem needing a transplant. 

These are just a few. So for a family of 4 that would be a $48,000 bill! Every year! But 80% of these people cost near to nothing. It is the very few who have massive costs.

The problem is how do we deal with these people. Take a leukemia patient of say 10 years old. We can use CAR-T cell therapy and it costs $500,000 plus most likely another $200,000. That is about the costs for 14 people, or six and a half families.

Thus details count and simple sops like the one mentioned does no good unless and until it deals with facts.

Russian Investigations by Congress: A Hundred Years Ago!

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

April 14, 1920.—Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Moses, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, submits the following  R E P O R T; [Pursuant to S. Res. 263.]

By resolution of the Senate adopted December 20 1919, the Committee on Foreign Relations, through the Full committee or the subcommittee, was authorized to make inquiry into the status of the activities of Ludwig C. A. K. Martens, the representative in the country of the Soviet regime in Russia.

On the 23d of December a subcommittee was designated to with the subject, and its membership comprised Messrs. Messrs. Borah, Knox, Pomerene, and Shields. Messrs. Knox and Pomer found it impossible to render the necessary service, and they were replaced by the appointment of Messrs. Brandegee and Pittman respectively.

Subsequently, the Senate, by resolution, authorized the subcommittee to employ counsel, and the Hon. Wade H. Ellis, of Ohio was retained in this capacity. Mr. Ellis was assisted by John  Trevor, Esq., of New York City, who served the committee whose knowledge gained through service with the committee was of great value.

The resolution under which the committee acted is as follows

[Senate resolution 263, Sixty-sixth Congress, second session.]

Whereas one Ludwig C. A. K. Martens claims to be an ambassador to United States from the Russian Soviet Government; and

Whereas, according to newspaper reports, he refuses to answer certain questions before the Lusk investigating committee in the city of New York, committee appointed to investigate propaganda against this Government on the ground that he is such ambassador and entitled to diplomatic privilege and

Whereas said Martens has headquarters in the city of New York and is alleged to be directing propaganda against this Government; and

Whereas, according to his testimony before said Lusk committee, he came to this country as a German citizen and is a member of the Communist Party pledged to overthrow capitalistic systems of government the world over;

…

In consequence, it is unnecessary to go beyond the record to sustains the findings of the committee further than to point out certain evitable and wholly warrant-able deductions.

Following seriatim the items of inquiry enumerated in the resolution of the Senate, the status of Martens is disclosed by the testimony under several heads:

(1) What alleged Government or power in Europe does he represent ?

His credentials (p. 14) were issued by the “People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs” of the “ Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic,” from Moscow, under date of January 2, 1918. They were signed by G. Chichearin, “ People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs,” and were sealed with the official seal of the commissariat. This Government, as was brought out in the course of testimony (p. 23), was set up in November, 1917, by a communist revolution to the movements of March in that year, which accomplished the overthrow of the dynasty and government of Romanoff Czars. This republic operates under a constitution, the terms of which (p. 160) “all property rights in the treasures of the earth, water, forest, and fundamental natural sources within its boundaries are abolished ” ; which confirms “ transfer of all banks into the ownership ” of the Government; which there “ pass over without indemnification to the disposition of the county, provincial, regional, and Federal Soviets,” all private livestock and inventoried property of homesteads; and under which “ private merchants, trade t commercial brokers” (p. 162); “monks and clergy of all denominations” (p. 194), and in general all persons who do not “ perform useful, social functions” (p. 163), have no right either to vote to be voted for.

For instance (p. 39) Martens explained that a man who own farm in Russia and who leases it to another may not vote or be voted for. Under this constitution all banks were converted into a state monopoly (p. 168), and holdings of bonds in excess of 10,000 rul were confiscated (p. 169) ; these confiscations having taken pi prior to the adoption of the constitution and were confirmed by the instrument. Under this constitution no Russian is permitted to vest his capital or to ship it out of the country or to receive interest upon it (p. 173). This constitution also provides for the disarming of the property classes, the arming of “all toilers” and the organization of “ a Socialist red army ” (p. 164). Under this constitution; in an election, the records are received by a Soviet (p. 200) who appoints a commission of verification; which in turn reports b? to the Soviet and the Soviet “ decides the question when there i; doubt as to which candidate is elected.” By this means deputies ; elected to “ the All-Russian Congress of Soviets ” and by this process the prime minister is chosen, to hold office during the pleasure of his electorates (p. 200).

From this government Martens took his letters of credence above stated; and there were later supplemented, under day of March.

Whereas said Martens, according to his said testimony, regards this Government as a capitalistic government: Now. therefore, be it:

Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Relations is hereby authorized and directed, through the full committee or through any subcommittee thereof to investigate as speedily as possible the status of said Martens; what allied government or power in Europe he represents; what, if any, recognition of any kind has been accorded him by this Government; whether or not is an alien enemy; what propaganda, if any, he is carrying on for the overthrow of governments; and all facts and circumstances relating to his activities in this country and his alleged diplomatic representation, and all facts relative to the activities of any other party, parties, or organization bearing upon or relating to Russian propaganda in this country, and make report to the Senate of such findings.

The said committee is hereby empowered to sit and act at such time and place as it may deem necessary; to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance of witnesses, the production of books, papers, and documents; to employ stenographers at a cost not exceeding $1’ per printed page. The chairman of the committee, or any member thereof, may administer oaths to witnesses. Subpoenas for witnesses shall be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or subcommittee thereof. Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by authority of said committee or any subcommittee thereof, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the investigation heretofore authorized, shall be held to the penalties provided by section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

The expense thereof shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate, on vouchers ordered by said committee, signed by the chairman thereof, and approved by the Committee on Contingent Expenses.

The subcommittee held its first meeting January 12, and continued its sessions from time to time until March 29-, when the hearings were formally declared closed. It was the constant purpose of the subcommittee to restrict the inquiry to the narrow lines set for it by the resolution above cited, and this effort was measurably successful, although, as is natural in cases where counsel appear—Martens being represented by former Senator Thomas W. Hardwick, of Georgia—-much matter of a controversial or argumentative nature will be found in the record.

Inasmuch as the major line of inquiry under the resolution dealt with the subject of Martens’s activities in this country, the committee deemed Martens himself to be the most competent source of information. ’Accordingly, he was the chief and almost the only witness to be heard, and his examination was developed naturally along the lines of his own admissions and from documentary assistance, which in substantially every case was fully authenticated before being made use of..

The rights of Martens were fully protected not only through the presence of his counsel, who sat with him from the beginning of the inquiry to the end, whereas four sessions of the committee were held before suitable counsel could be obtained for it; and he was permitted at the outset to state his case from prepared manuscript with the utmost vigor of expression and with only slight interruption or interrogatory. The committee deems this statement essential by reason of Martens’s protest in the closing days of the inquiry that he had not been permitted to make suitable explanatory replies to the inquiry to which he had been subjected. On this point the record will speak for itself.

The committee finds itself unable to reconcile the self-evident contradiction in much of Martens’s testimony. He is a thorough by further Certificate signed by Chichearin and - addressed "to whom it may concern” in which Martens was given certain authorization to take over and administer all property in America belonging to the Russian Federative Socialist Soviet 99 and to exercise further functions cognate to those of a diplomatic or consular representative.

Aside from his own declarations the committee found no means to ascertain Martens’s real mission in the United States. His letters of credence and documents supplementary thereto were not in a form to warrant his assumption of diplomatic privilege. They were not indeed even in the form attaching to the commission upon which a consular officer receives his exequatur. The policy which he adopted in pursuance of his authorization as he interpreted it was equally unique and nebulous. For example, he protested throughout the entire course of his examination that his sole purpose in this country was to establish and develop cordial relations between Soviet Russia and the United States, especially through the building up of commercial intercourse. In support of this purpose he declared that he had attempted to enter into contractual relations with many American enterprises to whom he offered contracts for tools, machinery, clothing, etc., to be sent to Russia. These proffers, however, proved to be wholly tentative; and the form of contract which he employed in the few instances where such engagements were executed was wholly unilateral and the burden not only of supplying the wares in question, but of securing their shipment to Soviet Russia, was placed entirely upon the producer and no earnest money v as ever deposited in a single instance; while the American contractor by one means or another was led to bring pressure upon the Government of the United States for the purpose of forcing either a modus vivendi with or an actual recognition of the Russian Soviet Government. To the committee, therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the entire fabric of trade negotiations which Martens unrolled was part of an ingenious scheme of propaganda to create sympathy, based upon cupidity, for the Russian Soviets and to produce by indirect means the admission of Soviet Russia into the companionship of international relations which other means had failed to secure.

The next inquiry suggested by the resolution of the Senate:

"What if any recognition of any kind has been accorded him by this Government?”

It has been observed that neither Martens’s original letter of credence nor the supplementary certificate was in the usual form of diplomatic credentials; and in fact he testified (p. 36) that he is n>i familiar with the ordinary manner of diplomatic procedure, but that he knows of no reason why the usual form of such communications should have been departed from in his case. He testified that he filed his letter of credence with the Department of State on the 19th of March, 1919, accompanying it 1vith a memorandum (p. 23) u dealing with the intentions or the Government of Russia, as well as with the internal affairs of that country.” He had other communications with the State Department (p. 27); but to none of them was any reply vouchsafed. He never presented himself in person at the State Department (p. 89) or sought the usual audience with the Secretary of State, which is customary for diplomatic representatives; and he “ totally abandoned all efforts to secure personal recognition ” (p. 81)' after having sent his letter of credence to the department by mail.

He testified (p. 89) that “he was still trying to get recognition: but that no official representatives had ever been sent by him to the State Department (p. 90). Unofficial representatives had conversions with officials at the State Department, including the Under Secretary of State, and from these Martens received oral reports.

Protesting constantly that his sole purpose in the United Stab was to develop trade relations between this country and Soviet Russia, and testifying (p. 91) that he had never communicated in an manner with the War Trade Board or with any other department of the Government, he asserted, however, that certain American industrial companies with whom he sought to make contracts had communicated with the President (p. 135), and with the Attorney General (p. 75), with a view to securing a change in the policy of the Government toward the Soviet Government to the end of opening up trade relations.

He made no effort to claim for himself or for any member of h staff, any of the usual privileges accorded a diplomatic officer (p. 43 such as to bring any household effects without payment of custom etc.; and he never asserted his diplomatic quality (p. 43) until h was summoned for examination before the so-called Lusk committee of the Assembly of the State of New York.

In fact, his appointment as representative of the Soviet Government appears to have been shrouded in some mystery. He testified (p. 100) that he had had no knowledge concerning his designation prior to receiving his appointment and that his credentials were brought to him by a courier. It appeared from documentary evidence, however (p. 308), that a bureau had been organized in the city of New York for the purpose of establishing communication with Russia, the membership of this bureau embracing eight persons, among whom *were Martens himself, Santeri Nuorteva, who was secretary of the Martens bureau, Gregory Weinstein, who was Martens’s personal secretary, and a Prof. Lomonosoff, who, having been earlier connected with the regularly accredited Russian era Embassy in this country, later cast in his allegiance with the Soviet government and with Martens’s bureau. According to this evidence (p. 309), it was at first proposed that Weinstein should become the Soviet representative in the United States; but a question regarding Weinstein’s integrity having arisen and two weeks’ time being allotted to him to clear himself, at the expiration of this, Weinstein came before the committee with the information that Martens had received the appointment. The discrepancy between this evidence and Martens’s assertion that the first intimation of his appointment had come when the courier handed him his credential is apparent. But in whatever manner his appointment was brought about, it is wholly clear that he received no recognition, even personally, from the Government of the United States.

His communications to and from his Government, or its representatives, were almost invariably carried by couriers—whose name* were withheld from the committee and whose travels, it is fair t( assume, were facilitated by spurious passports or otherwise in direct violation of the statutes covering foreign intercourse during the period of Martens’s supposed representation here.' These couriers brought to him not only letters, instructions, and other written communications, but also brought in large sums of money in the aggregate at least $150,000 in violation of the trading with the enemy act, and of other statutory and regulatory restrictions. These couriers, in the number of about 20, he testified, comprised both American citizens and foreign subjects.

The inquiry whether or not Martens is an alien enemy, which the resolution of the Senate directs, brought out that Martens was born at Bachmut, in the Province of Ekaterinoslav, in Russia, in 1874,. and that his parents were German subjects. His birth was registered in Russia as of German parentage and he was educated in Russia as an engineer, following that profession until 1899, when, after having spent three years in prison for revolutionary activities (pp. 7 and 8), he was deported by the Russian authorities to Germany, where he was held as a German subject to the military service which the German Government required. In 1906, Martens took up residence in England, where he remained for 10 years (p. 10). Until the beginning of the war in 1914, no occasion arose in England for the determination of his citizenship; but in October of that year (p. 11)) a registration, in most cases accompanied by internment, of German subjects, was set on foot. Martens then registered as a German subject, “ as a purely technical matter,” according to this testimony (p. 11), alleging that to be the reason why he was not interned. Following his decision to come to America, permission to make the journey was accorded by the British inspector under the alien act, and Martens and his wife came to the United States on the 2d of January, 1916 (p. 11), and, upon landing at New York, he declared himself to be a German subject (p, 11), making the regular declaration under oath. He contended before the committee, however, that he did this solely because of the British permit which he carried and which identified him as a German subject.

Upon the issuance, December 31, 1917, of the rules and regulations for the registration of German enemy aliens in the United States, Martens did not so register; basing his claim (pp. 18-19) upon the assertion that he had been made a Russian citizen by virtue of a decree of the provisional government of Prince Lvov. This, citizenship, he testified (p. 19), was procured for him by an application made by his relatives in Russia without special authority from him and with no formal paper from him in any manner. He was unable to furnish any copy of this decree (p. 20), though he declared (p. 20) that a document to this effect was issued to him, given into the possession of his sister in Russia and that she dispatched it to him by mail. This information, he declared (p. 20), came to him in a letter from his sister, but die was unable to produce the letter in question. He expressed the belief (p. 17) that the letter containing his certificate of citizenship' had been seized by the British censor of mails, but from the America^ embassy in London came information that no such letter had ever come into the possession of the British censor.

Martens’s citizenship has been called in question more than once. By his own testimony (p. 15) he applied for Russian citizenship, which was refused on the ground (p. 16) that he had not performed his military duty in Germany. He insisted throughout that his German citizenship was merely “ technical ”; but he further test: (p. 17) that his German citizenship sufficed to bar him from amnesty proclaimed against political offenders in Russia upon overthrow of the Czar’s Government, and it became necessary him to obtain Russian citizenship by other means. He was in a privileged class in this respect for he testified (p. 19) there were exceptional circumstances applying to his case and another, not as well-known as he, could not be given citizens without formal application. In this connection it may be well knowing that the letter from Martens’s sister, which constitutes only written evidence he ever received touching the application decree involved in his assumption of Russian citizenship, was deemed of sufficient importance to have been kept by him with official papers, and in consequence it could not be produced in evidence (p. 31).

In view of the fact that Martens refused to disclose the names of any of his couriers it is impossible to say whether those who he described as American citizens also owed allegiance to At the Asian Soviet Government, where citizenship is procured in so shady a manner that it might be possible for one, either native born naturalized in America and in consequence exercising suffrage other functions of citizenship here, to be at the same time a citizen of Soviet Russia, whose only prerequisite for citizenship as shown by the testimony is an application, which may be made in absentia accompanied by a declaration that the applicant is an honest n In any event these couriers, whether American citizens or not, share with Martens the responsibility for the repeated violation of Am can statutes which their actions involved.

It is perhaps questionable whether those who have associated v Martens in this country, and who have been paid by him for services, have also been guilty of violation of the law; although this connection reference may be had to those sections of the penal code which will be found in the record.

In the absence of evidence other than that of Martens’s own assertion, unsupported except by his presumed letter of credence—which it may be observed, issued from a government which the Uni States does not recognize—the normal international relations which the United States has constantly adhered would continue place him as a German subject and hence as an enemy alien.

In seeking to determine what propaganda, if any, he is carry on for the overthrow of governments, as directed by the resolution of the Senate, the testimony is somewhat complicated. It is evident from the constitution of the Government which he affects to ref sent (p. 165) that the “fundamental problem” of Soviet Russia to bring about a the victory of socialism in all lands.” In this Martens admitted (p. 166) the United States is “absolutely included. There were also adduced in evidence two letters, copies which were furnished by Martens himself, purporting to have b addressed by Nicholas Lenin, prime minister of Soviet Russia, American workingmen. The first of these letters (p. Ill), da August 20, 1918, counted “ on the inevitability of the international revolution” (p. 116), while the second, dated January 21, 1919, 1 emphasis (p, 117) on the tremendous rapidity with which “workers in various countries have gone over to communism and bolshevism,” and boasted (p. 120) “ that the soviet power is great and spreading, growing and establishing itself all over the world.” 

These documents, the authenticity of which Martens admitted (p. 121), were justified by him—the earlier appeal on the ground that this was necessary counter-propaganda against the activities which, as he asserted, the so-called Creel committee had carried on in Soviet Russia (p. 122). He pointed out that this letter was written prior to his appointment as Soviet representative in this country. But the second letter, dated January 21, 1919, and also offered by himself in evidence (p. 117), was written some three weeks after Martens’s appointment, and he justified it (p. 179) upon the ground that American troops were in Russia opposing Bolsheviks, though he qualified this justification by declaring (p. 180) that propaganda of this character a few months later would have no justification.

It appeared, however, that even at this time when, as he contended, propaganda of this character would be unjustifiable there met in Moscow the so-called Third Internationale, which is the parent body of all Communist organizations and, in fact, its international court of last resort. From this body issued a manifesto, signed, among others, by Nicholas Lenin, the soviet prime minister, and by Leon Trotsky, the soviet minister of war, who are the ruling spirits in the Soviet Government. It is addressed “ to the proletariat of all lands,” and purports to contain (p. 182) “the authentic direct message from the conquering proletariat of great Russia to the toiling masses of the world”; it pictures “alongside the dethroned dynasties of the Romanoffs, Hohenstaufen, and Hapsburgs and the capitalistic cliques of these lands the rulers of France, England, Italy, and the United States revealed in the light of unfolding events and diplomatic disclosures in their immeasurable vileness.”

With these sentiments (p. 183) Martens said that he agreed; and (p. 185) in an article signed by him and published in the New York Call on Thursday, May 1; 1919, he declared that “ the attitude of the workers of the world' toward the Russian workers’ revolution has proved that the spirit of international solidarity of the workers is not dead. It is resurrecting in the Third Internationale a new glory,” and he concluded his article with the exclamation, “Long live the Third Internationale!” He later (p. 185) testified that he approved of the Third Internationale and its principles. It also appeared (p. 187) that the Russian Soviet Government by a decree issued in December, 1917, appropriated 2,000,000 rubles “ for the needs of the revolutionary international movement for the disposition of the foreign representatives of the commissariat for foreign affairs.” Martens himself, by the prima facie evidence of his own letter of credence, is such a representative; and this appropriation of money for the purpose of propaganda in foreign lands he justified (p. 189) on the ground that at this time “Russia was in the throes of a revolution and civil war and was attacked by all governments.”

He added that he supposed the amount thus allocated was much more than 2,000,000 rubles. He declared that the bureau through which this money was to be expended has now passed out of existence, but admitted that his information on this point was gained through the Russian newspapers (p. 190). In this connection it developed that a report alleged to have been sent by Marten Frederick Strom (p. 191), the soviet representative at Stockholm spoke of Martens’s agents being u busy in the western States and Canada where they are creating secret committees propaganda and becoming acquainted with professional organizations and local press,” and that “ American workers’ association' passionately interested in the state of Russia and they are becoming more and more firm in the creed that nothing but bolshevism c advance the proletariat.” Martens admitted to have sent many communications by courier to Strom; but he denied that any character was among them.

In line with the foregoing it may be significant that Marten his closing words of testimony before the committee, testified u it would be an improvement to have the Soviet Government h€ and that he u would call that revolution.”

It further appeared (p. 208) that a newspaper published in the interest of the trade-unions of that city, and know the Truth, on November 10, 1919, published an article declaring soon “ the victory of the proletarian dictatorship in the whole w will be guaranteed,” that “ with the proletarians of all countries agreement would be reached without any diplomats. But with Messrs. Imperialists, we shall carry on conversations just as you with us—behind every word force; behind every condition force hind every demand force.” In commenting upon this Martens testified that he did not believe “ in force as such,” but that he did be] in it “ if necessary.”

Martens admitted (p. 239) that he has been a revolutionist fc years, and in every country where he has ever lived; that he w revolutionist when he came to the United States; and that he revolutionist now.

In his revolutionary character Martens was evidently well km In the issue of the Class Struggle for May, 1919, in a comment i his appointment as soviet representative in this country, Mai was thus described:

Comrade Martens is a well-known figure among Russian socialists. * While a student he became interested in the revolutionary socialist move and became allied with a group of revolutionists among whom Lenin was of the most active members. Shortly after his matriculation he was imprisoned for revolutionary propaganda and spent three years in the prisons. Later he was banished and carried on his activities in the various countries in Europe. About three years ago he came to this country. Here he was employed as the American representative of the great Demidov steel world Russia. He combines, therefore, a knowledge of business affairs with an impeccable record as a socialist and revolutionist, a combination that will i him an ideal representative of revolutionary Russia during the trying difficult time of international economic reconstruction that lies before us.

From this background Martens emerged into his diplomatic quality; and it is fair to remark that if his conduct in that capacity has been as simple as he asserts, it is a reversal of form equally complete and gratifying. But it is difficult to believe that a man 1ike Martens’s previous record, involving a lifetime of revolutionary activities and with his declared quality of a revolutionist, no^ always, could have suddenly changed his entire method of through the simple talismanic influence of an appointment as diplomatic representative; and while, on the face of the record, his utterances and his personal activities—shaped doubtless by competent advice, as well as by his own previous experience—bore superficial evidence of a determination to act correctly, the whole collateral deduction must be that his concealed course was in line with that which he had hitherto pursued, namely, of hostility to the existing order wherever he has found himself.

Even, however, if it should be conceded that his constant association with organizations of foreign origin and of a purpose hostile to the Government of the United States had been thrust upon him by the nature of his mission here, there is no justification for the detached and indifferent attitude which he manifested toward revolutionary, inflammatory, and even anarchistic utterances of his associates on the public platform and elsewhere. His constant asseveration that these episodes- had nothing to do with him, were none of his business, and that he was too busy to allow them to find judgment in his mind contrasts strangely with the solicitous haste manifested by his letter to Emma Goldman; and it is wholly proper to conclude that his knowledge of events was equally complete in all cases and that his action, or non-action, in each was gauged by his own sense or sentiment as to how a given course of conduct would affect either his personal standing here, or his ultimate purpose in this country.

As indicating the difficulty of separating Martens and his activities from propaganda carried on for the purpose of replacing the existing Government of the United States with Sovietism, it is instructive to note (p. 52) his emphatic testimony that he never u attempted in any way to have the people of this country advocate a soviet form of government ”; that he was not connected directly or indirectly with any organization or association which advocated Sovietism in this country; and that he had never given support, either moral or financial, to such an organization. This testimony, however, was followed immediately by an admission (p. 52) that he was “very often in touch with these organizations ” and that “ on several occasions ” he u accepted their invitations and spoke about Russia, but never in regard to the internal affairs of the United States.” These speeches, he testified (p. 53) were fully reported in the New York Call, yet in connection with speeches made by others, and likewise reported in the New York Call, he protested vehemently that they were incorrectly reported (p. 24). This leads to the suggestion that Martens possibly occupied a privileged position in the columns of the New York Call such as he testified attended him when he sought to obtain Russian citizenship.

Referring to the secret activities of Martens it will be noted from the testimony (pp. 212, 220, and elsewhere) that he denied all knowledge or relationship with the Russian Socialist Federation, except in so far as the evidence presented by counsel for the committee compelled qualifications in reply to interrogations. For example, the telegram addressed to the convention of the Russian Socialist Federation in Detroit (p. 284) is documentary refutation of the witness’s statement that he never gave, directly or indirectly, moral support to an organization which advocated a soviet form of government in the United States. The record shows (p. 251) that in spite of repeated denials on the part of the witness he was regarded by his most important assistant, Mr. Nuorteva, and his friend. Dr. Mislig, treasurer of the Russian federation, as an actual member of the association. This association, be it noted, not only advocates a soviet form of government but is organizing for the purpose of overthrowing the present form of government under which we live by force a violence. Martens denied explicitly (p. 281) that he had engaged secret political activity, yet when con iron ted with the minutes of t secret convention held by the Russian Socialist Federation in Detroit in August, 1919, he was compelled to admit making a speech before the delegates. On at least two other occasions also he had tried reach a basis of cooperation in conference with the executive committee. of the association. In this connection attention should be direct* to the unusual admission by the witness (p. 318) that not one of the 10 or 12 men who attended the executive committee’s meetings arose the convention to substantiate his account of the proceedings before the committee, and nobody denied the statement of Gurin regarding the affair except himself. In other words, Martens by his own testimony admits that all the testimony as to these occurrences is direct against his sole contention.

Reports of the public meetings he testified (p. 58) were sent 1 him to his Government; and he testified further that he had knowledge of the “ parties or organizations interested in this kind of pro] agenda,” and that his reports to his Government dealt with “ the sympathies expressed by the different political parties.” He ii formed his Government as to the character of speeches made by hi at these meetings, and as to the character of speeches made by other speakers (p. 58), accompanying his report by newspaper clipping containing printed accounts of the meetings. Yet when question* regarding some of the speeches which were made in his presence these meetings and which are readily classified as inflammatory revolutionary, and anarchistic, he declared that he paid no attention to them and did not know what they contained—though he w equally positive in his assertions that these speeches had been incorrectly reported.

In pursuing the inquiry, directed by the resolution of the Senate into his activities in this country, the testimony developed that, without waiting for recognition on the part of the Government to which he assumed to be accredited, Martens established himself and h bureau in offices in the city of New York (p. 40); and that he mac a demand upon Boris Bakhmeteff, Russian ambassador in this com try, for the delivery to him of all property, moneys, credits, furniture, archives, papers, etc., in his possession (p. 32). This demand was not compiled with; and Martens proceeded to the organization of his general offices, where he employed a staff of some 35 people among whom were 13 American citizens—two of whom, Rennet Durant and Wilfred R. Humphreys, had been connected with the so-called Creel bureau, officially known as the Committee on Public Information of the American Government (pp. 41-43). Martens bureau was maintained at an expense of about $2,500 a week (p. 45 which was met by funds transmitted “ mainly by couriers from Russia ” (p. 44) for whom no diplomatic immunity was asked, whose names were refused by Martens when they were demanded by the committee, and who traveled clandestinely so far as any evidence permits a deduction. The carefully planned innocuousness of Martens’s public activities here do not extend, however, to some of the more intimate and necessary procedure growing out of his position. It is evident that he regarded customary and legitimate means of communication as un- suited to his purposes. So far as can be learned, it is only within the past few weeks that he made use of the cable to communicate with his Government or its representatives on neutral European soil; and the ordinary course of the mail was apparently never utilized by him.

In connection with his bureau Martens published a weekly newspaper known as Soviet Russia, which has a circulation of from 15,000 to 30,000, about one-half of this number going to subscribers, some 2,000 being “ sent without charge to public men in the country,” and the balance distributed by news agencies (p. 57). He also contemplated opening a technical school for Russians purposing to return to their country (p. 57), but this plan was never consummated. He proposed “ to call a technical conference of those who desired to help Soviet Russia ” and for this purpose registered over 20,000 people. This registration took place not only at the office of the soviet bureau in West Fortieth Street, in New York City, but also at the Rand School, where some form of branch office was maintained (p. 345). A questionnaire was furnished to each registrant, and in its original form a registrant was asked if he preferred “ to remain in America to work with the Soviet Government” (p. 347). Martens adduced no adequate explanation of what this “ work with the Soviet Government ” in this country would comprise.

Martens himself appeared to have had very little to do with the practical management of his bureau. He seems to have been something on the order of a show figure, and he frequently responded in tactful terms of gratitude to letters and resolutions of greeting which were sent to him by numerous organizations of a socialist nature, both American and Russian in their membership. One of these letters of greeting presented in evidence (p. 279) came from the Socialist Party of the eighth assembly district of New York, in which the members of this organization pledged themselves “ to work unceasingly for the propagation of those principles and policies and tactics that will aid directly in the establishment of a socialistic federated soviet republic in America.” Against such sentiments Martens testified (p. 280) he did not protest, saying that he regarded this as none of his concern, and adding that he did not regard it as a crime “ to propagate the soviet idea in the United States” (p. 281).

Prominent among Martens’s activities was his attendance upon public meetings generally held under the auspices of some of the numerous branches of the Socialist Party. One such (p. 215) was addressed by Gregory Weinstein, who was reported in the newspapers to have said “we have come here to tell Comrade Martens that we intend to prepare to take over this great country just as the working class has taken over Russia.” Another held April 1, 1919, presided over by Nicholas Hourwich, a near relative of whom later became the head of a department in the Martens Soviet Bureau, and who was quoted in the New York Call as having said in his opening address that “ the left wing proposed to bring Bolshevism to America” (p. 218). Martens declared that he did not remember having heard either of these declarations, that he made no protest about it at any rate, that he is a Bolshevist, that he u would be very glad to : America Bolshevistic ” and that “ any means which would provide this condition would be justified” (p. 218). At this same meeting one Louis Baske, editor of a Hungarian newspaper published in Ni York, also spoke and declared u there is only one way to help i Hungarian and Russian Soviet Governments. That is to revolutionize America ” (p. 219). Martens testified that he did not remember hearing this statement and that he would not have felt him called upon to disavow it if he had heard it (p. 219). Numerous other meetings of like nature were held, and the list of the speak* who participated in them bristles with the names of men who w( under either indictment or sentence for violation of the laws of \ United States or who have since enjoyed such notoriety or who has become fugitives from justice. Two of these gentry, it is probably worth noting, were harbored by Martens following their trial a sentence for sedition in New Jersey, and were given a place upon 1 pay roll of his bureau (p. 245).

The Weinstein meeting above referred to was a subject of controversy in the testimony which the committee brought out. Mart* himself asserted (p, 269) that Weinstein—and also Hourwich—w “ reported wrongly,” although, as above cited, he had at first den having any recollection of what they said. A reporter for the New York Sun, who was present at the Weinstein meeting, testified 394) that he saw both Weinstein and Martens sitting close to get] on the stage at this meeting, and that he heard Weinstein make declaration of their intention to take over America as the work: class has taken over Russia; that Martens made no reference or p test to these statements though he spoke after Weinstein had uttered them; and it was testified further (p. 395) that the audience applauded wildly, stamped, and cheered whenever the Soviet Government of Russia was mentioned ” and that “ they always his; when reference was made to the United States Government.” It proper to state, however, that Martens, though he had previous testified that he remembered nothing about Weinstein’s speech, la asserted that Weinstein had spoken at this meeting in the Russian language.

Martens testified (p. 269) that he paid no attention to the application in the press of inflammatory speeches u published wrong! as he declared, in reports of meetings which he attended, explaining that “ it was absolutely physically impossible ” for him to do But he appears (p. 269)—possibly because he was then in hid from the process of the Lusk committee—to have had leisure observe reports which were published to the effect that he had “utterly insulted” Emma Goldman when she was undergoing trial in a sentence for deportation; and, on December 15, 1919 (p. 271), were to Emma Goldman, then at Ellis Island under sentence of deportation, saying that he had not the pleasure of her acquaintance, that he sympathized with her for the “ insults ” to which she 1 been subjected in this country and, on behalf of Soviet Russia: offered her asylum as a political refugee.

The impropriety of Martens’s persistent public appearance meetings held under the auspices of organized partisan groups. where his speaking companions were so frequently selected fi men under surveillance, indictment, or sentence for their seditious and anarchistic activities, is plainly manifest. Had he been regularly accredited in the ambassadorial quality which he affects, such conduct would have secured for him the speedy severance of his personal relations with this Government, the immediate tendering of his passports, and his prompt departure from the country. That he has greatly impaired, if not wholly destroyed, his diplomatic usefulness by such a course seems wholly clear; and even if the recognition which he has sought to bring about for his Government could now be obtained, it is wholly improbable that Martens would be held by the executive department to be a suitable representative.

The resolution of the Senate further directed the committee to investigate “ all facts relative to the activities of any party, parties, or organizations bearing upon or relating to Russian propaganda in this country.

The natural source of inquiry under this head is the diplomatic establishment maintained here under the title of the Russian embassy, whose head is Boris Bakhmeteff, and who has been recognized under such quality since his accrediting to this Government, and who, by a certificate of the State Department, still enjoys the privileges and immunities which accompany such recognition.

In consequence, both he and his staff were not subject to the process of the committee; and recourse was had to the Department of State, which furnished full documentary evidence dealing With the disposition of moneys which had been advanced to earlier Russian Governments from the Treasury of the United States, and with which purchases of war and industrial materials had been made in this country. In this connection Martens, in his testimony, had given the committee to understand that a misappropriation of American money had taken place. His testimony on this point, however, was of a most cursory and hearsay nature; and the documents furnished by the State Department and contained in the record provide a complete accounting for all these moneys and materials purchased therewith. From these documents it appears, also, that the maintenance of the recognized Russian Embassy in this country and the carrying on of its related activities are provided for by funds accruing from a loan privately negotiated in this country and in England.

Other organizations more or less sentimental in character were also found to exist in this country for the carrying on of activities in opposition to the soviet regime in Russia; but in most cases they were discovered to have only nominal or “ paper ” existence, and the committee deemed it unprofitable to pursue this line of inquiry.

In sum the committee finds in obedience to the instructions of the resolution of the Senate that—

(1) Martens has no status whatever in this country in any diplomatic or other governmental representative quality.

(2) Martens assumes to represent the Russian Federated Soviet Republic-—a regime established in Russia by revolution and functioning under a constitution which has been above summarized; a regime which has never been recognized by the Government of the United States and which in international law has no standing as a constituted authority.

(3) Martens has received no recognition officially or even personally by the Government of the United States.

(4) Martens, by the accepted practice of this Government or its treaty or other international obligations and usages, is a ( man subject, and in consequence an alien enemy.

(5) Martens’s propaganda in this country for the overthrow governments is established by his own testimony, as shown in body of the report, that he has publicly associated and sympathy with those advocating such a course. He admitted to the committee his persistent revolutionary character, his desire to see the establishment of the “ dictatorship of the proletariat ” in all lands, his opinion that it would be better for this country if the such government were established here. It was also proved that he tinned to employ in the staff of his embassy persons who have publicly and in his presence advocated the bringing of Bolshevism America and he admitted to the committee that by any means would produce this condition would be justified.”

All this leads the committee to the conclusion that Martens activities here have been of a nature to render him more suitable investigation and action by the Department of Justice than by committee of the Senate.

Facebook Redux: I wrote this 10 Years Ago! It has just Gotten Worse.

Facebook gets $200 million from the Russians, says Bloomberg. Specifically Bloomberg states:

"Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc.... Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement"
Let me tell a story about my Russian subsidiary and investors. You see I started one of my companies in Russia with "you know who". Frankly they were great people, managed the political scene, made money, worked well with others, and generally made things work well. I knew when things were going astray because when they said "nyet problemi" it meant all hell has broken loose, they were great for understatement.

We wanted to build a fiber to Moscow and one of the routes was through Belarus. One of my bankers. a Brit, was with me at a meeting in which one of our "senior partners" was present, a "retired" Government "security type". When the banker expressed concern about the political stability and resulting safety of the fiber through Belarus the individual in question slammed his fist down and said in no uncertain terms that he would insure "our" network with tanks. Remember Georgia, perhaps Ukraine. When the banker and I left he asked how he would write this up for his due diligence, I deferred comment.

Now to Facebook. It is a fantastic personality profiling device. If one wants to seek out possible compromisable people what better place to do so other than on Facebook, just analyze their inner-most verbiage. It is an intelligence goldmine. Thus why would the US allow such an investment in what may very well be a strategic asset or a potential strategic threat.

Facebook as currently used provides the innermost examination and analysis of any human willing to expose themselves to the world. It also develops linkages. Any smart analyst can take that information and process it to develop profiles of accessible "groups" which many be manipulated for whatever reason. Thus any entity "owning" a considerable share, even in their own minds alone, can possibly exert such influence. You would not even have to recruit any future terrorist, you just have to check your data base, and perhaps inject "moles" to nudge the group. The thought is terrifying!

Trust but Verify

Most of us do not know that a significant amount of prescription as well as over the counter drugs are manufactured in China and India. The result can be a dramatic reduction in quality and at times a dramatic risk in preparation. The New England Journal of Medicine discusses a recent issue with blood pressure medications. They note:

Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) are one of four drug classes recommended for the initial treatment of hypertension. These medications are commonly used not only for hypertension — a condition present in 45.6% of U.S. adults — but also for heart failure and chronic kidney disease. On January 25, 2019, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and Director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Janet Woodcock released a statement updating the public on large-scale voluntary recalls of various products containing ARBs. Two probable carcinogens had been identified in active pharmaceutical ingredients used by some manufacturers of valsartan, irbesartan, and losartan. The impurities arose during manufacture of the ingredients in two factories located in China and India. The same day, the Wall Street Journal reported that as many as 2 million patients had probably been exposed to the impurities, N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and N-nitroso-N-diethylamine (NDEA). Most recently, a third impurity, N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), has been identified in an ARB product, resulting in a new recall. These recalls are of growing concern to patients, clinicians, and organizations delivering primary care or complex, multidisciplinary health care, and they highlight several issues related to the readiness of our health systems to respond to drug recalls, trust between patients and providers, uncertain drug-dose equivalences, and the regulation of drug manufacturing in the global marketplace.

This is becoming a global problem. Not only the US population but globally we are potentially threatened with massive drug alterations. Drugs as simple as aspirin and other OTC formulations are manufactured and boxed in China, and sold as branded medications. The monitoring of OTCs is much weaker and presents a major threat to the US as well as other countries.

More on Public Libraries

Libraries, supposedly the home for knowledge. But wait. Who selects what goes into this library? The Librarian. And thus what we get is a filter as strong as any we see in Facebook or Google. But in the case of public libraries they are the local librarian, in New Jersey a person we are taxed to support every year as part of our property taxes. Is there any contact with them? No! They quite frankly do whatever they want.

Information access has changed dramatically in the past thirty years. In my opinion, libraries are defunct. Information, old and new is available on line. Not in a library. My own personal library is just over 10,000 books, I try to keep it at or below that number.

Now the NY Review of Books has a piece praising Libraries. They note:

The public loves the public library. ...a Pew Research Center study from 2016 that showed that more than 90 percent of Americans consider the library “very” or “somewhat” important to their community. Pew researchers also found that about half of all Americans sixteen and older had used the library in the past year. Even so, libraries are often convenient targets for budget cuts. After the financial crisis, in the years 2008–2013, for example, New York City eliminated $68 million from the operating budget of the New York Public Library, which resulted in a dramatic drop in staff hours and in its acquisition budget. (A fair amount of Ex Libris is given over to poignant behind-the-scenes discussions about budgets.) But it wasn’t just the New York Public Library that was suffering. A study by the American Library Association around the same time found that twenty-one states reported cuts in library funding.

I really do not know what the basis for this is. My personal experience with Pew is that they are in my opinion highly biased. But that is my opinion based upon my experience. They continue:

In 2008 the private-equity billionaire .... donated $100 million to the cash-strapped NYPL. The library’s flagship Beaux-Arts building on Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street, which opened in 1911 and took sixteen years to complete at a cost of $9 million (plus $20 million for the land on which it sits), now bears his name. One hundred million dollars is a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie, the patron saint of libraries (and rabid industrialist), whose $55 million largesse—the equivalent of $1.6 billion today—funded 2,509 libraries worldwide, 1,679 of them public libraries in the United States, between 1886 and 1919. Sixty-seven of them were in New York City, sixteen of which are still in use.

 Now the unmentioned donor now has his name on my Alma Mater, so my donations go elsewhere, but alas, I have never been to the 42nd Street Library. I have no need to. There is this thing called the Internet, eighteen books and still going strong! I remember my first book, Xerox copies of documents and working in un-air conditioned desks at MIT, the sweat pouring down my arm marking the writing on lined yellow pads. Now, I can sit with multiple screens access indexed files and write and rewrite as necessary. I have been to our town Library once, the have nothing of interest. It is a social gather hole, that is all.

So are Libraries useful? Good question. Perhaps it should be asked.

SAT, Politics, and a Dumb Test

My experience with the SATs started in 1959. Going to a New York Catholic High School, they told us nothing about the PSAT. So I thought it was a joke, and a waste. So much for Catholic education. Then I spent time with my friends at the Jewish Community Center, instead of CYO basketball, and saw that it was not a joke. I took the Bronstein and Wiener course at the old Commodore Hotel, studied the heck out of the prep book and as well, got 1500+. I even found mistakes on the exam and notified the College Board. Needless to say they did not respond.

But what is the point? Back then they said you could not study for the test, that is measured you, and no matter how much your prepped you could not improve your score. Nonsense! If you took it seriously then you could ace it. That was and still is the secret.

But now it has become so overtly political. From the New Hampshire Dept of Education we have:

During the 2019, students taking the SAT test were requested to write an essay featuring a passage from a column by a current presidential candidate, unbeknownst to the New Hampshire Department of Education. The opinion piece – “There’s No Need to End Saturday Mail Delivery” – was authored by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and published in the Wall Street Journal on March 4, 2014. As part of the essay section of the SAT, students were given a section of a topical column to analyze and are required to read it, explain how the author builds an argument to persuade an audience, and support their explanation with evidence from the section. Students are not asked to agree or disagree with the position taken in the section or asked to write about their personal experience. In New Hampshire, about 13,000 students took the SAT. The written test was given on March 27, and the digital test was administered through April 9. The NH DOE found out about the column section from a concerned parent on April 10....“The column in question was probably a poor choice, in hindsight,” said ...the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Education. “However, it doesn’t affect the ability of students to be able to read and process the concept of the piece and whether or not the author made a persuadable argument – which is the purpose of the essay in the first place.” 

 Essays always have strong political bents. Personally you never know who grades them and what basis they use to grade them. Put and loaded political question and what does one expect? If you are critical the chance you have an even handed grader is less than zero.

In my experience and in my opinion the College Board slowly deteriorated into a sinecure for politically well connected resulting in the need to feed back what one is expected to do. I am reminded of one of my doctoral students whose success was predicated on his achieving the highest grade in Communist Theory in college. Not that he was a believer but that by asserting the right responses he achieved what he sought, a PhD at MIT.

Is this entity becoming the equivalent filter for this country? If so there will be two results. First, humans are adaptive and smart, they will give back what is expected. Yet, second, it will turn them into the opposite of what the political propagandists want. Perhaps this may be beneficial after all.

These well paid folks at the College Board should have some balanced integrity. Stay away fro politics! You are not the propagandists for whomever.

Economists are Not Technologists

Carbon emissions, carbon dioxide, methane etc, are technical facts. The impact on the climate is also a technical fact, with some degree of uncertainty, but put that aside for the moment. How does one solve this problem? One would assume with additional technical means. Lee carbon intensive production, carbon capture, and the list goes on. Input, less output equals net accumulation.

Now economists are always at taxing problems out of existence. But reality seems to show otherwise. Let's consider a simple example. If the workforce at Harvard, the real workers doing such things as cleaning and cooking, not thinking stuff, commute from afar, and thus produce carbon emissions, will taxing them reduce emissions? Only if you terminate them and have the other folks clean up after themselves. How can taxing reduce emissions when demand is essentially inelastic? I think that is something from economics.

The only solution is technical. Really.

But NY Times writers again note:

...people use too much dirty energy because they don’t have to pay the true costs it imposes on the world: pollution-related health problems in the short term and climate change in the long term. Economists refer to these costs as externalities, because they are not naturally part of the market system. “We have a climate problem,” ..., “because markets fail, and fail badly, in the energy sector.” The only solution, he argued, was for governments to raise the price of emissions. Economists and other policy experts have long focused on this idea of carbon pricing. It can take the form of a carbon tax, ... Or the pricing can be embedded in a system of permits known as cap-and-trade, as President Barack Obama and other Democrats proposed in their 2009 bill to address climate change. Either way, the underlying concept is simple. When a product becomes more expensive, people use less of it. Carbon pricing is an elegant mechanism by which market economics can work on behalf of the climate rather than against it.

Just collecting more taxes from the people who can afford it the least is not the answer. We have the answer but the problem is economists and not carbon.

Now the most, in my opinion, shameful of all the ones I have seen so far is the MIT presentation of an economist bemoaning climate change. They note:

As dire as those scenarios seem, Stern also expressed some optimism, saying that policymakers are now much more likely to believe that we can can combine continued economic growth with zero-emissions technology — a change from common views expressed at, say, the 2009 global climate summit in Copenhagen. “What we’ve seen I think in the last five years or so is a change of understanding of the policy toward climate change,” Stern said, “from ‘How much growth do we have to give up to be more responsible and sustainable?’ to ‘How can we find a form of growth that’s different and sustainable?’” However, he warned, a world with a net of zero carbon dioxide emissions within a few decades will be absolutely necessary for society to maintain its current form. “The net zero is fundamental,” Stern said. “That’s not some strange economist’s aspiration. The net zero is the science. If you want to stabilize temperatures, you’re going to have to stabilize concentrations. Stabilizing concentrations means net zero.”

Again it is the economist bemoaning something that the technologists can mitigate. But alas no technologist saying what can be done. Net zero carbon dioxide means just what? Plants consume this essential nutrient, do we kill off all plants, my backyard would be in revolt. 

Exosomes, miRNA and Cancer

A few months back we published a paper on Exosomes and Cancer. Today the NCI has published a summary of this area relating to a batch of recent papers in Cell discussing this topic.

They note:

It was once a central tenet of biology that RNA molecules did their work inside the cell. But it’s now clear that RNA molecules are also active outside the cell, with potentially major implications for our health. To learn more about these unrecognized roles, the NIH Common Fund has launched the Extracellular RNA (exRNA) Communication Program. This month, members of this research consortium described their latest progress in unraveling the secrets of exRNA in a group of 18 papers in the Cell family of journals. And it’s not just RNA that the consortium is studying, it’s also proteins. Among the many exciting results just published is the serendipitous discovery that proteins carried inside tiny, bubble-like vesicles, called exosomes, may influence a cancer’s response to immunotherapy. The work sheds light on why certain cancers are resistant to immunotherapy and points to new strategies for unleashing the immune system in the fight against cancer. The new findings center on a type of immunotherapy drugs known as checkpoint inhibitors. They are monoclonal antibodies produced by industry that can boost the immune system’s ability to attack and treat cancer. 

We have speculated that these transmitters of miRNA may be much more portent than currently viewed and that by attacking the unique exosomes we can attack metastasis.

Academics, Charts, Presentations

Decades ago we used transparencies and overhead projectors to make a presentation. No PowerPoint. If we presented a curve, it had to have axes labelled and with units.

I have noticed with all the presentation materials that somehow we just get the curve, at least we have axes. Some academic throws up a chart, curve, data set, and then walks around mumbling.

I sat through six of these today and despite the fact that I know whet they are talking about I wonder if they do. Neural networks everywhere whether you need them or not.

More Taxes

I guess economists really have no idea as to technology. They just have a hammer and everything is a nail. The hammer is taxes.

One of the left wing economists is talking about that deal being pushed about. He says:

Bottom line: Forget all the MMT hocus-pocus. Any major new spending program will be paid for with conventional taxes, preferably right now. And the opportunity cost will be lower private spending. That’s not to say that all proposals for new government spending are unjustified. But in the case of global warming we don’t need more spending; we need more carbon taxes. K.I.S.S.

Yep, that's it folks. Just tax, tax, tax, and it will solve everything.

We can tax people with cancer, it will cure it, we can tax the poor, it will make them rich, we can tax, well you get the point.

If it is a technology problem, that carbon stuff, the solution is a technical solution. We have dozens. Taxing will not solve the problem. Implementing the technology, improving it, enhancing it, enabling it, will solve the problem. Hammer, hammer, hammer. Try a test tube.

College Admissions

The Hill reports:

... article ...in "Forbes" cites data that should alarm us, “A 5-plus year nationwide study of the history of college grading finds that, in the early l960s, an A grade was awarded in colleges nationwide 15 percent of the time. But today, an A is the most common grade; the percentage of A grades has tripled, to 45 percent nationwide. Seventy-five percent of all grades awarded now are either A’s or B’s. The National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2013 that 66 percent of employers screen candidates by grade point average.’” The Forbes article continues: “The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation also has studied college grading. The foundation confirms the alarming findings cited above. It found that in l969, only 7 percent of students at two- and four-year colleges reported that their grade point average was A or higher. Yet in 2009, 41 percent of students reported as same. During the same period, the percentage of C grades given dropped from 25 to five percent.”

Yet one should look a bit closer.

1. The benchmark was 1969, when things had already started a steep slid with grade inflation

2. Also the students in 1969, better yet in 1959, were dramatically fewer than those now. Why? Because college admissions standards were higher and focused solely on performance, academic performance. I never recall any essays. All they were interested in were grades and SATs. No extra curricular, no sports, no social justice movements etc.

3. Also the Draft help males focus. Fail and off you went, by 1964 it was to South East Asia.

4. Today, I doubt I could get into college. I worked through High School, shoveling stuff for the NY Sanitation Dept, not a lot of social justice there, but it did teach how to mingle with some of the folks.

5. Today's admissions are also done by a "team" who seem to have no connection with the university. Back in the 60s faculty got a batch of applications and rated them. Today the team seems to be folks who have the right political bent yet have no academic involvement. For example the MIT Admissions Officers would most likely reject Feynman and Newton and Einstein. Really, just look how they identify themselves; favorite songs, musical artists etc. Who are these people? They are defining the future of MIT, really!

So if you think grade inflation is bad, look closer at admissions and what is considered important. BTW China is NOT like this. Perhaps DC could look at this as well.

Savings Bonds Anyone?

One of the Presidential Candidates is promoting a Government run and funded (?) savings bond program for each child. The NY Times notes:

....was introducing the audience to what is becoming a central component of his emerging platform, an economic proposal known as baby bonds that would create a government-run savings account for every child born in the United States. The program is designed to aggressively address the nation’s growing wealth gap, and the government’s contributions would grow based on a family’s economic standing.

 Now as one of the "Quiet Generation" those of us born too young to be in WW II and yt born before its end, we had US Savings Bonds. In fact if you worked for some big corporation you had to buy them every year along with United Way contributions. Now sometime in the 70s I discovered this pile and thought I was rich! They were all $25 bonds, some almost 30 years old. But wait. They paid about 1.75% annual interest for first 20 years and then zero interest. Inflation was averaging 8-10% per year. So I was losing 6-7% per year on those dumb things.

Folks, Government anything is a total disaster. You are better off investing in Peruvian Turkey farms, high altitude turkeys are alleged to be healthful. Unless of course if you are a Vegan.

Income inequality will will always have with us. Getting a good education in a field with real jobs and working your but off and not trusting any company to take care of you is the best advice one can get. Government savings bonds are not. Oh yes, I forgot, I had to pay taxes on my 1.75% interest, not even compounded! Good Luck Senator!

Socialism: Over a Century

I just read an excellent little piece on Cafe Hayek. The issue discussed was inequality and income redistribution. The point was well made. Now a century ago, when my grandmother was a Socialist the issues were a bit more germane. It was related to problems such as clean drinking water, functioning sewers, and preventing mass TB epidemics. That was the socialist agenda. Now it would seem main stream. Back then the socialists wanted the Government to control the drinking water rather than independent companies who had no reason to keep it clean. TB was rampant, and there was a need for public education and health care to isolate the infected people and hopefully allow them a better existence.

Now the issue is inequality. Yes, the poor we shall always have with us, and yes as individuals we have a moral duty. The question is; do we have the Government execute that duty? Is it moral? Despite what certain religious state, Christianity was a religion where individual duties were imposed. One sought individual salvation, not group salvation. It was dramatically different than other religions at the time. Give to Caesar and then give to God meant just that. They were two different groups.

It is worth reacquainting oneself with Francis of Assisi. The Friars were individuals who individually took vows and individually sought salvation. It was their acts not the acts of the King or Pope. In fact it was Ockham and his understanding of individualism which made for the changes which eventually led to the understanding of Natural Rights, rights as applied to the individual. One should remember that justice is the Government taking control of our rights and hopefully supporting them. Thus the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Justice.