French Farmers, Truckers and Covid Freedom Rallies Astroturfing vs. Science, Environment and EU European Union?

Farmers protesting in France and probably elsewhere are more about astroturfing by Big Ag to oppose the EU European’s Union Green Agenda, threats to CAP Common Agricultural Policy, pesticides and fossil fuels; does not seem to be a genuine issue of small farmers especially with indirect support of Le Pen?

Further, not only have similar protests occurred on the border of Poland and Ukraine, and other points, with allegations of Russian influence, there seems to be resonance with the US fossil fuel Koch Network ‘freedom rallies’ globally against Covid science, vaccinations and health mandates vs. centrist governments.

In Australia the tactics were transparent, promoting a German anti-Covid ‘freedom rally’ website via a climate science denier Jo Nova on an Atlas or Koch Network think tank blog (AIP Australian Institute of Progress) and in at least one rally a senior Murdoch News Corp ‘journalist’ Peta Credlin (former PM’s Chief of Staff of now Fox Board’s Tony Abbott) participated with ‘cosplay’ workers attacking media and the centrist Victorian government in Melbourne.

From Truth Dig:

‘Those EU Farmer Protests Aren’t What They Seem

The “angry farmer” narrative is hiding an agribusiness alliance meant to sabotage Europe’s bold green agenda.

During the last weekend in February, French President Emmanuel Macron appeared at the annual national agricultural fair in Paris. It was his first direct encounter with French farmers since they began blocking roads and driving tractors into city centers in January, and it did not go well. When he tried to speak, he was drowned out by a chorus of boos and whistles that delayed the event’s opening by several hours. Two days after the fair, on Feb. 26, a meeting of European agriculture ministers in Brussels was met by nearly 1,000 tractors in the streets, with farmers lighting tire-and-straw bonfires and shooting fireworks at the police, three of whom were injured. The police responded with tear gas.

Since the beginning of the European farmer protests in January, most media coverage has stuck to a simple story summed up as “the Anger of the Farmers.” In reality, however, much of the anger has been manufactured by industrial agriculture concerns who feel threatened by the European Union’s Green agenda. In France, as in Italy, Germany and elsewhere, the tractor convoys are organized by rich unions with close links to Big Ag, including major landowners, pesticide makers and the finance structures that serve them. The small and independent farmers who are most threatened by EU policy changes seem less “angry” than depressed about being treated as economically irrelevant and politically powerless. 

Since most French people live in cities and only see farmers on television, they have accepted this picture of the generically angry and broadly sympathetic family farmer. Two hundred years ago, France was mainly an agricultural country, and farming is still seen as essential French heritage. The agricultural areas are called “Deep France” (la France profonde) and decades of agricultural policy have firmly established the idea that the farmers need assistance and protection to survive the threats created by modernization and urbanization. Though farming only represents 2% of France’s GDP, its farmers have retained a sterling image…. 

……This wave of faux-populist protest has caught everyone by surprise, but so far it is Marine Le Pen, leader of the Trumpish nationalist movement, the National Rally, who has managed to turn things in her direction. Visiting the national agricultural fair on Feb. 28, she was all smiles and warmly welcomed by the farmers. 

Here in East-Central France, a region called Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, the first signs of trouble appeared on actual signs: The road signs at the entrances to towns and villages were being mysteriously turned upside down. Orchestrated by the agricultural trade unions, the clever PR move started in the Tarn area and quickly spread across rural France. The message was clear: French agricultural policy is turning the world upside down.

Understanding why they might think this requires a detour through the history of European Union farming subsidies. Along with national subsidies, most aid to French farmers runs through the European Union, whose Common Agricultural Policy has, from its beginning in 1962, been engineered to favor the French. In the 1980s, the CAP represented two-thirds of the EU budget, and while it has been declining, it remains a major financial instrument….. 

…..The result is that 80% of subsidies now go mostly to a small number of large, industrialized operations. The first major study on land ownership conducted in 30 years recently found that most French farmland — 16 million hectares — is rented from mostly anonymous investors, including supermarket chains and pension funds. Independent, family-based peasant farmers become tenants if they don’t give up completely, and the CAP becomes yet another mechanism to make rich people even richer. Without family capital, the traditional father-to-son pattern is broken. All that’s left is corporate power. And that power is not at all happy about EU plans to disrupt the status quo. 

Despite the name, the Green Deal is not primarily concerned with agriculture. Its aim is to turn Europe into a zero-emission continent based on renewable energy — the so-called Green Transition to carbon-neutral growth. Electric vehicles, electric ships and reduced use of aviation fuel are important elements, but national and international infrastructure projects are the big money-spinners, plus schemes to compensate heavy industry for the expense of adopting green policies. 

All farmers, large or small, hate the growing EU bureaucracy associated with the new green policies. But the real issue is not paperwork. It’s the EU’s bold plans to save the planet. Indeed, the ambitions are revolutionary. “We have proposed stronger rules on industrial emissions, ambient air, surface and groundwater pollutants, treatment of urban wastewater and soil. They will ensure a significant pollution reduction by 2030 as a step towards the long-term objective of zero pollution in 2050,” said Maroš Šefčovič, executive vice president for the European Green Deal. “The plan will strengthen the EU green leadership, whilst creating a healthier, socially fairer Europe.” 

The EU reforms seemed to be moving smoothly forward until the protests. On Feb. 1, the day European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced new restrictions on pesticides and other climate-related targets, more than a thousand tractors blocked the streets of Brussels. After the protests swept through Europe, the EU backed down. Before the end of the week, von der Leyen had declared that the Union was dropping the goal of halving pesticide use by 2030. 

It is often said that the EU has no reverse gear, and von der Leyen’s announcement was the first time that an organized agricultural lobby has attempted — and succeeded — to force Brussels to perform such a humiliating U-turn. 

The loss to the environment was significant. The next phase of the Green Deal and Farm to Fork was supposed to include a number of other impressive targets for 2030, including a 50% reduction of “nutrient losses” (meaning slurry pollution of groundwater); a reduction of chemical fertilizers by at least 20%; a 50% reduction in antibiotics for farmed animals and fish; and an increase of organic farming to 25% of agricultural land.

But the defeat on the pesticides target was a major blow to the entire project. The European branch of the Pesticide Action Network called the decision a victory for “for an appalling opposition led by the agro-chemical industry, against a more healthy, future-proof agriculture for the EU.”

My corner of la France profonde is full of farms, so when the protests started, I thought it would be easy to find some of the farmer anger that everyone was talking about. However, what I mostly discovered talking to local farmers was indifference. “Oh no, I’m too old for that.” “Who cares?” “I don’t have time.” I approached the mayor of the next village, Serge Boitard, to see if he could suggest someone involved in the resistance. He tried to put it diplomatically. “They all have work to do. They can’t just stop everything to go and build barricades.” When I pointed out that there were about 100 trucks backed up by a blockade of tractors just 10 miles down the road, Boitard shrugged. “We don’t know who they are,” he said. 

Many of the machines blocking local traffic were hugely expensive new models from John Deere, Fendt, Claas and other international manufacturers. These are a far cry from the 40- or 50-year-old tractors driven by most small farmers in my area. The ones leading the current protests are mostly luxury-class, with comfortable, air-conditioned cabs and state-of-the-art computerized engines. The biggest and most powerful models — such as the Fendt 933 that led a protest convoy in Italy — cost more than a new Lamborghini, often reaching upwards of a quarter-million dollars. The next generation of fully autonomous AI robot tractors cost twice as much….

……“The FNSEA are interested in protecting an agricultural system that is set up and maintained by [themselves] and the agro-industrial lobby,” said Maurice from the Peasant Confederation. “This system creates privileged people, as we clearly saw during the demonstrations: Grain growers. Pig farmers. Anything on an industrial, international scale.”

But there are signs of greener and more authentic grassroots resistance in the Europe-wide protests. According to France’s leading progressive newspaper, Libération, the FNSEA union is struggling to maintain control and undisputed leadership of the nation’s farmers, some of whom support the thrust of EU policy. Macron and his ministers are talking to the Peasant Confederation and other smaller regional organizations who want to challenge the FNSEA stranglehold. 

The FNSEA naturally sees things differently. In their telling, they are the true voice of French agriculture. The regional head for this département, Jacques de Loisy, 51, explained by telephone that the influence of the “ecologist ideology and its lobby” is to “lower production and revenues with no sufficient scientific basis. There has never been any health scandal or crisis associated with cereal farming in France, but now we are their number one target.” 

He singles out the Farm to Fork project in Brussels, but his real anger is directed at the French government and its policies. 

“There are thousands of regulatory texts now, and it’s not just the paperwork. It’s the content and the implementation,” de Loisy told me. “In Belgium, cleaning out ditches is compulsory. If we want to do it, we have to apply for a certificate, and the bureaucratic process takes several months. We’re not allowed to keep forest roads clear for our tractors. It’s all just designed to punish us. One thing that makes my members really angry is the OFB [French Biodiversity Office]. They send inspectors round and they carry guns. We’re not bandits!”

Ecologists see the OFB as an emergency police force, necessary to protect what’s left of Europe’s biodiversity. The new breed of small farmers, educated and idealistic younger people, agree. But the older generation, still real peasants, don’t engage in any of this. Our next-door neighbor, Marie-Françoise, at 75 years old, keeps chickens and rabbits and milks her cow by hand every day to make cream cheese for the village. Her life is not so different from that of her ancestors 500 years ago. When she dies, her little farm will probably be absorbed into the same global food industry that is paying for the fancy tractors blocking traffic and burning tires on the nearest highway.’

For related blogs and articles on Climate Change, Consumer Behaviour, Economics, Environment, EU European Union, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Koch Network, Media, Political Strategy & Populist Politics click through:

Covid-19 Climate Science Vaccination Misinformation PR and Astro Turfing

Posted on May 6, 2020

In recent months there has been an increase in confusion, misrepresentation and misunderstanding in news and social media round Covid-19 using same techniques as in tobacco, climate science denialism and anti-vaccination movements that seem to benefit US radical right libertarians’ preferred ideology and politics.

Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories and Radical Right Libertarians

Posted on August 13, 2020

Covid-19 restrictions have seen a rise in those viewing any measures e.g. wearing face masks, lock downs etc. as unnecessary, not supported by science and constraining their democratic rights.  However, while many of those who support this view have no expertise in medical science nor data, they seem to be inadvertently masking a deep seated radical right libertarian movement, masquerading as ‘common sense’ or scepticism that favours the economy over humanity.  

Whether they are anti-maskers, sovereign citizens, conspiracy theorists, climate science denialists, QAnon or white nationalist alt right, the common underlying denominator and outcome is both promotion of libertarian views or actions, disrupting the status quo (sensible centre consensus giving way to radical right ideas), denigration of both science and education, and dismissal of duty of care, especially of vulnerable people

Covid Misinformation – Gut Instinct & Beliefs vs. Science & Critical Thinking

Posted on October 6, 2021

Underlying narrative round Covid is something deeper, simpler and somewhat disturbing, the promotion and preservation of personal beliefs and ‘freedom’ over rational analysis, science and societal well-being i.e. business and political elites disregarding the social contract; pre-enlightenment values?

Why are Vaccinated GOP Republicans and Fox Media Killing their Constituents through Covid Denial?

Posted on December 28, 2021

Like the UK and Australia, Fox or NewsCorp is influential amongst media and politics of the right in promoting forms of eugenics and aggressive radical right libertarian socioeconomics, as conservative voter friendly issues.  

Themselves, with neither an ethical nor moral compass to guide them?  

Why is the self appointed Anglosphere of the US, UK and Australia so frivolous with life when many of the same conservatives claim, often hypocritically, that they are conservative Christian guardians of life, by controlling women’s bodies; now with Covid there should be no constraints.

Expert Analysis of Australia’s Populist Immigration and Population Growth Obsessions

Interesting article ‘Australia’s facile immigration policy debate’ by former former Immigration Department senior official Abul Rizvi in John Menadue’s Pearls and Swine, parsing through and commenting on Australia’s immigration policies, media and societal narratives that are not well supported by the literature nor demographic research. 

These positions are distilled into either for cliched ‘Big Australia’ on the side of the corporate sector or anti-immigrant through proxy issues such as ZPG like ‘population growth’ leading to environmental degradation.  However,  these are both corporate positions or tactics supported by the same and neither explain why Australia has modest permanent immigration and the more significant temporary churn over via the NOM Net Overseas Migration.

Meanwhile mainstream media and niche outlets obsess about (undefined) post 1970s ‘immigration’ always presenting as negative with few if any positives; although Australia promotes itself as an ‘immigration’ nation and the ‘world’s most successful multicultural society’.

The proponents, several cited in the article, are Dr. Bob Birrell, Dr. Katherine Betts, Dick Smith, Bob Carr, Lindsay Thomson, SPA Sustainable Population Australia, Pauline Hanon’s One Nation, Judith Sloan of The Australian and others in the NewsCorp group, Ross Gittins of Fairfax, Crispin Hull of the Canberra Times, Birrell’s protege Leith van Onselen, and Cameron Murray who both contribute to the MacroBusiness blog.

However, none of their product designed for media to divide the electorate is even original, but channeling fossil fuel and auto supported ZPG Zero Population Growth from the late ‘70s including deceased white nationalist John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton and butterfly expert Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich.  Both of the latter have liaised with SPA and also related to Population Matters UK, Migration Watch UK, then Trump White House immigration restriction proponents FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA (the latter UK and US groups were/are influenced by a small coterie of US ‘experts’ including Tanton and Ehrlich, promoted by Bannon et al.).

Not only do such supporters, media promoters and lobbyists help divide ageing Anglo/Irish or European electorates on immigration, refugees, ‘population growth’ etc. through frequent dog whistling, this nativist conservative libertarian strategy of dividing the electorate also helps delay robust environmental regulation, restriction of carbon emissions and moves to renewable energy sources (or try avoid altogether e.g. Brexit).

The classic but untrue one liner or now cliched trope is that ‘immigrants cause traffic congestion’ according to Nigel Farage, SPA, NSW Liberal Premier and PM Morrison. Further, the worst of this strategy is how it has infected and encouraged the alt or far right and conspiracy theorists, including some media, promoting the ‘great replacement theory’ in the Anglosphere of the US, UK and Australia to view modern day immigrants with antipathy. 

Following is a summary of a good overview by Rizvi although one would suggest the NOM net overseas migration needs to be explained better e.g. expansion of definition in 2006 to 12/16+ months then spiking population; also should be described as ‘net border movements’, versus the misleading ‘immigration’ since most are only temporary churn over and are ‘net financial contributors’ to budgets without direct and/or automatic access to services.

From John Menadue’s Pearls & Irritations:

Australia’s facile immigration policy debate

By Abul Rizvi Jun 14, 2021

Australia’s immigration policy debates over the past 30 years have largely consisted of the usual suspects trotting out the usual lines.

They generally divide into two camps – the high migration crew, hungry for the Government to go hell for leather on growing the intake, lining up against the ‘keep immigration to the minimum possible’ crew because they are worried about the environmental impact, foreigners taking jobs and a bit of xenophobia thrown in.

With international movements largely shut due to the pandemic, advocates are lining up to tell the Morrison Government how Australia should approach immigration post-COVID-19…….

The Anti-Immigration Advocates

The ‘keep immigration to a minimum’ crew, which is angry about Morrison’s quiet u-turn, has in Australia traditionally been led by former Monash University academic Bob Birrell as well as media commentators including Judith Sloan who writes in The Australian and Crispin Hull writing in The Canberra Times. The Sydney Morning Herald’s Ross Gittin’s has expressed concern that immigration is changing the Aussie way of life. A small website called Macrobusiness has emerged catering for the anti-immigration crew but with none of the deep knowledge of immigration that Bob Birrell developed over 50 years.

There is also the perennial Pauline Hanson One Nation party which argues for the permanent migration program to be cut to 70,000 per annum, but without specifying where the cuts should fall, and a Trump style ban on entry from certain muslim countries to reduce the risk of terrorism. Hanson expresses no concerns about the rapid emergence in Australia of right wing white supremacists, possibly because many of those would be in her own party.

Crispin Hull argues that ‘journalists must stop the innate bias …that immigration and lower population growth or falling population are “Bad Things”. They should be reported as “Good Things”. Hull would thus be very happy that while the 20th Century was one of population boom, the 21st Century will for most developed nations, plus China, Russia and most of Eastern Europe, be one of population bust. Of course part of that bust will be severe population ageing.

Contrary to the extensive research over the past few decades, Hull argues that population ageing is actually good for the economy because lots of older people will in future be working in their 80s. While there may be a small increase of people aged 70 and 80 that remain in the workforce, the number of retirees in Australia, after being relatively flat for many years until 2008-09 when Australia’s working age to population ratio peaked, surged by over a million in the past ten years to almost 4 million. It is likely to exceed 5 million by the end of this decade within an overall population of between 27 and 29 million.

Arguing that population ageing will be a positive for the economy is a bit like arguing the earth is flat, or denying man-made climate change, or for economists, trying to refute Franco Modigliani’s life cycle hypothesis. The reality is that on average, retirees earn little income, reduce their expenditures compared to when they were younger, pay very little tax but make extensive use of health, pension and aged care services.

Future commitments – We have to plan for that rather than pretend it won’t happen.

Hull says we should be more worried about the costs of bringing up children and a younger age profile in the population. But he forgets that the baby boom of the 1950s, plus post-war migration, turbo-charged economic growth that enabled us to pay off the massive government debts incurred during World War 11. Babies go onto become working adults who do earn income, spend money, pay taxes and take up few government benefits.

When those boomer babies hit the labour market, aggregate demand took off and for the next 40-50 years, governments implemented a multitude of policies such as ‘fight inflation first’ and ‘keep a lid on wages growth’ and ‘incentivise high income earners to work harder by cutting their taxes as well as the taxes of corporations’. These policies were driven by strong aggregate demand associated with the fastest growth in the labour market in our history. 

Dependency ratio sweet spots – That will never happen again.

Like many anti-immigration advocates, both Hull and Gittins gush about the March 2021 quarter GDP figures being associated with the lack of immigration but ignore the fact the March quarter followed two quarters of extensive lockdowns, unprecedented levels of fiscal stimulus and government debt, emergency level interest rates, massive increase in household debt, a record iron ore price and large numbers of Australians withdrawing billions of dollars from their limited superannuation savings to spend on surviving. Surely Hull and Gittins do not imagine that will be repeated forever while our population ages?

Another in the anti-immigration camp, Judith Sloan, has previously expressed surprise that net migration has for over 20 years been higher than the level of natural increase . This is similar to Pauline Hanson’s concern that net migration contributing to 60 percent of our population growth is too high.

Neither Sloan or Hanson seem to understand that keeping net migration below natural increase would mean natural increase would also fall more rapidly than it already is and would within 15-20 years be negative – net migration and natural increase are inextricably linked. Once natural increase is negative, would they propose net migration should then also be kept at negative levels? Negative net migration and negative natural increase would result not only in accelerated ageing but also accelerated population decline.

Anti-immigration advocates often dismiss the painful structural adjustment that will be needed as we age and inevitably move into population decline. Forcing that to occur at a faster rate would just makes the pain even greater.

Neither Sloan nor Hull discuss the point at which population ageing and decline becomes unmanageable. Countries such as Japan, China and many parts of Europe will face that very challenge over the next few decades. Japan has been facing that challenge for the longest and is now desperately trying to work out how to further boost immigration to limit the rate of population decline.

Just ask the Japanese Ministry for Finance how happy they are about Japan’s population declining at over 500,000 per annum together with the prospect that this decline is forecast to accelerate.

The Immigration Hell for Leather Advocates

On the other hand, we have the ‘let’s go hell for leather on immigration’ advocates. Together with pressure from Treasurer Frydenberg to show his policies will deliver rapid economic growth, these advocates have convinced Treasury to forecast in the 2021 Budget, the steepest increase in net migration in Australia’s history. 

From two years of negative migration in 2020-21 and 2021-22, the Treasury is forecasting a steep rise to 235,000 per annum from 2024-25 onwards. If adopted by the Treasurer in his forthcoming Inter-Generational Report (IGR), net migration at a long-term average of 235,000 per annum would be significantly higher than in any previous IGR. Even bigger than in Wayne Swan’s IGR following Kevin Rudd’s talk of a ‘big Australia’.

Yet the Government has given no indication of the composition of this forecast or of the policy changes that would be needed to deliver it other than a Treasury assumption that the formal migration program (which counts visas issued rather than the contribution of migration to population increase as net migration does) would be increased to 190,000 per annum from 2023-24. Treasury must think that by then the Prime Minister will have finished ‘busting congestion’ which was the original but fake rationale for reducing the program to 160,000.

All other things equal, net migration averaging 235,000 per annum would certainly boost economic growth and slow the rate of ageing (there would be more workers per retiree). It would push out the day natural increase in Australia becomes natural decrease well into the second half of this century, depending on what happens to the fertility rate.

Declining dependency ratios – But it raises a range of issues.

Firstly, unless there is a very strong labour market and significant changes to current immigration policy settings, it is unlikely net migration averaging 235,000 per annum could actually be delivered. On current policy settings, I estimate long-term net migration at around 175,000 per annum. But that would not be enough to get to the level of real economic growth that Treasurer Frydenberg would be demanding Treasury forecast for the forthcoming IGR. Frydenberg will not accept long-term real economic growth of less than 2.5 percent per annum.

Secondly, making policy changes to deliver net migration averaging 235,000 per annum would be fraught with policy risks.

For example, over 40 percent of net migration would have to be delivered with overseas students. But our main source of overseas students, China, is unlikely to again reach the heights of 2017-18 and indeed may continue to trend down given our fractious relationship with the Chinese Government. In addition, the Government significantly tightened visa policy in September 2019 for students from India and Nepal (our second and third largest sources for students) due to concerns about visa compliance. That resulted in a very sharp decline in offshore student visas to nationals from those two countries.

Moreover, Immigration Minister Hawke has now allowed students to work full time in industries such as tourism and hospitality, agriculture and aged care. That will mean an increasing portion of the student intake will be focused on full time work rather than study. That has serious long-term consequences.

Another risk with running a large migration program when the labour market is weak is that a substantial number of migrants will not have either an employer sponsorship or an existing job in Australia. With a four year wait for social security, the risk of many migrants becoming destitute or being at even greater danger of exploitation rises. Large numbers would be forced to leave thus making the 235,000 net migration forecast even more uncertain.

Finally, there is little evidence Treasury has sought to communicate its forecast for net migration to the various Commonwealth/state/local government agencies that would need to adjust their planned service delivery for such a high level of net migration. In fact the head of the Department of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo, told Senate Estimates that he was not even aware of the Treasury forecasts.

If the head of the agency responsible for delivering the migration forecasts is not aware of them, what hope can there be for other agencies and industries that will be impacted?

For more blogs and article about Australian immigration news, Australian politics, Demography, Environment, Fossil fuel pollution, Immigration, NOM net overseas migration, Political strategy, Population growth and White nationalism   click through.

Adam Smith – Classical Liberal Economics or Conservative Calvinist Christianity or White Christian Nationalism?

We observe many governments, especially Anglosphere and conservative, following the ideology of Adam Smith, promoted through Koch linked think tanks, assiduously. The outcomes include less Keynesian influence on government policy and more Smith, or Hayek, Friedman and Buchanan.

The latter cite ‘freedom and liberty’ for society, and economic policies based round ‘public choice theory’, monetarism and small government. Related there is also much emphasis or attention paid to elections, taxes, government budgets and many sociocultural issues including impairment of workers and unions rights, interfering on university campuses, demanding immigration restrictions, ‘freedom of speech’ and using Christianity as a divisive issue to create an ageing conservative voter coalition, especially in the USA.

What is Smith about and are his theories or principles valid today?

Following are a few summaries from selected sources to compare common points which include deep seated Christianity e.g. ‘balance’ or the ‘invisible hand’ based on belief or the ‘laws of nature’, ‘natural liberty’, self interest, small state and government, low taxes and class system, but seems less fit for the present and future. Coincidentally with Covid conservative governments have returned to Keynesian spending to support economies as Smith’s ‘classical liberalism’ is not fit for purpose in a modern democracy.

From Investopedia – Sharma

Smith’s Wealth of Nations of 1776 promoted the idea of ‘balance’ in the economy e.g. ‘steady-state theory’, due to self interest or the ‘invisible hand’ of the markets except for when the state is essential on borders, law and public works.

He goes further to then link the ‘invisible hand’ with free markets and free will of people for prosperity, which also justifies no state regulatory constraints, except for some govt. intervention on shortages or surpluses.

Smith’s ‘elements of prosperity’ has at its centre self interest, small government and currency with a free market, but lacks evidence, while it seems to justify the existence of elites whether landed, industrial, Christian or otherwise, especially wealthy.

From The Secret, Natural Theological Foundation of Adam Smith’s Work – Journal of Markets & Morality – Alvey

Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ is based on the unsupported principle or phenomenon of balance seemingly from God. His use of teleological views came from apportioning, through guess work, that outcomes were divine inspiration, ‘laws of nature’ or attributable to God. Smith also cited three essential elements of ‘order’ i.e. class system, external and internal security; backgrounded by human instinct which can be helpful, or not.

Smith’s understanding of nature, moral philosophy and political economy were couched in theological framework, covertly, while not being totally positive about humanity and its future. 

From 240 years of The Wealth of Nations – 240 anos de A Riqueza das Nações – Maria Pia Paganelli

Wealth of Nation is dated and has been superseded by significant events of change whether economic, political or social.

A 18th C economy does not compare with a 21st C economy, nor do we have aristocracy but democracy with state health and social security systems vs. basic subsistence charity for the poor, forced into labour.

Smith had been accused of not being libertarian nor pro-capitalism enough by modern day economic ideologues.

WofN has been compared with the Bible where it can be used for relevant inspiration but not literal truth. Along with James Buchanan, Smith seemed to believe in ‘natural liberty’ and its ‘efficiency’ along with economic theory; focus on efficiency but is it effective?

WofN had no new ideas, unsupported theories and hypotheses masquerading as grounded science; many others have also criticised his work as mixed up, misguided, confused, crude and biased.

On the hand many protagonists of Smith or libertarian economics complain that he gives encouragement to anti-capitalists, while Buchanan claims he was sensibly not an anarchist like the latter.

From Does classical liberalism imply democracy? David Ellerman*

Democratic and non-democratic forms are promoted in the US, with James Buchanan as a ‘representative of the democratic strain of classical liberalism’

According to Buchanan, social or societal structures are important for people to choose their participation to representatives of their authority and that government is based upon agreement or consent.

References:

Alvey J. 2004 ‘The Secret, Natural Theological Foundation of Adam Smith’s Work’, Journal of Markets & Morality, Volume 7, Number 2 (Fall 2004): 335–361

Blenman J. 2020 ‘Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations’ Investopedia, Retrieved https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/ (6 March 2021).

Ellerman D. 2015 ‘Does classical liberalism imply democracy?’, Ethics & Global Politics, 8:1, 29310, DOI: 10.3402/egp.v8.29310

Paganelli M. 2017 ‘240 years of The Wealth of Nations – 240 anos de A Riqueza das Nações’ Nova Economia https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/3743

This blog will continue in future with related updates and additions. For more related blogs and articles on Conservative, Economics, Global Trade, Government Budgets, Libertarian Economics, Political Strategy and Populist Politics click through.

Research of Social Media – Fake News – Conspiracy Theories – Junk Science

Political or campaign media strategies including tactics such as fake news, astroturfing etc. have been used often, especially via social media, to influence users through others sharing, without checking information.

This has been observed and used by the fossil fuel lobby to denigrate climate science, anti vaxxers on vaccinations, then of late round Covid19, restrictions including the wearing of masks and promoting QAnon conspiracy.

However, research has shown that such conspiracies and misinformation can be significantly reduced by simple warnings or interventions that slow or stop sharing (based on when only headlines are read) of misinformation.

Following is an article that presents the issues and research conducted into social media user behaviour on Facebook and Twitter via Nature.

From DeSmog:

‘Nudging Social Media Users to Think Critically Helps Slow the Spread of Fake News, Study 

By Nick Cunningham Friday, March 19, 2021 – 12:00

Many people who share fake news online do so because they aren’t paying close attention to what they’re sharing, according to a new study. The research found that simply prompting people to think about the accuracy of their news content helps curtail the spread of falsehoods. ..

….While the spread of inaccurate or false information and conspiracy theories is nothing new — the climate denying disinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry dates back decades — the study’s findings undercut the notion that there is a widespread desire among the public to actively spread disinformation. Rather, it adds further evidence showing how social media allows for fake news to spread rapidly — and how to slow it down.

Online disinformation seemed to hit a fever pitch in the past year, with the spread of the violent QAnon conspiracy, Covid denial, 2020 election conspiracies, and pro-insurrection voices all intermingling and cross-pollinating.

But instead of the malign actors involved in creating disinformation — such as the Koch-backed network of think tanks, charities and politicians seeking to undermine climate science, or, more recently, coordinated social media campaigns and troll farms, sometimes backed by government intelligence agencies, aimed at undermining elections around the world — the new Nature study looks at the much larger set of everyday social media users who share this type of misinformation online, often unwittingly, or at least not with malicious intent. The results offer some reasons for hope, as well as some tools to fight disinformation.

The study surveyed thousands of U.S. Twitter and Facebook users….

……Instead, what the researchers found was that many people spread fake news without thinking too much about whether the information is accurate or not. It’s a problem of inattention, made worse by social media which pushes people to sift through news rapidly and superficially….

…..The good news was that even small interventions — the prompt asking whether or not headlines were accurate — redirected people away from a tendency to share false information. This suggests that social media platforms could, perhaps, periodically survey people on the accuracy of selected headlines in an effort to subtlety remind users about accurate information, the authors say.

Twitter has recently been taking steps to slow the spread of misinformation. Last year, the social media platform introduced a new feature that reminds people to read an article before retweeting it, which it says has promising results. The platform also began tagging misleading tweets with disclaimers…..

…In a recent analysis, DeSmog found that dozens of prominent climate deniers supported the January 6 insurrection in Washington D.C. They spread debunked claims about election fraud and in some cases supported political violence. This is the type of campaign that was then likely shared by many more people who, as the Nature study illustrates, may have shared the content without taking time to think about its accuracy.’

For more blogs and articles about climate change, critical thinking, digital literacy, media, populist politics and science literacy.

Covid-19 Coronovirus Data and Statistical Literacy

During the Covid-19 or Coronavirus pandemic our media, including social media, has presented many sub-optimal or plainly wrong statistical conclusions due to a lack of data or statistical literacy, and to justify libertarians’ and sovereign citizens’ beliefs placing the politics of economy and individuals’ freedom above the health of community and society.

From Wikipedia on statistical literacy:

‘Statistical literacy is the ability to understand and reason with statistics and data. The abilities to understand and reason with data, or arguments that use data, are necessary for citizens to understand material presented in publications such as newspapers, television, and the Internet.’

From The Conversation:

‘Now everyone’s a statistician. Here’s what armchair COVID experts are getting wrong.

If we don’t analyse statistics for a living, it’s easy to be taken in by misinformation about COVID-19 statistics on social media, especially if we don’t have the right context.

For instance, we may cherry pick statistics supporting our viewpoint and ignore statistics showing we are wrong. We also still need to correctly interpret these statistics.

It’s easy for us to share this misinformation. Many of these statistics are also interrelated, so misunderstandings can quickly multiply.

Here’s how we can avoid five common errors, and impress friends and family by getting the statistics right.

1. It’s the infection rate that’s scary, not the death rate

Social media posts comparing COVID-19 to other causes of death, such as the flu, imply COVID-19 isn’t really that deadly.

But these posts miss COVID-19’s infectiousness. For that, we need to look at the infection fatality rate (IFR) — the number of COVID-19 deaths divided by all those infected…..

2. Exponential growth and misleading graphs

A simple graph might plot the number of new COVID cases over time. But as new cases might be reported erratically, statisticians are more interested in the rate of growth of total cases over time. The steeper the upwards slope on the graph, the more we should be worried.

For COVID-19, statisticians look to track exponential growth in cases. Put simply, unrestrained COVID cases can lead to a continuously growing number of more cases. This gives us a graph that tracks slowly at the start, but then sharply curves upwards with time. This is the curve we want to flatten…..

3. Not all infections are cases

Then there’s the confusion about COVID-19 infections versus cases. In epidemiological terms, a “case” is a person who is diagnosed with COVID-19, mostly by a positive test result.

But there are many more infections than cases. Some infections don’t show symptoms, some symptoms are so minor people think it’s just a cold, testing is not always available to everyone who needs it, and testing does not pick up all infections.

4. We can’t compare deaths with cases from the same date

Estimates vary, but the time between infection and death could be as much as a month. And the variation in time to recovery is even greater. Some people get really ill and take a long time to recover, some show no symptoms.

So deaths recorded on a given date reflect deaths from cases recorded several weeks prior, when the case count may have been less than half the number of current cases.

5. Yes, the data are messy, incomplete and may change

Some social media users get angry when the statistics are adjusted, fuelling conspiracy theories.

But few realise how mammoth, chaotic and complex the task is of tracking statistics on a disease like this.

Countries and even states may count cases and deaths differently. It also takes time to gather the data, meaning retrospective adjustments are made.  We’ll only know the true figures for this pandemic in retrospect.

For more article and blogs on academic integrity, climate change,  COVID-19, critical thinking, economics, evaluation,  libertarian economics, media, populist politics, science literacy and statistical analysis click through.