The University of Haifa finds a Pariah, or, Academic Bolshevism in Red Haifa
By Steven Plaut
Haaretz reports that the University of Haifa has decided not to grant an honorary doctoral degree to Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Aumann because the University disapproves of Aumann’s political opinions. He is decidedly non-Left.
The story in Hebrew appears here:
A few months ago the same University of Haifa had no problem granting an honorary PhD degree to Shulamit Aloni, and has granted similar degrees to other far leftists.
Prof. Aumann won the Nobel Prize in 2005 for his path-breaking research in game theory and strategy.
The University of Haifa has been in the news recently for the naked politicization of some of its academic units. The university’s law school was the focus of a blistering report by the Im Tirtzu Zionist student organization exposing the fact that some of its law clinics were coercing students into providing legal aid to convicted terrorists and are also collaborating with anti-Israel radical NGOs such as Adalah. The law school had earlier prohibited the singing of the national anthem Hatikva at its graduation ceremonies. Other university universities are similarly politicized and the School of Education operates an indoctrinational “peace education” program. The University also continues to allow the anti-Semitic “ALEF LIST” chat list to operate under university auspices and to proliferate anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate propaganda (see http://isracampus.org.il/ALEF%20Watch.htm for details).
In the past the University of Haifa employed Ilan Pappe and granted him tenure. All of this has been in the name of “pluralism and diversity.”
It turns out that Prof. Aumann is not covered by the University’s devotion to pluralism and diversity.
Want to tell the University heads what you think of all this?
Write to
President of the University of Haifa
Mr. Amos Shapira
University of Haifa
Mt Carmel, 31905 Haifa Israel
Tel: 972-4-8240101
Fax: 972-4-8288110
E-mail: president@univ.haifa.ac.il
a.shapira@univ.haifa.ac.il
Rector of the University of Haifa
Prof. David Faraggi
University of Haifa
Mt Carmel, 31905 Haifa Israel
Tel: 972-4-8288094
Fax: 972-4-8342101
Email: faraggi@stat.haifa.ac.il
Chairman of the Board of Governors
Mr. Leon Charney
Law Office of Leon H. Charney
Broadway 1441
New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212-819-0994
E-mail: charney@lhcharney.com
University “Friends of” Offices Outside Israel are listed here: http://www.haifa.ac.il/html/html_eng/friends.htm
bernard ross Said:
The Real RR
The Reagan admininstration was one of the most corrupt in American history, including by one estimate 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted.
During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third. Reagan’s policies led to the greatest financial scandal in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch program. Washington Post: “Reagan, during his 1980 campaign, blamed trees for emitting 93 percent of the nation’s nitrogen oxide pollution — giving rise to jokes about ‘killer trees.‘”
“Iran Contra” Investigation: Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel who ran the inquiry, said there was “no credible evidence” that Reagan broke the law, but he set the stage for the illegal activities of others. Impeachment, Walsh said, “certainly should have been considered.”
bernard ross Said:
The Real RR!
Reaganomics
Short memories of American republicans and conservative:
bernard ross Said:
The Real RR!
Reaganomics
Short memories of American republicans and conservative:
The Reagan admininstration was one of the most corrupt in American history, including by one estimate 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted.
During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third. Reagan’s policies led to the greatest financial scandal in American history: the Savings & Loan debacle which cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch program. Washington Post: “Reagan, during his 1980 campaign, blamed trees for emitting 93 percent of the nation’s nitrogen oxide pollution — giving rise to jokes about ‘killer trees.‘”
“Iran Contra” Investigation: Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel who ran the inquiry, said there was “no credible evidence” that Reagan broke the law, but he set the stage for the illegal activities of others. Impeachment, Walsh said, “certainly should have been considered.”
“Star Wars” and RR:
Bill Press – “It was Reagan who first proposed a missile defense system — immediately dubbed “Star Wars” by skeptical reporters — in a March 23, 1983 speech from the Oval Office. However, as Frances Fitzgerald reveals in her brilliant history “Way Out There in the Blue,” Reagan didn’t get his plan from the scientists or the generals. The Pentagon wasn’t even notified of his speech ahead of time. Reagan stole Star Wars directly from — the movies.
bernard ross Said:
The real RR:
“…the moral equal of our Founding Fathers.” –President Reagan, describing the Nicaraguan contras, March 1, 1985
“Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal.” –Ronald Reagan, quoted in Time, May 17, 1976
“…a faceless mass, waiting for handouts.” –Ronald Reagan, 1965. (Description of Medicaid recipients.)
“Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.” –California Governor Ronald Reagan, in the Sacramento Bee, April 28, 1966
“We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.” –Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964
dweller Said:
What value is your opinion, you have no experience in business to assess whether the US was in recession in 1979 from personal experience and you have already questioned published statistics on unemployment rates when it did not fit your narrative. You write arrogantly but there is no basis for the value of your opinions on business. What business were you in at the time, what was the range of your business experience at the time that allows us to know whether it was only your own experience or also the experience of your contacts.
You ridicule facts, you question published data and then give your inexperienced opinions with an aura of undeserved arrogance. What is your business experience and contacts during those years, were you still in Jail, what were you doing; I have told yo what I was doing and the range of my experience and contacts which give my opinion and analyses some credibility. What’s yours?
dweller Said:
Are you saying that the demise of the USSR was the result of the Reagan debt increase? Since then US consumption engine has skyrocketed the communist,centrally planned, slave labor nation of the Peoples Republic of China.
Didn’t you go to Jail to avoid fighting the “communist menace” in Viet Nam? Of what matter to you whether the USSR morphed? What do you think of China’s morphing? According to you the US citizenry took on massive debt to bankrupt the USSR only to finance China’s ascendancy with a subsequent massive debt. the subsequent massive debt being those undisclosed costs of exporting jobs, capital and production to communist China.
By the way, have you reimbursed the US taxpayer for the costs of your incarceration? I understand that it costs about 40k a year per convict? How long were you there?
dweller Said:
Facts cannot be “horseshit, disingenuous or misleading”, it is the spin of facts that is horseshit disingenuous or misleading. You are the one who spun these facts to fit your narrative. I quote the facts which are unchangeable even though you attempt every obfuscation and red herring to deny their presence. Your analysis and interpretations of the facts your opinions and the spin of one who is clueless about business. You appear to have no direct experience in business at the time and appear to be a parrot of myths. I asked you many time, what business were you doing in the late 70’s and 80’s and you never reply. . I enumerated my experience in business at the time along with the many contacts I had. Your opinions are the spin of an ideologue and one who is clueless about business.
Here are the facts without spin:
bernard ross Said:
dweller Said:
this is rubbish the economy was booming since the mid 70’s and the fed was raising rates in an effort to cool down the economy. I was in business and it was doing great. Other than being an ideological parrot what is your business experience at the time?
You statement show how utterly clueless you are about business and the economy. Not only did he directly fire en masse the 13000 controllers but more importantly your “gipper” was the “black knight, “the raven”, “the harbinger”, “the omen” and the primary symbol of the decade of rapacious, obscene and immoral culture of greed that followed. A decade characterized by the mafia looting of banks and S&L’s caused by the reagan deregulation. A decade made famous by the dismsmberment of corps for asset value without concern for those put out of work. A decade known for bankrupting and foreclosure of millions of americans, the corrupt RTC, and re transferring of wealth back to the top 20%. A decade made famous by “Wall Street” character Gordon Gecko whose name along with Reagan symbolizes unbridled greed and its affects. Reagan presided over a massive increase of unemployment rate of 50% by the end of his first half term of 2 years. Workers were fired and brought back into lower paid service jobs with no benefits and no future security which has been the developing MO ever since. Great for the top 20% but not for the rest.
This shows your lack of understanding of business and economics. It is a scenario whereby an overall economy may improve but the majority of the population suffers. The precedent set by the nations leader of firing the workers and bringing them back at lower pay became the mantra of the 80’s and was later combined with the mantra of shutting down companies, selling off the assets, destroying the jobs of the workers. This can of course, increase profits to the wealthy once everyone is fired and brought back at lower pay.
I keep asking you what your business experience at that time was, I have told you mine. There is no reason to consider the comments, spin and opinion of someone without any direct business experience. I can get that spin from either of the national party headquarters.
dweller Said:
this is the comment of a clueless dummy with no experience.
Perhaps you were still in Jail at the time and reading financial magazines.
@ yamit82:
The “poverty line” is not a set level. It rises with Demo Party ambitions — so the assertion is next to meaningless.
RR didn’t have a line item veto, so he COULDN’T have done that if he’d wanted to.
What’s more, Congress didn’t do that either. Whenever a so-called “cut” of that sort takes place, it is NEVER a cut to existing funding — only a cut to the projected increase for the coming year.
That’s what “base-line budgeting” is about.
That’s what it took to bankrupt the Soviet Union.
— And it worked.
As I’ve already noted (a couple times on this thread alone), the recession was world-wide and had, in fact, begun some years BEFORE he took office.
They had it coming. They broke their word, violated their contract by not showing up for work.
Shouldn’t have overplayed their hand.
@ yamit82:
Confirms nothing.
@ bernard ross:
That was horseshit when you first wrote it. It remains horseshit now that you repeat it.
@ bernard ross:
I told you, there had been a worldwide recession underway since 1979. Carter had done nothing about it for USA. By contrast, Reagan did quite a lot — and in fact, aside from Japan, USA was the only country that came out of it relatively early. Everybody else was mired in it for much longer.
What drivel. Neither RR nor any other Pres. had power to ‘hire’ OR ‘fire’ anybody not on the Federal govt payroll.
The discussion was not about the GOP. It was about Reagan specifically. You had said he “destroyed the economy.” I said, by way of response, that you’re fullovit.
You are.
@ bernard ross:
Right. Better to have let the Cold War continue.
@ yamit82:
I told you:
“There is NOBODY here who takes a more prejudicial approach to sources than PresentCompany.”
I have no problem with strong opinions; never did. That’s a red herring; no connection, one way or another, to intellectual bigotry.
You can CALL anything “facts.” Doesn’t make them facts.
Superb example of your intellectual bigotry — in direct contradiction to the self-serving claims of your remark blockquoted at the beginning of this post.
dweller Said:
Partial ans. but enough to confirm my points
dweller Said:
50% increase in 2 years is massive.
dweller Said:
what did the american citizen for that: Bush wars and Jihad?
dweller Said:
It meant something to the additional 3.6% that were put out of work after Reagan came in. Those coming back later flipped burgers for lower wages. He fired them and then rehired them at lower wages with less benefits. At the end of the GOP term in 1992 the rate was 7.4%, 0.2% higher than carter. At the end of clinton 3.9%.
dweller Said:
Right, it was 7.2%.
I’ll wager you would believe the figures if they were favorable to your argument.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703338004575230041742556522
If IL can defeat this kind of JEWS, she can defeat anybody. The worst is the “ROT” from within! These are the same people who support BDS.
bernard ross Said:
the rest is “window dressing”
dweller Said:
What’s an intellectual bigot?
So I have a ‘few’ strong and sometimes definite opinions?
When have I not been able to back them up with facts? Unlike you who relies on intuitive feelings,witchcraft, superstitions and ridiculous mythologies?
@ yamit82:
Facts & numbers for Reagan’s first two years? — What of them?
— there were six more.
@ yamit82:
THAT is the mythology and propaganda.
The point that you — and they — miss is that it was precisely the Soviet weakness, not its ‘strength,’ which had kept it from falling all those years: No USA authorities were willing to give up East-West trade, which kept the USSR afloat, so they never considered that weakness and made a move on it.
Until Reagan called the game.
It could’ve been called by Carter before him, or by Ford, or by Nixon, or by Johnson — or even by Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Truman.
But none of them was up for it.
What a surprise. . . .
What in blazes would you have expected HIM (of all people) to say?
— That his brainchild, containment, was wrong???? (Du-uh!)
@ dweller:
dweller Said:
Truth in facts and numbers! 🙂
dweller Said:
Urban Republican Myth and political propaganda!!!!
SOUTH ASIA ANALYST GROUP – The Congressional Quarterly Researcher wrote on December 11,1992: “After the Soviet break-up, economists were amazed at the extent to which the CIA had overestimated the performance of the Soviet economy, leading many to speculate that the numbers were hyped to fuel the arms race.” Mr. Allan Goodman, Dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, described the CIA’s economic intelligence performance as “between abysmal and mediocre.” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said after the Soviet break-up: ” For a quarter century, they (the CIA) told the President everything there was to know about the Soviet Union, excepting the fact that it was collapsing (due to a bad economy). They missed that detail.”
Georgi Arbatov, head of the Moscow-based Institute for the Study of the U.S.A. and Canada, wrote his memoirs in 1992. A Los Angeles Times book review by Robert Scheer summed up a portion of it:
reply to Shy Guy was botted
@ Shy Guy:
When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.
For comparison, federal tax revenues for this fiscal year are estimated at 15.8 percent of GDP. Adjusting for inflation there was essentially little to no improvement.
Reagan’s efforts to cut top income tax rates at the same time he was increasing defense spending created strain, and the federal debt rose from $994 billion at the start of his first term to almost $2.9 trillion at the end. When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. During the Reagan administration the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third. Reagan made major cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, and school lunch programs. The national debt tripled under Reagan. After his first major tax cut, there was a long recession and unemployment that hit ten percent.
–
Reagan fired 13,000 air traffic controllers in a devasting blow to government union members from which the labor movement never recovered.
Above is only a partial list.
@ yamit82:
Who bankrupted the USSR, and won the Cold War?
What did it take to do that?
@ yamit82:
Hooh-hah! Good one, dude; that was good for a gale of giggles.
ROTFLMAO!
You are easily (like, hands-down!) the biggest intellectual bigot on this blogsite.
Repeat:
There is NOBODY here who takes a more prejudicial approach to sources than PresentCompany.
@ bernard ross:
I THINK I KNEW ONE OF THE WOMEN VIRGINS. Really!!! Long story, brilliant woman with the emotional level of a 5 year old.
@ bernard ross:
No. An increase of 38.5% — not “50%” — and clearly the outcome of the Carter legacy, which had consisted of doing nothing (well, nothing more than mumbling something about a “malaise”) in re the consequence to America of the worldwide recession that had been underway since ’79.
Unemployment went from 5.6% in May ’79 to 10.8% in Sept ’82.
@ bernard ross:
I did answer it. (You apparently didn’t like the answer, but it was more to the point than your blather.) And what I said was neither an ‘error’ nor a ‘lie.’ I recall the Reagan era (in America) quite well, and I do not believe the unemployment rate was only “7.9” when he entered office. I distinctly remember talk at the time about higher figures than that one.
Inauguration Day is near the end of January, and unemployment figures are reported monthly. In other words, still another month’s figures were yet to be reported when he took office.
@ Curious American
@ dweller:
@ yamit82:
‘Virgin Births’ Reveal Problems with Health Surveys
http://www.livescience.com/42040-virgin-births-modern-day.html
a possible explanation? 😛
yamit82 Said:
26:40 in length, no 28 minute mark. At the beginning they were talking about beating currencies down with the only reason being “financial terrorism. However, massive profits are another motivation, that’s what Soros does.
yamit82 Said:
So then, how could you claim above that “Legacy of RR destroyed the American economy and as a byproduct the American middle Class and democracy” and “Economic History Shows Clearly That Tax Cuts for Rich Hurt the Economy”?
Sounds like Pravda to me!
Shy Guy Said:
I noticed the source yet I would quote Pravda if they presented sound arguments and support for them even if they are weighted in favor of a biased ideologues but then all sides do the same and those supporting Regan and Republicans do the same thing with facts and numbers, Since I am only seeking truth I do not out of hand reject any or almost any source as there is always some truth to be had if one approaches them without the ideological jaundice most of us tend to do.
I made no personal comment re: the article except to put the most blame on RR for the current state of the economy. He set the process in motion that has more or less continued unabated till today.
Reagan did raise taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan campaigned in 1980 on reducing taxes. During his administration, the top income tax rate decreased from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986. But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.
When Reagan took office in 1981, federal taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP, the highest level since World War II. That figure dropped to 17.3 percent during his first term and rose to 18.2 percent at the end of his second term.
Some of the increases were modest in scope. And it’s important to note that overall U.S. taxes, when measured as a portion of the nation’s GDP, went down during Reagan’s presidency but not by a lot and the Debt Incurred as a result of reduced taxes mostly for the wealthy combined with increased spending mostly for defense put America on the debt spiral we have never recovered from. Voodoo Economics has been shown to be a failure yet G W Bush adopted essentially the same policy and the results are apparent.
yamit82 Said:
HuffPo?!?!?! You might as well quote Pravda from the Stalin era.
@ bernard ross:
@ dweller:
Legacy of RR destroyed the American economy and as a byproduct the American middle Class and democracy.
Economic History Shows Clearly That Tax Cuts for Rich Hurt the Economy
@ bernard ross:
@ dweller:
Posted this link before and again today but for some reason it’s in moderation
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/50489/comment-page-1#comment-224214
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WRsLXOTtt0#t=1449 RR given due credit at the 28 min mark
@ dweller:
@ bernard ross:
Who Increased the debt?
Note: All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office. Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president’s administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp#ugmBYUVOkj8Q5ERG.99
@ bernard ross:
See: The American Dream
Read: http://ampedstatus.org/how-your-social-security-money-was-stolen-where-did-the-2-5-trillion-surplus-go/#gre
@ dweller:
How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People
Reagan was the greatest Embezzler in the history of the world. Madoff was bubkis compared to the arch thief and villain who robbed the poor to pay the rich.
@ bernard ross:
@ dweller:
How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off one of the Greatest Frauds Ever Perpetrated against the American People
Reagan was the greatest Embezzler in the history of the world. Madoff was bubkis compared to the arch thief and villain who robbed the poor to pay the rich.
See: The American Dream
dweller Said:
You did not answer the question. The statement was false. the only remaining question was whether it was an error or a lie.
If I assume it was not a lie then:
bernard ross Said:
the rest is “window dressing”.
@ bernard ross:
I should have stated it this way:
‘He encountered an established pattern of rapidly & steadily rising unemployment, which continued unchecked & grew to double-digits until he reversed the pattern early in his first term with the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut.’
(Satisfied?)
From that point onward, unemployment declined precipitately and continued to decline until after he left office.’
The larger (and original) point is that — far from ‘causing’ unemployment, as you aver — Reagan, once given a chance, cut it down to size (and in short order). It’s unmistakable — from the very graph you provided — that the unvarying trajectory of the pattern of unemployment RR encountered (which trajectory continued seamlessly till it was halted by ERTA), was a direct product of the preceding administration, under which it had begun.
I have NO problem “admitting error.” I simply distrust the intentions (to say nothing of the motives) of certain individuals — like yourself — who seek to play imbecilic, technical “Gotcha!” games as a means of diverting attention from a central issue they find inconvenient. Consequently I refuse to give the diversion any quarter.
You are by far the more judgmental of the two of us.
It’s not a ‘false’ claim. RR simply caught the aftermath of what Carter did (and failed to do).
Did not fire them “en masse.” The only ones fired were those who failed to show up for work after being reminded of their agreement to not strike [5 USC (Supp III 1956) 118 p.].
What it “might indicate” is his view toward the public trust, to say nothing of the keeping of contracts.
@ bernard ross:
Already told you what I thought of the context in which you quoted your facts:
“You clearly offered your ‘facts’ in a context which indicated you were following up on an earlier thread wherein you HAD commented plenty — wherein you had left no doubt whatsoever that you thought RR was responsible for horrific unemployment. And that was simply a crock.”
What I said there was correct. It remains correct. I stand by it.
@ bernard ross:
In my whole life, the only school I recall ever having attended that met on Sundays was a CPR re-certification course conducted about 10 yrs ago by the American Red Cross.
As for “trickery,” I made time, as a courtesy, for your first question on this thread
— despite the fact that it was off-the-wall in re the article, and had nothing to do with it.
But if you’re going to exploit that courtesy as a pretext for playing these asinine “Gotcha!” games with me, then you’re welcome to kiss my ass in Macy’s Window at High Noon on Easter Sunday.
Just be sure to bring along plenty of disinfectant; one never knows where some mouths have been
— and the slime that fairly drips from your lips can leave me no doubt as to the wisdom of the precaution.
dweller Said:
Point out which of those 3 statements were “flat out wrong”, or misleading or disingenuous. Was it either of the 2 rates I quoted or was it the statement that the unemployment rate rose 50% during Reagans first two years of office? I merely quoted those facts. I think you are losing your marbles when you cannot differentiate between quoted facts and assumptions regarding those facts. The only assumptions made were by you. You may not like the facts but they cannot be changed by your dislike of them: the facts cannot be misleading or disingenuous, they are simply undeniable facts.
bernard ross Said:
correction, I miss-typed “inflation” instead of “unemployment” it should have read “..did he encounter double digit unemployment as you stated”, which was the original phrase I quoted of yours along with the unemployment rates I posted. It was an obvious error of typing as the figures and words I quoted referred to unemployment.
I repeat the original quotes:
Do you retract this statement of yours as an error or do you still maintain the statement to be true?
Do you deny either of the following 2 facts:
The only misleading or disingenuous statement was yours as I posted nothing beyond facts in that post, the only addition to stated facts was your spin. The facts may or may not speak for themselves to you, as that is your choice, but your attempts to avoid the admission that your statement was either an error or a lie is unbelievable. Watching you squirm and place the blame on me for the error you made shows you to be of low character and your oft touted claims of being an honest man to be rubbish.
dweller Said:
another lie, I simply stated the facts and made no comment on the facts. You conveniently put words in my mouth to obfuscate your own misstatement. You assumed the connection, perhaps because the facts indicated such a connection. Are you so enamored with your own perfection that you are willing to maintain this pathetic charade rather than admit to error. I have admitted to error twice, it did not lower my self esteem. It appears that admitting error and taking responsibility is anathema. How odd for someone who is always judging the behavior of others.
As for for Reagan being the cause of the 50% rise, which is a separate issue from the false claim that Carter left Reagan with double digit unemployment at the end of his term, I do not know as I have not the expertise to make that analysis from the stated facts. However, Reagan did fire the air traffic controllers en masse, which might indicate his views toward employment. It also presaged the gordon gecko ideal of the reagan 80’s during which companies were dismantled for asset value and firings were common. I do understand the perspective that values such a society as I was in business in the US at the time. Were you in business then, or ever?
I wonder if you will ever be able to admit error? That cannot be psychologically healthy. Perhaps you see yourself as a resurrected Messiah incapable of error.
@ bernard ross:
It may not be inaccurate but it IS misleading on your part.
You used it in the first place to ‘show’ that unemployment ‘grew’ due to Reagan’s administration. But this is simply false & disingenuous.
— You want to play technical games as your own misdirection from the fact that you were flat-out wrong.
Reagan inherited the consequences of Carter’s foolishness.
That was my point, and you knew it when I made it.
Those consequences continued to grow until the Reagan tax policy broke their momentum and turned them around. Not until.
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97–34), also known as the Reagan tax cut or the “Kemp-Roth Tax Cut,” was enacted in 1981.
Unemployment plummeted thereafter.
Yes, you betcha. Inflation was 13.5 percent at the end of 1980, and it had dropped to 5.1 percent by the end of 1982.
No but you CAN be.
Don’t give me this crap, Bernard. You clearly offered your ‘facts’ in a context which indicated you were following up on an earlier thread wherein you had commented plenty
— wherein you had left no doubt whatsoever that you thought RR was responsible for horrific unemployment.
And that was simply a crock.
dweller Said:
The only comment in the above exchange that was disingenuous, misleading, innacurate, in error, false and a lie is this stementment of yours:
dweller Said:
which was clearly inaccurate, false, in error, or a lie, as the published fact demonstrated:
bernard ross Said:
that was the figure at the end of the Carter admin. Do you state that figure is false, inaccurate or a lie? Did he encounter double digit inflation as you stated?
bernard ross Said:
You may have your explanation but the published fact remains as I stated.
dweller Said:
What is most misleading and disingenuous is that, unlike me, you are unable to admit to simple error and therefore tried to cover up your error by the red herring of misdirection: accusing me of being misleading and disingenous. This should put paid to your other repeated mantra, and false self description, which refers to your “honesty”.
The perfect Dweller is unable to admit to error and the “honest” Dweller covers it up by false accusations of others.
Facts cannot be disingenuous and I made no comment beyond stating the facts so that the forum could evaluate your statement.
your trickery and misdirection remind me of your associate, CA.
Is there a school, or org, where this trickery can be learned, E.G. Sunday school?
Politicization is synonymous with demonization and is a weapon typically used by the left. There was plenty of it in the last US presidential campaign and the same will happened the next time around.
Haifa U should move its premises from Haifa to Cairo, Riyadh, Tehran and even to Moscow. There they would find even more fertile ground for their leftist stance.
@ bernard ross:
This is misleading and disingenuous.
When Reagan took office, unemployment had been steadily increasing for some years. There was no way to put immediate brakes on it. The bigger the boat, the longer it takes to turn it around. It spiked in 1982, then began dropping, and continued dropping till he left the White House in Jan ’89. Library’s closing.
http://0.tqn.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/R/P/unemployment_rate_annotated.jpg
@ Dweller
the other website is closed
Dec 1980……7.8%
Dec 1982…..10.8%
In 2 years an increase of the unemployment rate by 50%
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
I am curious as to what you were doing in the 1980’s, whether you were in business; I told you what I was doing?
I agree with you on this Haifa U. issue.
What an irony that one of the few nominees already possessing, and deserving of, REAL academic degrees
— should be denied an honorary one — by an academic institution — that didn’t like his politics.
Dontcha just love it?