The Religion of Global Warming and Income Inequality



    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives. It’s not their money, of course they’ll waste it.

How much longer will this Climate Change\Global Warming nonsense go on? It’s so cold here that flashers are handing out cards describing themselves.

   The trial for the Boston Marathon Bomber has begun. The dead brother will be blamed for everything. This is known as the German Generals’ Defence. Blame everything on the Dead Guy. Another ploy is that Dzhokhar was just a “soldier of the jihad” as if that makes everything better.

    The following is a quote from the National Post on the resignation of the head of the famed IPCC—the United Nations scaremongers on Global Warming.

“All of which came to mind reading the letter of resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, head from 2002 to 2015 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body that provides the imprimatur of orthodoxy for climate science. Dr. Pachauri flew as high as it gets in the climate stratosphere, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC alongside co-winner Al Gore in 2007. Dr. Pachauri resigned last week after sexual harassment allegations were made in his native India.

About the veracity of the allegations I have no knowledge, but his letter to the UN secretary-general included this startling confession: “For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and the sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” “

   When religion, in whatever guise comes in, logic goes out. Also, sceptics are godless Untermenschen who must be punished until they come to their understanding. It’s a Crusade, you see.

          One more group on about income inequality.

    National Post
    Financial Post

United Wrong Way
Philip Cross
There is no concrete evidence that inequality increasingly determines long-run outcomes

United Way Toronto issued a report last week called The Opportunity Equation headlining that income inequality in Toronto was the highest in Canada, undermining “our city’s economic progress, health and social fabric.” No hint of exaggeration there. Portraying opportunity as a mathematical equation whose parameters are set by inequality betrays a mindset that views society as a mechanical system that can be controlled by industrious social engineers. This is borne out by the report’s ideologically-driven analysis and poor grasp of statistics and economics.

Before dissecting its worst errors, let’s summarize the report’s main findings. It claims that income inequality among Toronto households rose 31% between 1984 and 2005. Based on an Ekos survey, it finds Torontonians in 2014 were anxious about their own economic futures and those of their children. It concludes that where one lives increasingly determines your destiny.


    Mixing two things, inequality and uncertainty. Lots of government produces a lower standard of living so, with logic only known to statists, we must have more government. Yep, that’ll do her.

There is so much wrong with this report, it is hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the income data. Incomes are measured before taxes but after transfers. Using before tax data exaggerates inequality within a province since high income earners need more gross income to pay tax, and distorts the comparison across provinces because high income earners in Ontario are compensated for the government swiping twice the tax that Alberta collects.

The analysis is outdated on a couple of points. The latest data point is 10 years old, and therefore misses the whole resource boom in western Canada that threatens all the inter-city comparisons with irrelevance. And the largest increases in inequality occurred in the 1980s and especially the 1990s, with the smallest increase over the last decade. In other words, the problem being highlighted was most pressing 20 years ago. Finally, the report uses survey instead of income tax data; the difference is important, as real income growth for the latter was 30 percentage points more than the data used in this report.

Even if one accepts the report’s data, there is no concrete evidence that inequality increasingly determines long-run outcomes. To study that requires panel data that follows individual incomes over time. Saying that incomes in the past 25 years rose 2 percent in the poorest neighbourhoods and 80 percent in the richest only shows that the constantly changing mix of people in these neighbourhoods saw such changes in income. It is likely, for example, that immigrants congregate in certain neighbourhoods when they arrive, get established in our society, and then move to other neighbourhoods, to be replaced by the next wave of immigrants. This reflects a healthy dynamic, the opposite of the allegation that one’s postal code determines long-term outcomes.

Another obvious methodological flaw is using the Ekos survey for 2014 as the basis for assertions about long-term trends. For example, no claim that people are showing “rising pessimism” can be made without citing their attitudes in earlier years. This is so basic it raises serious questions about the whole review process of this “research.”

The authors routinely make extrapolations which conform to their inherent prejudices, not objective measures of reality. In this vein, the report automatically assumes that the one-third of people who feel worse off than decades ago were lower income people. However, Statistics Canada data clearly show that very few people stay in low income for long, so it is likely that low-income people in one year subsequently became better off, often substantially so. It is more plausible that higher income people are the ones who feel less well off, squeezed by provincial government policies raising their taxes and inflating their hydro bills. Nor does the report explain how it handled Toronto’s substantial immigrant population when comparing their situation today with 25 years ago, when many lived in another country. Whether they feel better or worse off says nothing about the dynamics of what is happening in Toronto.

The United Way wasted precious funds on a survey that found that “Torontonians are anxious about the future and fear the next generation will be worse off.” That is undoubtedly true in every major city in this country, irrespective of the recent trend in inequality, because human nature’s inherent insecurity about future prosperity is constantly exploited by commentators who don’t understand that our standard of living rises inexorably irrespective of the ebb and flow of annual income growth.

The report botches the data and analysis of youth unemployment. It claims youth unemployment in Toronto is 22%, when Statcan data shows it was 18.6%. More importantly, what is really disturbing is that youth unemployment has reached a record high even as adult unemployment has fallen to near a record low of 6.3%. This reflects more how poorly our politically correct education system prepares students for the workplace than a weak economy. Meanwhile, kids living in mom’s basement are hardly destroying our social fabric. The social problems in U.S. cities that the report blames on rising income inequality are attributed by experts such as Charles Murray to the erosion of the family unit, often resulting from government policies.

The report ultimately is an unappetizing mix of anecdotes, unjustified extrapolations and bad statistical analysis, all strung together by a flimsy storyline that tries to justify social engineering as evidence-based. The document is so transparently driven by a political agenda, reflecting the favourite narratives of interventionists (such as the increasingly precarious nature of work, rising inequality, and high youth unemployment as a harbinger of a return to hard times) that the question arises whether the United Way Toronto has crossed the line from charity to advocacy group.

    Why don’t they just say–Give us all your money, you know how to make it but we know how to spend it. Incentives will do their useful work and those who make money will give up.

Government Job or Respect–Which’ll It Be?
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson, Ph.D.
Author, “Days of Songs and Mirrors: A Jacobite in the ‘45.”
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: