Government Scientists Weren’t Always Morons

3 Responses to Government Scientists Weren’t Always Morons

1. rah says:

   December 1, 2015 at 10:09 am

   Some would say that it is an example of the difference in competency between a Meteorologist and a “Climatologist”. I would say it is an example of when integrity was a value held in esteem by society and those in the scientific realm and corrupt government had not yet destroyed that attribute.

   Reply
   • Gail Combs says:

     December 1, 2015 at 11:23 am

     I agree RAH

     It has become harder and harder to find an honest businessman, contractor or an honest employee. A really sad state of affairs. Even worse with the recent corporate philosophy that ‘human resources’ are completely interchangeable and therefore should be hired and fired based on short term projections of sales, there is zero reward for honesty and excellent work.
     This is an example of the ‘new thinking’

     U.S. workers had an average job tenure of 4.6 years in 2012, the last year for which figures are available—that’s up from 3.7 years in 2002 and 3.5 in 1983

     and economists say that may not be a good thing.
     American workers are stuck in a rut, economists say. Despite improvements in education and technology, they’re staying in their jobs longer rather than seeking new opportunities. A high “churn” rate is typically seen as a reflection of a healthy economy…
     http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-less-likely-to-change-jobs-now-than-in-1980s-2014-01-10
     

     Notice they use 1983 as the ‘start’

     …Hostile tender offers have been around for decades, but they were rare and generally involved small target firms until the midseventies. Then came the highly controversial multibillion-dollar hostile takeovers of very recognizable public companies. By the late eighties there were dozens of multi-billion-dollar takeovers and their cousins, leveraged buyouts (LBOs). The largest acquisition ever was the $25 billion buyout of RJR Nabisco by Kolberg Kravis and Roberts in 1989. [Editor’s note: this was written in 1992.]…

     Both economic and regulatory factors combined to spur the explosion in large takeovers and, in turn, large LBOs. The three regulatory factors were the Reagan administration’s relatively laissez-faire policies on antitrust and securities laws, which allowed mergers the government would have challenged in earlier years; the 1982 Supreme Court decision striking down state antitakeover laws (which were resurrected with great effectiveness in the late eighties); and deregulation of many industries, which prompted restructurings and mergers. The main economic factor was the development of the original-issue high-yield debt instrument. The so-called “junk bond” innovation, pioneered by Michael Milken of Drexel Burnham, provided many hostile bidders and LBO firms with the enormous amounts of capital needed to finance multi-billion-dollar deals….
     http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TakeoversandLeveragedBuyouts.html

     The result:
     “….These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers…. In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America…. THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another’s. Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 — New York Times:
     LEVERAGED BUYOUTS: AMERICAN PAYS THE PRICE

     Reply
   • oz4caster says:

     December 2, 2015 at 2:05 pm

     Government in the US is a puppet. It does what its master wants. Most of the time the master of government is big money. Money and power often corrupt and government is no exception. Rooting out corruption is the real issue and corruption is not easy to overcome in any country. It is a constant struggle everywhere.

     For most of us in the US our only weapons against corruption are our morals, our influence on those around us, our vote, and our purchases. In many countries the latter two options are not a real influence because of the lack of political choice and/or the lack of purchasing power of the destitute poor.

     Reply