terça-feira, 23 de agosto de 2016

Historiador Victor Hanson: A Grande Regressão (Progresso Técnico e Grande Regressão Moral e Política)


Que texto sensacional do historiador Victor Davis Hanson, explica que o progresso material e técnico não necessariamente é acompanhado pelo progresso moral e político, nbem no passado e muito menos hoje em dia, em que vivemos grande crise moral e política no mundo.

The Great Regression

Today, it seems that Orwell’s 1984 would better have been titled 2016.
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

sexta-feira, 19 de agosto de 2016

O Que o Mercado está Dizendo?


Eu acho muito engraçado quando ouço economistas e analistas políticos dizendo coisas do tipo: "o mercado acha", "o mercado pensa", "o mercado não gosta".

Alguém ainda vai me apresentar esse tal de mercado.

Mas desde a crise de 2008, o mundo ficou ainda mais louco e os bancos centrais estão torrando dinheiro nunca antes visto. Os ricos aplicando dinheiro em ações e títulos ficam ainda mais ricos e aqueles do setor produtivo empobrecem.

O site Zero Hedge mostrou  que ninguém está entendendo "mais" o "mercado".

Leiam e vejam a estupidez do "mercado" segundo o Wall Street Journal.

quinta-feira, 11 de agosto de 2016

Mundo: População de Velhos e Jovens Morando com Avós.



Li hoje dois artigos preocupantes sobre a população do mundo e dos Estados Unidos, que têm causas muito óbvias.

Sobre o mundo, li que em 1995 apenas um país do mundo tinha população de idosos maior do que a população de jovens, a Itália. Hoje, já são 30 países.


Isso é resultado de quê? Ora, dos fatores básicos: abortos generalizados, escravidão salarial, desemprego, mulheres trabalhando para manter nível de vida, idolatria do prazer da vida jovem, desprezo ao casamento.

O outro artigo mostra que 19% da população dos Estados Unidos moram em casas que há pelo menos duas gerações de adultos. Isto é, filhos adultos morando com pais, morando com avós.

Vejam gráfico:




Isso é resultado de quê? As mesmas causas do artigo acima: abortos generalizados, escravidão salarial, desemprego, mulheres trabalhando para manter nível de vida, idolatria do prazer da vida jovem, desprezo ao casamento.

O pior é que o mundo vai achando isso lindo. Já viram o tanto de propagando que tem com jovens barbudos ocisosos. Eu lembro de pelo menos duas que passam regularmente no Brasil. A da Rider que passa um jovem barbudo bocejando em um sofá e o da Claro que passa um cara meio jovem de pijama vermelho em um quarto escuro próximo a um computador.


sexta-feira, 29 de julho de 2016

Hierarquia de Modelos (Econômicos, Científicos etc). Do melhor (Causal) ao pior (Estatístico).


William Briggs, brilahnte estatístico, crítico ferrenho da disciplina estatística está lançando o livro acima. Recomendo totalmente.

No blog dele, Briggs traz um pouco do livro. Hoje ele trouxe a hierarquia de models. Começa do modelo causal (o melhor) até o estatístico (o pior e mais usado).

Vale muito a pena a leitura em tempos em quem mjita gente confia em modelos econômicos puramente baseados em probabilidades sem qualquer fundamento.

Vejamos o que Briggs escreveu no excelente blog dele.

The Hierarchy Of Models: From Causal (Best) To Statistical (Worst)


There is a hierarchy of models in the sense they offer insight into the thing modeled. The order of importance is: causal, deterministic, probabilistic, statistical. Most models use mixtures of these elements.
All models have this form: a set of premises, which include any number of facts, truths, supposeds, data, and such forth, and a proposition of interest, which is the thing being modeled conditional on those premises.
A classic—or perhaps better, as you’ll agree, classical—causal model “Socrates is mortal” given “All men are mortal and Socrates is a man.” The model predicts Socrates will die because of the nature of all men. It is man’s nature to die, and Socrates (and you, dear reader) are among the race of men. We knowall men are mortal from the necessarily limited sample of observations of past men, and from the induction of these dead men to the entire race.
Causal models give insight into or make use of the nature, the universal essence, of the thing of interest. Causal models require universals; they also require induction because we know the validity of all universals, natures, essences, through a type of induction.
Deterministic models are common in mathematics and are usually stated in a form such that the proposition of interest is a function of premises, like this: y = f(x). The “x” is placeholder for any number of premises. An example of a functional form of a deterministic model is y = a + bx3, which shows there are three explicit premises, the “a”, “b”, and x3, and one implicit, which is the form or arrangement of these premises. This equation might give the numerical level of some thing as a function of a, b, and x. It says, “Given a, b, and x, y will certainly be at a + bx3.” The equation determines y, but doesn’t explain the essence of the cause.
Some causal models may be put in equation form, but not all deterministic models are also causal. The equation given applies to a black box with two readouts, a “y” and “x”, and a dial is discovered to change the “x”. The formula is induced based on rotating the dial and noting the values of y and x. Only in the weakest sense can we say we have discovered the essence of the machine: we don’t even know what the values imply. Interestingly (and obviously to mathematical readers), more than one equation can be found to fit the same data (premises), which is also proof we have not learned the nature of the machine.
Probabilistic models abound. Given “This is a two-state object and only one state of s1 or s2 may show at any time”, the probability “The object is in state s1” is 1/2. Note carefully that no such real object need exist; and neither must real objects exist for causal or deterministic models, as should be obvious.
There isn’t any understanding of essence or nature of this object in this probability model: we don’t know the workings. If we did, we’d have a deterministic or causal model. The probability is thus only a measure of our state of knowledge of the truth of the proposition and not of the essence of object. Probability models are silent on cause.
The last and least are statistical models. These are always ad hoc and conflate probability and decision or mistake probability with essence. Statistical models are a prominent cause of the vast amount of over-certainty which plagues science.
Statistical models purport to say that x causes y, or that x is “linked to” y, through the mechanism of hypothesis testing, via frequentist p-values or Bayesian Bayes factors, but though x may really be a cause of y, or x really may be linked to y in some essential way, the statistical judgment that these conditions are so is always a fallacy.
Hypothesis testing conflates decision with probability; nothing in any hypothesis test gives the desired probability “Given x, what is the probability of y”; instead, testing says, based on ad hoc criteria, x and y are mysteriously related (“linked”) or that x causes y. These inferences are never valid. The importance of this logical truth cannot be overstated. This why so many statistical models report false results. (A reminder that a logical argument can be invalid but still have a true conclusion; the conclusion is just true for other reasons than the stated argument.)
Lastly, statistical models purport to report “effect size”, which is a measure of the importance of x on y. This “effect size” always either false or an assertion given far too much confidence (I used this word in its plain-English sense). Effect sizes say something about a premise inside x (a parameter or parameters) and not x itself, hence they are always over-certain. This form of over-certainty is eliminated by moving to a probability model.

terça-feira, 26 de julho de 2016

As Fotos dos Partido de Obama e Hillary Dizem Tudo. Políticos Sem Pátria e Sem Religião


As fotos da Convenção do Partido Democrata, do presidente Obama e da candidata Hillary Clinton, dizem tudo.

Por exemplo, não é visto nenhuma bandeira dos Estados Unidos no palanque, nem entre os partidários, mas há bandeira da antiga URSS e da Palestina:

- Bandeira da antiga URSS

 

- Bandeira da Palestina dentro da convenção.


- Radicais que odeiam até seus candidatos e querem o fim da polícia



- Palco da convenção Democrata não tem nenhuma bandeira americana


- Em contraste com palco da convenção do Partido Republicano


- Notícias dão conta que o Partido Democrata sentiu a crítica de não ter nenhuma bandeira americana e começou a providenciar


- Partido sem religião ou aceitando qualquer religião que não seja o cristianismo. Em 61 discursos proferidos até agora na convenção do Partido Democrata nenhum mencionou o Estado Islâmico, o terrorismo, terror ou Islã.

- Partido Democrata sempre fala que deve-se construir pontes e não muros, deve-se aceitar todos. Mas a convenção deles foi murada e também o palco foi murado para evitar os próprios paertidários.




E tem gente pulando as cercas.




terça-feira, 19 de julho de 2016

3 Vídeos: Plágios de Obama em Discursos.


No dia em que mostram o plágio da esposa de Donald Trump copiando um discurso de Michelle Obama, é bom que fiquem todos silenciosos pois o plágio é uma praga na política e na ciência. Vejam os três vídeos abaixo.











segunda-feira, 18 de julho de 2016

Crime e Raça nos Estados Unidos. "Não é Culpa dos Brancos"


O texto abaixo deveria ser levado em conta por todos que discutem o racismo nos Estados Unidos.

O artigo se chama Not White Problem (Não é Problema dos Brancos), porque mostra que a taxa de criminalidade nos Estados Unidos é muito baixa em termos históricos ( como mostra gráfico acima), mas os crimes estão concentrados em bairros negros. 90% dos crimes são cometidos por negros ou latinos!!!!

A imensa maioria dos crimes é negro matando negro!!!!

E que em geral as cidades que têm mais crimes são aquelas governadas por esquerdistas. Essas cidades têm leis rigorosas contra armas, mas não adiantam nada.


Vejam abaixo:


The statistics in the chart below are representative of every Democrat controlled urban shithole city in America. Obama and his anti-gun activist minions are peddling a false narrative about guns because they understand most Americans are dumber than a sack of hammers and easily manipulated by propaganda. Obama uses every high profile shooting to blame guns, in order to deflect people from seeing the truth. And the truth is guns are not a problem in white America.
It’s only a problem in the urban ghettos with the toughest gun laws run by Democrat mayors and city councils. Chicago is a perfect example of Obama ignoring the real problem. Fifty years of welfare programs and treating black people like victims has created a dysfunctional system leading to hopelessness, crime, and perpetual poverty. Chicago is 32% white, but they commit only 3.5% of the murders. Over 96% of the murders are committed by non-whites. Essentially, it is young black men murdering other black men. White people are not in the equation and are not part of the problem. It’s a black problem framed as a gun problem by Obama and his lying apparatchiks.
There are approximately 8,000 gun related homicides annually in the U.S. The vast majority occur in the urban ghettos and are committed by blacks and hispanics against other blacks and hispanics. They use illegally acquired guns, so more gun laws will do nothing. Their lawless culture, requiring no personal responsibility by those who father children, creates the dysfunction and crime. The urban ghetto kill zones all have the same thing in common – run by liberal Democrats for decades, with poverty created by their welfare policies, dreadful public schools, and a black population who don’t work and take no personal responsibility for their lives or their children.
Here are the murders by city for a sampling of these shitholes:
  • Los Angeles – 587
  • Chicago – 508
  • NYC – 333
  • Detroit – 316
  • Phila – 248
  • Baltimore – 233
  • New Orleans – 150
  • Indianapolis – 129
  • Memphis – 124
  • St. Louis – 120
  • Newark -112
  • Milwaukee – 104
  • Washington DC – 103
There are dozens of other shitholes like Camden, Kansas City, Atlanta, Oakland, Pittsburgh, and Miami with extremely high murder rates, and in every case more than 90% are committed by non-whites. Why don’t you hear Obama giving speeches about black communities policing themselves and taking responsibility for the crime, drugs and murder in their neighborhoods? He has no problem with proclamations about white people clinging to their guns in middle America where there are virtually no murders.
The entire gun narrative peddled by liberals is false. The crime rate has been falling for 25 years. There were 24,703 murders in 1991 when the population was 253 million. Murders in 2014 totaled 14,249 with a population of 317 million. The willfully ignorant American public completely buys the falsehoods presented by Obama and believes murders and crime are skyrocketing.
Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people.
So, with homicides at a 25 year low and completely confined to the urban ghettos where young black men kill other young black men, we need new gun laws to restrict what white people can own? It makes you wonder. Why has the government militarized local police forces across the country in white communities when crime and murder is virtually non-existent in those communities? Why is Obama and his liberal nazi hordes trying to ban any gun capable of providing defense against a tyrannical government? Why has this become a war on whites when it is solely a black problem? It’s almost as if the government is treating working class whites with guns as the enemy. I wonder.