newswars--2020-06-15--This Is Why We Are Facing A 6 Week Countdown To Immense Economic Despair…

Many of the emergency economic measures that were put into place to support the American people financially throughout this pandemic are about to disappear , and that means that big trouble is on the horizon .
Right now , we are in the midst of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s .
Economic activity has fallen dramatically , more than 100,000 businesses have permanently closed , and more than 44 million Americans have lost a job so far in 2020 .
But up to this point most Americans are not feeling too much economic pain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Unfortunately , that short-term boost of artificial relief is about to wear off , and that is going to cause some major problems as we approach the end of this calendar year .
Earlier today , two sentences from a Buzzfeed article about the extreme economic despair that is ahead of us really got my attention… I think that is a perfect description of what we are facing , except that I would replace “ U.S .
economy ” with “ U.S .
consumers ” .
The truth is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been shielded from the effects of that crash by trillions of dollars in emergency government spending and other unprecedented measures… What ’ s kept us in the air so far is an extraordinary government relief effort .
In most states , evictions have been temporarily banned , preventing a mass homelessness crisis .
Most federal student loan payments have been put on hold , removing one of the largest recurring monthly expenses that millions of people face .
Banks were ordered to give their customers a six-month break on mortgage payments if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , household income sharply increased in April as hundreds of billions of dollars in lost wages were replaced by trillions in government spending .
The government sent out more than 159 million stimulus payments of up to $ 1,200 per adult ( more if you have kids ) , and more than 20 million unemployed people became eligible for an extra $ 600 a week in federal unemployment benefits .
The result , according to Bloomberg , was the largest monthly increase in household income ever recorded .
What we have witnessed has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unlike anything we have ever seen in all of U.S. history , and this has allowed most Americans to get through the past few months without too much of a problem .
In fact , many unemployed workers have been bringing home more money than they did when they were actually working .
But on July 31st ( about 6 weeks from now ) that is all going to change .
The $ 600 unemployment bonuses are scheduled to end on that date , and President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no intention of extending them .
In addition , it looks like there will be no more direct checks from the government for ordinary Americans even if another “ stimulus bill ” is passed .
So tens of millions of Americans will soon be facing a future in which they are bringing in very little income .
In addition , the various bans on evictions around the country will soon be coming to an end , as will the grace periods for mortgage payments .
Without enough income coming in , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes , and this will likely really start ramping up as we head into the holiday season .
On top of everything else , the grace period on federal student loans will come to an end at the beginning of October .
Basically , all of the economic pain that had been deferred will come rushing back with a vengeance over the next several months .
Of course Congress could delay things a bit more by borrowing and spending trillions of more dollars that we simply do not have , but all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already has put us in very perilous territory… It took from the founding of the United States until 1981 for the U.S. national debt to reach one trillion dollars , and now we have added that same amount to the debt in just five weeks .
Our elected officials are absolutely destroying our future , but most Americans don ’ t seem too alarmed by this .
Instead , many are clamoring for even more “ free money ” , because they say that what they have gotten so far is not nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has already taken place has not exactly had the desired effect .
Americans were supposed to take the money they were receiving and spend it .
But instead , one recent survey found that most Americans are actually cutting back on their spending right now… • Saving more money : 34 % of survey respondents indicate they ’ ve upped their savings rate because of the novel coronavirus .
• Reducing spending : During these turbulent times , 59 % of Americans have cut their budgets so they aren ’ t spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Re-evaluating their priorities : 48 % of those surveyed indicate they are prioritizing living expenses , while 30 % of respondents indicate their top priority is consumables , including food and drink .
No matter how much money Congress showers on the American people , they aren ’ t going to be able to eliminate the overwhelming fear that COVID-19 has created .
For the foreseeable future , a large portion of the population is simply not going to resume their normal economic patterns because they are scared of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities , rioting , looting and violence has depressed economic activity even further .
A major economic downturn is here , and it looks like it is going to be very , very deep .
Congress was able to minimize the discomfort for a while , but those emergency measures were only intended to help for a short period of time , and in about six weeks the entire country is going to start feeling a tremendous amount of pain .

Many of the emergency economic measures that were put into place to support the American people financially throughout this pandemic are about to disappear, and that means that big trouble is on the horizon.
Right now, we are in the midst of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Economic activity has fallen dramatically, more than 100,000 businesses have permanently closed, and more than 44 million Americans have lost a job so far in 2020.
But up to this point most Americans are not feeling too much economic pain thanks to unprecedented intervention by the federal government.
Unfortunately, that short-term boost of artificial relief is about to wear off, and that is going to cause some major problems as we approach the end of this calendar year.
Earlier today, two sentences from a Buzzfeed article about the extreme economic despair that is ahead of us really got my attention…
The US economy right now is like a jumbo jet that’s in a steady glide after both its engines flamed out. In about six weeks, it will likely crash into the side of a mountain.
I think that is a perfect description of what we are facing, except that I would replace “U.S. economy” with “U.S. consumers”.
The truth is that the economy has already crashed, but consumers have been shielded from the effects of that crash by trillions of dollars in emergency government spending and other unprecedented measures…
What’s kept us in the air so far is an extraordinary government relief effort. In most states, evictions have been temporarily banned, preventing a mass homelessness crisis. Most federal student loan payments have been put on hold, removing one of the largest recurring monthly expenses that millions of people face. Banks were ordered to give their customers a six-month break on mortgage payments if requested. Most importantly, and counterintuitively, household income sharply increased in April as hundreds of billions of dollars in lost wages were replaced by trillions in government spending. The government sent out more than 159 million stimulus payments of up to $1,200 per adult (more if you have kids), and more than 20 million unemployed people became eligible for an extra $600 a week in federal unemployment benefits. The result, according to Bloomberg, was the largest monthly increase in household income ever recorded.
What we have witnessed has been a sudden transfer of wealth that is unlike anything we have ever seen in all of U.S. history, and this has allowed most Americans to get through the past few months without too much of a problem. In fact, many unemployed workers have been bringing home more money than they did when they were actually working.
But on July 31st (about 6 weeks from now) that is all going to change.
The $600 unemployment bonuses are scheduled to end on that date, and President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have made it clear that they have no intention of extending them.
In addition, it looks like there will be no more direct checks from the government for ordinary Americans even if another “stimulus bill” is passed.
So tens of millions of Americans will soon be facing a future in which they are bringing in very little income.
In addition, the various bans on evictions around the country will soon be coming to an end, as will the grace periods for mortgage payments.
Without enough income coming in, a lot of Americans will soon be losing their homes, and this will likely really start ramping up as we head into the holiday season.
On top of everything else, the grace period on federal student loans will come to an end at the beginning of October.
Ouch.
Basically, all of the economic pain that had been deferred will come rushing back with a vengeance over the next several months.
Of course Congress could delay things a bit more by borrowing and spending trillions of more dollars that we simply do not have, but all of the reckless spending that they have done already has put us in very perilous territory…
Trillions are now whooshing by at a breath-taking pace. The US gross national debt – the total of all Treasury securities outstanding – jumped by $1 trillion over the past five weeks , from May 4 through June 8, and by $2.5 trillion for the 11 weeks since March 23. The total US national debt outstanding has reached $26 trillion, according to the Treasury Department.
It took from the founding of the United States until 1981 for the U.S. national debt to reach one trillion dollars, and now we have added that same amount to the debt in just five weeks.
Wow.
Our elected officials are absolutely destroying our future, but most Americans don’t seem too alarmed by this.
Instead, many are clamoring for even more “free money”, because they say that what they have gotten so far is not nearly enough.
Of course the federal spending that has already taken place has not exactly had the desired effect.
Americans were supposed to take the money they were receiving and spend it.
But instead, one recent survey found that most Americans are actually cutting back on their spending right now…
Saving more money: 34% of survey respondents indicate they’ve upped their savings rate because of the novel coronavirus.
34% of survey respondents indicate they’ve upped their savings rate because of the novel coronavirus. Reducing spending: During these turbulent times, 59% of Americans have cut their budgets so they aren’t spending as much money as they did pre-pandemic.
During these turbulent times, 59% of Americans have cut their budgets so they aren’t spending as much money as they did pre-pandemic. Re-evaluating their priorities: 48% of those surveyed indicate they are prioritizing living expenses, while 30% of respondents indicate their top priority is consumables, including food and drink.
No matter how much money Congress showers on the American people, they aren’t going to be able to eliminate the overwhelming fear that COVID-19 has created.
For the foreseeable future, a large portion of the population is simply not going to resume their normal economic patterns because they are scared of the virus.
And in many of our large cities, rioting, looting and violence has depressed economic activity even further.
A major economic downturn is here, and it looks like it is going to be very, very deep.
Congress was able to minimize the discomfort for a while, but those emergency measures were only intended to help for a short period of time, and in about six weeks the entire country is going to start feeling a tremendous amount of pain.


newswars--2020-06-15--Those not on board with French Revolution were CHOPPED, CHAZ protesters warn after renaming their ca

Those not on board with French Revolution were CHOPPED, CHAZ protesters warn after renaming their camp

Those who refuse to embrace their movement could face a violent end , a group of protesters in Seattle have declared .
The unsettling warning comes after their encampment in the city was renamed to CHOP .
A group of demonstrators who gathered outside Seattle ’ s West Precinct on Sunday night had a chilling message for anyone who hasn ’ t pledged fealty to their radical demands , which include the abolition of the city ’ s police department and a complete transformation of the criminal justice system .
One demonstrator with a megaphone explained a possible secondary meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ( CHAZ ) , to ‘ CHOP ’ ( ‘ Capitol Hill Organized Protest ’ or ‘ Capitol Hill Occupied Protest ’ , depending on who you ask ) .
“ Does anybody know what happened to the people who did not get on board with the French Revolution ?
” he shouted .
“ Chopped , ” his compatriots yelled in reply .
The megaphone-wielding protester then reaffirmed the gravity of the threat : “ That is the message we need to send .
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The proclamation was met with considerable skepticism – and mockery – on social media .
Others noted that many of those who started the French Revolution ended up “ chopped.
” Protesters barricaded streets around Seattle ’ s East Precinct last week , which had been abandoned by police .
Seemingly overnight , the area transformed into a camp for BLM activists and other demonstrators .
Supporters say the encampment serves as an example of community cooperation and self-policing , but the message has been mired by violence and lawlessness .

Those who refuse to embrace their movement could face a violent end, a group of protesters in Seattle have declared. The unsettling warning comes after their encampment in the city was renamed to CHOP.
A group of demonstrators who gathered outside Seattle’s West Precinct on Sunday night had a chilling message for anyone who hasn’t pledged fealty to their radical demands, which include the abolition of the city’s police department and a complete transformation of the criminal justice system. One demonstrator with a megaphone explained a possible secondary meaning behind the decision to rebrand their camp, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), to ‘CHOP’ (‘Capitol Hill Organized Protest’ or ‘Capitol Hill Occupied Protest’, depending on who you ask).
“Does anybody know what happened to the people who did not get on board with the French Revolution?” he shouted. “Chopped,” his compatriots yelled in reply.
“Does anybody know what happened to the people who did not get on board with the French Revolution?” “CHOPPED,” the crowd answered. pic.twitter.com/FfyUAvcUhM — Shelby Talcott (@ShelbyTalcott) June 15, 2020
The megaphone-wielding protester then reaffirmed the gravity of the threat: “That is the message we need to send. We are serious. This is not a joke.”
The proclamation was met with considerable skepticism – and mockery – on social media.
“So that’s what CHOP means,” conservative commentator Jack Posobiec joked.
Others noted that many of those who started the French Revolution ended up “chopped.”
Nobody tell them that the people who started the French Revolution also eventually got their heads chopped off and absolute monarchy didn’t end in France until 1870 https://t.co/pSpUjeXuHR — Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 15, 2020
Protesters barricaded streets around Seattle’s East Precinct last week, which had been abandoned by police. Seemingly overnight, the area transformed into a camp for BLM activists and other demonstrators. Supporters say the encampment serves as an example of community cooperation and self-policing, but the message has been mired by violence and lawlessness.


newswars--2020-06-15--China locks down TEN more Beijing neighborhoods over new Covid-19 outbreak at wholesale market

In response to the new coronavirus outbreak connected to Xinfadi wholesale market in Beijing , the city has introduced strict quarantine measures in 10 neighborhoods in Haidian District .
For the second day in a row , after months of almost no new Covid-19 cases , China has reported dozens of new locally-transmitted infections – including 36 in Beijing , where a new cluster was discovered several days ago .
The new outbreak in the capital was linked to a large food market , Xinfadi , which was promptly shut down on Saturday , along with several other markets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and kindergartens .
Mass screening was ramped up in the area , with more than 41,510 people tested as of Monday morning , including all workers and traders at the market – around 10,000 people .
The virus , however , managed to spread to another market , Yuquangodn , in Beijing ’ s Haidian District , where several employees tested positive for Covid-19 , and all had ties to Xinfadi .
As result , 10 neighborhoods were closed off in the area on Monday .
Chinese Vice Premier Sun Chunlan warned of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreading further in Beijing and called for the “ strictest ” investigation to determine the source of the new hotspot .
In the meantime , several senior officials in the capital ’ s Fengtai District , where Xinfadi is located , were fired for failing to properly carry out disease prevention measures .
The novel coronavirus was first officially discovered in December in the city of Wuhan , in China ’ s central Hubei Province , where the outbreak was quickly linked to a local wet market .
Through strict lockdowns and mandatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact-tracing , China eventually managed to largely bring the disease under control , with the number of newly-recorded locally-transmitted infections decreasing to almost zero – until last week .

In response to the new coronavirus outbreak connected to Xinfadi wholesale market in Beijing, the city has introduced strict quarantine measures in 10 neighborhoods in Haidian District.
For the second day in a row, after months of almost no new Covid-19 cases, China has reported dozens of new locally-transmitted infections – including 36 in Beijing, where a new cluster was discovered several days ago.
The new outbreak in the capital was linked to a large food market, Xinfadi, which was promptly shut down on Saturday, along with several other markets in the area, as well as schools and kindergartens.
Mass screening was ramped up in the area, with more than 41,510 people tested as of Monday morning, including all workers and traders at the market – around 10,000 people.
The virus, however, managed to spread to another market, Yuquangodn, in Beijing’s Haidian District, where several employees tested positive for Covid-19, and all had ties to Xinfadi. As result, 10 neighborhoods were closed off in the area on Monday.
Ten communities around Yuquandong market in Beijing’s Haidian District were shut down after some market staffers tested positive for #coronavirus, with all of them having links to Xinfadi wholesale market that is at the center of new cases, local official told a briefing Monday. pic.twitter.com/EwrAbkQLUd — CGTN (@CGTNOfficial) June 15, 2020
Chinese Vice Premier Sun Chunlan warned of “high risk” of the coronavirus spreading further in Beijing and called for the “strictest” investigation to determine the source of the new hotspot. In the meantime, several senior officials in the capital’s Fengtai District, where Xinfadi is located, were fired for failing to properly carry out disease prevention measures.
The novel coronavirus was first officially discovered in December in the city of Wuhan, in China’s central Hubei Province, where the outbreak was quickly linked to a local wet market.
Through strict lockdowns and mandatory quarantines, mass testing, and rigorous contact-tracing, China eventually managed to largely bring the disease under control, with the number of newly-recorded locally-transmitted infections decreasing to almost zero – until last week.


newswars--2020-06-15--Watch: Hilarious Music Video Mocks Contact Tracing & Globalist Spy Grid

Another brilliant music video parody by creator Media Bear called “ We ’ re Watching ” points out the tyrannical @ @ @ @ @ tracing proposals and their relation to the NSA spy grid , all to the tune @ @ @ @ @ Somebody ’ s Watching Me.
” Media Bear recently appeared on The Alex Jones Show @ @ @ @ @ music video “ I Wear My Face Mask In My Car ” :

Another brilliant music video parody by creator Media Bear called “We’re Watching” points out the tyrannical absurdity of the coronavirus contact tracing proposals and their relation to the NSA spy grid, all to the tune of Rockwell’s “Somebody’s Watching Me.”
Media Bear recently appeared on The Alex Jones Show to discuss his viral parody music video “I Wear My Face Mask In My Car”:


newswars--2020-06-15--Watch Live: Trump Supporter Assaulted and Threatened for Entering CHAZ

Things are getting rowdy in the Antifa-occupied region known as CHAZ , located in downtown Seattle , as protesters escort @ @ @ @ @ the neighborhood .
Tune in to an exclusive live feed from Antifa-stan !
Check out @ @ @ @ @ day :

Things are getting rowdy in the Antifa-occupied region known as CHAZ, located in downtown Seattle, as protesters escort a bold Trump supporter through the neighborhood.
Tune in to an exclusive live feed from Antifa-stan!
Check out events from earlier in the day:


newswars--2020-06-15--Charles Barkley Warns of “Slippery Slope” When it Comes To NFL Kneeling

Touching on the subject of kneeling during the National Anthem as a form of protest in the NFL , former NBA star and TNT basketball analyst Charles Barkley warned the sports world not to judge athletes for not participating in the demonstrations .
“ This is a very slippery slope , ” Barkley said .
“ Does it make you a bad guy if you don ’ t kneel ?
Because if you go back and look at Colin Kaepernick , there was only like 30 players kneeling with him .
Does that make all those other black guys bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a very slippery slope , ” the former NBA star reiterated .
“ I think if you want to kneel , God bless you .
Thank you for the protest .
But I don ’ t think you a bad guy , because , even going back to Drew Brees… He said what the flag meant to him .
It ’ s going to mean something different to everybody , but , like I said , it doesn ’ t make you a bad guy if you don ’ t kneel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized in the beginning of June for saying he disagreed with “ disrespecting the flag ” as a part of protests .
Barkley said Brees “ was wrong in his initial statement , but the level of vitriol , anger and things like that , I think it was overkill.
” Elaborating , Barkley added , “ This level of ‘ we ’ ve got to kill everybody who says something we disagree with.
’ I ’ m never gon na go with the mob.
” In another example of the liberal sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anger ” towards someone they simply disagree with came as Oklahoma State University ’ s head football coach Mike Gundy was shamed for wearing a One America News t-shirt while fishing .

Touching on the subject of kneeling during the National Anthem as a form of protest in the NFL, former NBA star and TNT basketball analyst Charles Barkley warned the sports world not to judge athletes for not participating in the demonstrations.
“This is a very slippery slope,” Barkley said. “Does it make you a bad guy if you don’t kneel? Because if you go back and look at Colin Kaepernick, there was only like 30 players kneeling with him. Does that make all those other black guys bad guys?”
“I just think this is a very slippery slope,” the former NBA star reiterated. “I think if you want to kneel, God bless you. Thank you for the protest. But I don’t think you a bad guy, because, even going back to Drew Brees… He said what the flag meant to him. It’s going to mean something different to everybody, but, like I said, it doesn’t make you a bad guy if you don’t kneel in my opinion.”
Drew Brees was criticized in the beginning of June for saying he disagreed with “disrespecting the flag” as a part of protests.
Barkley said Brees “was wrong in his initial statement, but the level of vitriol, anger and things like that, I think it was overkill.”
Elaborating, Barkley added, “This level of ‘we’ve got to kill everybody who says something we disagree with.’ I’m never gonna go with the mob.”
In another example of the liberal sports mob displaying “vitriol” and “anger” towards someone they simply disagree with came as Oklahoma State University’s head football coach Mike Gundy was shamed for wearing a One America News t-shirt while fishing.


newswars--2020-06-15--MASSIVE Phone Outages Across US, Major Carriers Affected

The US ’ three main phone carriers have all suffered outages across the US , with customers on both coasts reporting dead signals .
No explanation was immediately provided for the outages , which came amid widespread protests .
T-Mobile and AT & T users reported the outages on Monday afternoon , according to DownDetector , a website that tracks the availability of communications services and websites .
Verizon users also reported issues , as are a number of smaller carriers , with most of the US ’ major metropolitan areas seemingly affected .
T-Mobile customers made over 100,000 outage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Chicago and Brooklyn , most noting problems making calls .
Sprint , a subsidiary of T-Mobile , has also experienced problems , in addition to US Cellular .
T-Mobile ’ s president of technology , Neville Ray , said on Twitter that a “ voice and data issue ” occurred , and would soon be fixed by the company ’ s engineers , though he gave no exact time frame .
Spokespeople from AT & T and Verizon told TechCrunch that they saw no issues with their networks .
While the cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Verizon representative suggested the problem may have originated with “ another national carrier ” – presumably T-Mobile – resulting in outage reports for several other services when calls failed to go through , according to Business Insider .
Coming amid ongoing ‘ Black Lives Matter ’ street protests , the outages fueled a slew of conspiracy theories , ranging from government attempts to censor the protests , to a “ cyber attack , ” to a full-scale “ alien invasion.
” Harrison Smith and Greg Reese guest host The Alex Jones Show to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned with expanding 5G exposure .

The US’ three main phone carriers have all suffered outages across the US, with customers on both coasts reporting dead signals. No explanation was immediately provided for the outages, which came amid widespread protests.
T-Mobile and AT&T users reported the outages on Monday afternoon, according to DownDetector, a website that tracks the availability of communications services and websites. Verizon users also reported issues, as are a number of smaller carriers, with most of the US’ major metropolitan areas seemingly affected. T-Mobile customers made over 100,000 outage reports, ranging from Miami, Atlanta, Chicago and Brooklyn, most noting problems making calls.
Sprint, a subsidiary of T-Mobile, has also experienced problems, in addition to US Cellular.
T-Mobile’s president of technology, Neville Ray, said on Twitter that a “voice and data issue” occurred, and would soon be fixed by the company’s engineers, though he gave no exact time frame. Spokespeople from AT&T and Verizon told TechCrunch that they saw no issues with their networks.
While the cause of the outages remains unclear, a Verizon representative suggested the problem may have originated with “another national carrier” – presumably T-Mobile – resulting in outage reports for several other services when calls failed to go through, according to Business Insider.
Coming amid ongoing ‘Black Lives Matter’ street protests, the outages fueled a slew of conspiracy theories, ranging from government attempts to censor the protests, to a “cyber attack,” to a full-scale “alien invasion.”
Verizon outage coming soon to a protesting city near you? Inconclusive of course but the Verizon outage map right now is looking pretty odd… pic.twitter.com/PmoYi2xGy9 — Noah Thorp (@noahthorp) June 15, 2020
All major communications companies T-Mobile Verizon AT&T suffering outages may be the prelude to an alien invasion. — David Leavitt (@David_Leavitt) June 15, 2020
For techies! Looks like we are under a cyber attack. Anyone else experiencing issue? Cell services particularly T-mobile are reporting outages pic.twitter.com/3NyxIhge63 — Olga Lautman (@olgaNYC1211) June 15, 2020
Harrison Smith and Greg Reese guest host The Alex Jones Show to expose the Vice News gaslighting of activists concerned with expanding 5G exposure.


newswars--2020-06-15--Oklahoma State Football Coach Wears OAN Shirt: Star Players & Fans Lash Out

A photograph of Oklahoma State University ’ s head football coach Mike Gundy wearing a One America News t-shirt while on a fishing trip has seriously triggered liberal sports fans and some of the team ’ s players .
One America News is an alternative news network with conservative leanings .
CBS Sports writer Kyle Boone tweeted the image on Monday , writing , “ Mike Gundy went fishing on Lake Texoma donning an OAN t-shirt.
” Five hours later , Gundy was on top of the “ trending ” section of Twitter .
Oklahoma State ’ s star running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation in rushing last season and is an early Heisman Trophy frontrunner , posted the image on Twitter , saying , “ I will not stand for this..
This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society , and it ’ s unacceptable .
I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things CHANGE ” Hubbard , who is from Canada , was backed up by fellow Canadian and teammate Amen Ogbongbemiga , who wrote , “ I stand with him !
” Senior offensive lineman Teven Jenkins also tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O-line stands with him .
The blue check marks on Twitter also felt the need to voice their disapproval of the coaches ’ attire .
While the t-shirt has created quite the controversy , Gundy ’ s previous comments about Twitter could shed light on his current thoughts on the negative feedback he ’ s receiving online .
However , not all internet users are jumping on the anti-Gundy bandwagon , as seen in the tweets below supporting the coaches right to free speech .

A photograph of Oklahoma State University’s head football coach Mike Gundy wearing a One America News t-shirt while on a fishing trip has seriously triggered liberal sports fans and some of the team’s players.
One America News is an alternative news network with conservative leanings.
CBS Sports writer Kyle Boone tweeted the image on Monday, writing, “Mike Gundy went fishing on Lake Texoma donning an OAN t-shirt.”
Five hours later, Gundy was on top of the “trending” section of Twitter.
Oklahoma State’s star running back Chuba Hubbard, who led the nation in rushing last season and is an early Heisman Trophy frontrunner, posted the image on Twitter, saying, “I will not stand for this.. This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society, and it’s unacceptable. I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things CHANGE”
I will not stand for this.. This is completely insensitive to everything going on in society, and it’s unacceptable. I will not be doing anything with Oklahoma State until things CHANGE. https://t.co/psxPn4Khoq — Chuba Hubbard (@Hubbard_RMN) June 15, 2020
Hubbard, who is from Canada, was backed up by fellow Canadian and teammate Amen Ogbongbemiga, who wrote, “I stand with him!”
Senior offensive lineman Teven Jenkins also tweeted support for Hubbard, saying the whole O-line stands with him.
I stand with him! https://t.co/WWOs2ALxml — Amen Ogbongbemiga (@closedprayer) June 15, 2020
As an O-line we stand and support Chuba https://t.co/5zau9yTpCF — maybe: tev (@TevenJenkins) June 15, 2020
The blue check marks on Twitter also felt the need to voice their disapproval of the coaches’ attire.
No black player should ever play for Mike Gundy ever again https://t.co/CgkANq4s5b — (@exavierpope) June 15, 2020
I can’t fathom how stupid any human has to be at this point in time to wear an OAN t-shirt. But a football coach? Damn, Gundy. You’re special dumb. — JSS (@JScottShep) June 15, 2020
Mike Gundy on OAN, the Kremlin-funded Trump proganda arm that slandered the elderly Buffalo victim as an ANTIFA provocateur and calls BLM a criminal organization: “They just report the news. There’s no commentary. No left. No right. So refreshing.” Good for you Chuba Hubbard. pic.twitter.com/1TRVitmkbI — Thor Nystrom (@thorku) June 15, 2020
Yep. Gundy used his freedom of speech to endorse a network that posited a 75-year-old protester bled from the ears on purpose, with an anchor who called Black Lives Matter a criminal organization. Totally within Gundy’s rights to wear a shirt. Now his players can use theirs. https://t.co/BEjWR8FYol — Mike Finger (@mikefinger) June 15, 2020
While the t-shirt has created quite the controversy, Gundy’s previous comments about Twitter could shed light on his current thoughts on the negative feedback he’s receiving online.
Nobody: No Coach in all of Sports: Mike Gundy’s response to Chuba Hubbard’s RT: pic.twitter.com/fMDSqcOaAv — Tattoo Baker (@QB1TATT00) June 15, 2020
However, not all internet users are jumping on the anti-Gundy bandwagon, as seen in the tweets below supporting the coaches right to free speech.
Oklahoma State football star Chuba Hubbard is boycotting the program because head coach Mike Gundy wore an OAN t-shirt. Welcome to sports in 2020. We now boycott because a coach wore a t-shirt a player didn’t like. This country is going insane. https://t.co/ZReybpgEN9 — David Hookstead (@dhookstead) June 15, 2020
Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy is under fire for wearing an “OAN” tshirt on a fishing trip. Really. https://t.co/SXL3Goippk — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) June 15, 2020
You won’t stand for a guy wearing a t-shirt you don’t like? Do you think you should be the one dressing him every morning? I mean the narcissism is off the charts. Good Lord. — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 15, 2020
Coach Gundy should tell this player that as long as he’s the head coach, the team will support freedom of speech and thought for ALL and if he has a problem with it, he can go play for a different team. https://t.co/saXfu1enZn — Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) June 15, 2020


newswars--2020-06-15--COVID-19 Lockdowns are Neither Necessary, nor Scientific, nor Helpful

A viral disease known as COVID-19 has been declared the cause of death of over one hundred thousand Americans .
When cases first appeared in the United States , individual states considered and then implemented various forms of mandatory lockdown to “ flatten the curve ” of new cases and minimize the death toll .
I have previously questioned the wisdom of these lockdowns here .
Although some of the lockdowns have been relaxed or lifted , there is ongoing debate over whether the lockdowns should be reinstated to avoid a second wave of COVID-19 cases .
A lockdown is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of action .
Restrictions in the US have included bans on serving customers in restaurants and other places of business , bans of peaceful gatherings of too many people in one location ( in violation of “ social distancing ” requirements ) , and bans on religious worship by groups deemed to have too many people in one place of worship .
The First Amendment to the US Constitution lists the right to peaceably assemble and the right to free exercise of religion .
The First Amendment is part of what is called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these amendments are not known as the Bill of Privileges or the Bill of Nice Things to be Purchased by Taxes .
The US Constitution could not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights , so these rights are fundamental to what it means to be an American .
There is no question that the COVID-19 lockdowns denied Americans these fundamental rights .
The only question is whether the denial of these rights was necessary .
Some proponents of lockdown start and end their argument by stating the number of deaths attributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number is supposed to end any further discussion .
Anyone who questions whether the lockdowns have actually saved any lives are dismissed as having a callous disregard for human life .
Back when the death toll from COVID-19 was around thirty thousand , I compared COVID-19 deaths to the annual deaths from influenza .
Some of my colleagues repeatedly notify me when the death toll from COVID-19 is updated .
Their point is that if deaths from COVID-19 exceed some arbitrary number the lockdowns will have been vindicated .
It doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during lockdowns or not ; deaths from COVID-19 justify any action by government .
Comparisons with flu epidemics provide a frame of reference .
The point is that in the past American civilization somehow survived comparable crises with similar death tolls without requiring lockdowns .
Freedom of worship and freedom of peaceable assembly are constitutionally protected rights .
The only plausible justification for suspending those rights would be an imminent and credible threat to the existence of America that required immediate and united effort to avoid .
A final death toll from COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million would not change the argument despite being a substantially greater tragedy .
Some of my colleagues argue that life is priceless and is more important than any economic consideration .
This is contrary to the foundation of America .
During the debate over secession from Britain at the Second Virginia Convention held in 1775 , Patrick Henry asked the audience , which included Thomas Jefferson and George Washington , “ Is life so dear , or peace so sweet , as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a passionate answer : “ but as for me , give me liberty , or give me death !
” This quote is synonymous with a core American value : that the freedom to live one ’ s life as one chooses is even more important than life itself .
Individuals should choose whether the risks of socializing ( including risks of contracting COVID-19 ) are worth the benefits of social exchange .
It is not a matter of putting a dollar value on life ; it is a recognition that people regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happiness .
We could completely eliminate deaths from motor vehicle accidents by banning motor vehicles .
We continue to voluntarily use them , because the economic benefits of doing so are more valuable to us than the risks to our lives .
Another argument made by lockdown proponents is to “ follow the science.
” This is another phrase intended to end further discussion .
Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable by observation .
The scientific method is the process of testing falsifiable hypotheses by empiric observations that either support or reject them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is never closed to challenge or discussion .
What proponents of lockdowns mean by “ follow the science ” is that statements made by scientists should be accepted as axioms and that anyone who challenges these statements is an ignoramus or a conspiracy nut .
An obvious problem exists when different scientists make conflicting statements .
This problem is worse when the same scientist makes conflicting statements at different times .
As the debates over continuation or resumption of lockdowns continue , what is the current state of knowledge ?
The Centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) recently released their best estimate of symptomatic case fatality rates based on records of symptomatic cases , records of deaths , and antibody tests of wider populations .
The symptomatic case fatality rate is the risk of death after developing symptomatic disease .
This is different from the mortality rate , which is the number of deaths per hundred thousand .
The symptomatic case fatality rates are 0.5 deaths per thousand symptomatic cases for those under 50 years of age , 2 per thousand for those age 50–64 , and 13 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a frame of reference , the case fatality rate for the Spanish flu of 1918 was greater than 25 deaths per thousand cases .
The existing scientific data for COVID-19 do not justify the suspension of civil liberties .
The debate will always return to the total deaths , which now exceed one hundred thousand for the United States .
There is nothing extraordinary about the death toll from COVID-19 .
Total deaths in the US from all causes were 2,839,205 in 2018 .
The current mortality rate from COVID-19 in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the US from all causes was 723.6 in 2018 .
The mortality rate in the US in 2018 was 163.6 for heart disease , 149.1 from cancer , 48.0 from unintentional injury ( including motor vehicle accidents ) , 39.7 from chronic noninfectious lung disease ( mostly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [ COPD ] ) , 37.1 from stroke , and 30.5 from Alzheimer ’ s disease .
The mortality rate from suicide was 14.2 in 2018 .
These comparisons do not ignore the tragedy of deaths from COVID-19 ; the figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no evidence that lockdowns saved any lives .
Different political entities have tried different severities of lockdown .
Sweden tried a very liberal approach ; their mortality rate from COVID-19 was lower compared with some other countries with more severe lockdowns such as Britain , Spain , Italy , and France .
There is no clear relationship between severity of lockdown and mortality rates from COVID-19 for different states in the United States either .
New York had one of the strictest lockdowns and has the highest mortality rate from COVID-19 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of Texas had a relatively liberal lockdown and has a mortality rate from COVID-19 of 5.7 .
Texas had a mortality rate from motor vehicle accidents of 12.7 in 2018 .
More than twice as many people in Texas died from motor vehicle accidents in 2018 than have died from COVID-19 .
Each lockdown represents a different experiment in policy .
If we “ follow the science , ” we will conclude that lockdowns had little or no beneficial effect and that policy should be set at local levels rather than state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mandatory lockdowns should be ended .
We have enough data for individuals to make decisions about whether they should stay in the safety of their homes or risk their lives by socializing .
Young people are at the least risk from COVID-19 and have the most to lose by economic deprivation .
The elderly are at the highest risk and have the least to lose by staying at home since many are retired or disabled .
People who live in New York may very well make different choices from people in Texas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas , people have changed their behavior voluntarily .
Some people wear masks and others do not .
If you are afraid of those who do not , it is easy enough to avoid them .
I take outdoor walks .
During these walks , people wave to each other .
We give each other space voluntarily , but nobody calls in a SWAT team if some child or pet breaches the capricious and arbitrary six-foot barrier .
Calls for resuming lockdowns out of fear of second waves should be ignored .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hole , and we need to stop digging it deeper .

A viral disease known as COVID-19 has been declared the cause of death of over one hundred thousand Americans.
When cases first appeared in the United States, individual states considered and then implemented various forms of mandatory lockdown to “flatten the curve” of new cases and minimize the death toll. I have previously questioned the wisdom of these lockdowns here. Although some of the lockdowns have been relaxed or lifted, there is ongoing debate over whether the lockdowns should be reinstated to avoid a second wave of COVID-19 cases.
A lockdown is one form of mandatory restriction of freedom of action. Restrictions in the US have included bans on serving customers in restaurants and other places of business, bans of peaceful gatherings of too many people in one location (in violation of “social distancing” requirements), and bans on religious worship by groups deemed to have too many people in one place of worship.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution lists the right to peaceably assemble and the right to free exercise of religion. The First Amendment is part of what is called the Bill of Rights. Note that these amendments are not known as the Bill of Privileges or the Bill of Nice Things to be Purchased by Taxes. The US Constitution could not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights, so these rights are fundamental to what it means to be an American. There is no question that the COVID-19 lockdowns denied Americans these fundamental rights. The only question is whether the denial of these rights was necessary.
Some proponents of lockdown start and end their argument by stating the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19. The magnitude of the number is supposed to end any further discussion. Anyone who questions whether the lockdowns have actually saved any lives are dismissed as having a callous disregard for human life. Back when the death toll from COVID-19 was around thirty thousand, I compared COVID-19 deaths to the annual deaths from influenza. Some of my colleagues repeatedly notify me when the death toll from COVID-19 is updated. Their point is that if deaths from COVID-19 exceed some arbitrary number the lockdowns will have been vindicated. It doesn’t seem to matter whether the deaths occurred during lockdowns or not; deaths from COVID-19 justify any action by government.
Comparisons with flu epidemics provide a frame of reference. The point is that in the past American civilization somehow survived comparable crises with similar death tolls without requiring lockdowns. Freedom of worship and freedom of peaceable assembly are constitutionally protected rights. The only plausible justification for suspending those rights would be an imminent and credible threat to the existence of America that required immediate and united effort to avoid. A final death toll from COVID-19 of two hundred thousand or even 1 million would not change the argument despite being a substantially greater tragedy.
Some of my colleagues argue that life is priceless and is more important than any economic consideration. This is contrary to the foundation of America. During the debate over secession from Britain at the Second Virginia Convention held in 1775, Patrick Henry asked the audience, which included Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Patrick Henry concluded his address with a passionate answer: “but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” This quote is synonymous with a core American value: that the freedom to live one’s life as one chooses is even more important than life itself. Individuals should choose whether the risks of socializing (including risks of contracting COVID-19) are worth the benefits of social exchange. It is not a matter of putting a dollar value on life; it is a recognition that people regularly risk their lives voluntarily in pursuit of happiness. We could completely eliminate deaths from motor vehicle accidents by banning motor vehicles. We continue to voluntarily use them, because the economic benefits of doing so are more valuable to us than the risks to our lives.
Another argument made by lockdown proponents is to “follow the science.” This is another phrase intended to end further discussion. Scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable by observation. The scientific method is the process of testing falsifiable hypotheses by empiric observations that either support or reject them. The “science” is never settled and is never closed to challenge or discussion. What proponents of lockdowns mean by “follow the science” is that statements made by scientists should be accepted as axioms and that anyone who challenges these statements is an ignoramus or a conspiracy nut. An obvious problem exists when different scientists make conflicting statements. This problem is worse when the same scientist makes conflicting statements at different times.
As the debates over continuation or resumption of lockdowns continue, what is the current state of knowledge? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released their best estimate of symptomatic case fatality rates based on records of symptomatic cases, records of deaths, and antibody tests of wider populations. The symptomatic case fatality rate is the risk of death after developing symptomatic disease. This is different from the mortality rate, which is the number of deaths per hundred thousand. The symptomatic case fatality rates are 0.5 deaths per thousand symptomatic cases for those under 50 years of age, 2 per thousand for those age 50–64, and 13 per thousand for those over 65. As a frame of reference, the case fatality rate for the Spanish flu of 1918 was greater than 25 deaths per thousand cases. The existing scientific data for COVID-19 do not justify the suspension of civil liberties.
The debate will always return to the total deaths, which now exceed one hundred thousand for the United States. There is nothing extraordinary about the death toll from COVID-19. Total deaths in the US from all causes were 2,839,205 in 2018. The current mortality rate from COVID-19 in the US is 31.7. The total mortality rate in the US from all causes was 723.6 in 2018. The mortality rate in the US in 2018 was 163.6 for heart disease, 149.1 from cancer, 48.0 from unintentional injury (including motor vehicle accidents), 39.7 from chronic noninfectious lung disease (mostly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]), 37.1 from stroke, and 30.5 from Alzheimer’s disease. The mortality rate from suicide was 14.2 in 2018. These comparisons do not ignore the tragedy of deaths from COVID-19; the figures provide a frame of reference.
There is no evidence that lockdowns saved any lives. Different political entities have tried different severities of lockdown. Sweden tried a very liberal approach; their mortality rate from COVID-19 was lower compared with some other countries with more severe lockdowns such as Britain, Spain, Italy, and France. There is no clear relationship between severity of lockdown and mortality rates from COVID-19 for different states in the United States either. New York had one of the strictest lockdowns and has the highest mortality rate from COVID-19 of all states at 152.9. My own state of Texas had a relatively liberal lockdown and has a mortality rate from COVID-19 of 5.7. Texas had a mortality rate from motor vehicle accidents of 12.7 in 2018. More than twice as many people in Texas died from motor vehicle accidents in 2018 than have died from COVID-19. Each lockdown represents a different experiment in policy. If we “follow the science,” we will conclude that lockdowns had little or no beneficial effect and that policy should be set at local levels rather than state, national, or global levels.
Mandatory lockdowns should be ended. We have enough data for individuals to make decisions about whether they should stay in the safety of their homes or risk their lives by socializing. Young people are at the least risk from COVID-19 and have the most to lose by economic deprivation. The elderly are at the highest risk and have the least to lose by staying at home since many are retired or disabled. People who live in New York may very well make different choices from people in Texas.
In my home community of Lubbock, Texas, people have changed their behavior voluntarily. Some people wear masks and others do not. If you are afraid of those who do not, it is easy enough to avoid them. I take outdoor walks. During these walks, people wave to each other. We give each other space voluntarily, but nobody calls in a SWAT team if some child or pet breaches the capricious and arbitrary six-foot barrier. Calls for resuming lockdowns out of fear of second waves should be ignored. The lockdowns have dug a very deep economic hole, and we need to stop digging it deeper.


newswars--2020-06-15--Why the New Economics Just Boils Down to Printing More Money

[ Editor ’ s Note : this article is adapted from a 2003 essay in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics entitled “ New Keynesian Monetary Views : A Comment.
” As economists abandon theory in favor of makeshift plans to flood the economy with stimulus , Hülsmann here provides some helpful reminders of the fundamental problems behind the current economic consensus on money . ]
The essential fallacy of John Maynard Keynes and his early disciples was to cultivate the monetary equivalent of alchemy .
They believed that paper money was a suitable means to alleviate the fundamental economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , at any rate , under certain plausible conditions of duress , a substitute for hard work , savings , and cutting prices ( Hazlitt 1959 , 1960 ) .
The self-styled new Keynesians have not at all abandoned this fallacy , and they therefore do not differ in any essential respect from the old Keynesians , in spite of the pains they take to distinguish themselves from the latter .
The new Keynesian recommendation for monetary policy is to “ stabilize the growth of aggregate demand.
” In plain language this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop flooding the economy with paper money .
This is recognizably the core tenet of the old Keynesian monetary program , which in itself had been nothing but even older fallacies clothed in the new language of aggregate analysis .
In many respects , new Keynesian views on monetary theory and policy seem to be even more fallacious than those of their predecessors .
Whereas Keynes and his immediate followers were still trained in the old-fashioned art of economic reasoning , the new Keynesians are macroeconomic purebreds .
Their expertise lies more or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As with the macroeconomics profession in general , they are devoted to a positivistic methodology , putting all their energies into modeling quantitative relationships among things that are the result of human action , rather than into the analysis of human action itself .
Not surprisingly , therefore , their “ science ” of the economy resembles a hotchpotch of educated guesswork , conventions , and fictions , all designed to make the problems under consideration amenable to mathematical treatment .
At one point in his exposition , Zimmermann briefly concludes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But then he goes on : “ There is a consensus , however , that an inflation target between zero and two percent is optimal , allowing for measurement errors ” ( Zimmermann 2003 , p. 7 ) .
Those who are bewildered by such turns of argument might also wonder how one can believe that policy recommendations derived from a mere consensus of academic economists have anything to do with science .
Similar problems crop up with the frequent jumps between statements of facts and value judgments , and to new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles , ” “ first principles , ” and so on .
In the writings of Austrian economists these words have a completely different meaning .
Honest new Keynesians acknowledge that their models are not a realistic representation of parts of the observed economy .
They admit that their reasoning is based on stipulations and conventions of a more or less fictional and therefore arbitrary character .
But they believe that economic science can not do any better than that , whereas Austrians think they know a better approach .
As a consequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keynesian policy prescriptions do not exactly stand on the firm ground of science .
For example , is it really true that central bankers are supposed to be well-meaning economic tsars ?
And is it really true that central bankers seek to minimize deviations of output from potential output ?
More importantly still , even if we assume for the sake of argument that both of these questions can be answered in the affirmative , we still have still not even touched the fundamental problems of monetary policy analysis—problems that require sober examination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ scientific ” recommendations to policymakers ?
Here is one for a starter : How can central bankers , or for that matter anybody else , know the potential output of an economy at any point in time ?
And also : Can monetary policy close the gap between actual and potential output at all ?
Again the sober observer can not fail to notice that new Keynesians have no genuine answers to these questions—they answer them ( in the affirmative ) by stipulation and by convention .
More to the point of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly agree with the commonplace [ notion ] that money is not neutral in the short run .
But they would add that money is never neutral , neither in the short nor in the long run , because of the wealth effects that go in hand with any change in the money supply .
Monetary policy therefore always has an impact on the economy , irrespective of whether the policy has been anticipated .
Its impact on prices is not necessarily proportional , but in any case it permanently alters the distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thereby affects the prices paid for the various consumer ’ s goods and producer ’ s goods .
It makes some ventures profitable , and it makes other ventures unprofitable .
It creates fortunes and elevated social positions on the one hand , and it destroys wealth and income on the other .
The fundamental question we have to confront in the theory of monetary policy is therefore not whether money affects the real economy—yes , it does , both in the short run and in the long run—but whether changes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off in the aggregate .
Austrian economists who follow the approach of Mises and Rothbard believe that it can not .
By contrast , the intellectual edifice of Keynesianism—both old and new—rests squarely on the notion that money does alleviate the problem of scarcity for society as a whole .
The entire case for monetary policy is based on the idea that “ a decrease of inflation is followed by temporary output losses ” ( Zimmermann 2003 , p. 6 ) .
At least in the short run , there is a tradeoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should we believe that such a tradeoff is more than an accident of history—that is , why should we not believe that a decrease in inflation could with equal probability lead to temporary output gains ?
At this point the new Keynesians essentially repeat the arguments of their predecessors , referring to sticky prices , the Phillips curve , and discontinuous price setting .
But the Phillips curve at the very best is the statistical representation of contingent historical data ( Phillips 1958 ; Fisher 1973 ) .
And even if we grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faithfully represents certain historically contingent data , the fact remains that stickiness of prices is no fact of nature such as rainy weather or sunshine , but a variable that depends on political and cultural factors .
On a free market , price stickiness is always as low as it can humanly be , and no monetary policy can reduce it further—as long as labor unions can hire economists trained in ( new and old ) Keynesian economics , at any rate ( Mises 1931 , 1958 ; Friedman 1968 ) .
Similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that staggered nominal price setting per se induces disequilibria— ” fluctuations in output ” and “ macroeconomic inefficiencies.
” Contracts are always made for certain periods of time .
In more or less many cases , one of the contracting parties may discover after the fact that the price stipulated in the contract was not adequate from his point of view .
But how can this be said to be a general social problem ?
After all , the other party usually gains in such a situation , and thus there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is not at all clear how such problems can possibly be avoided or reduced through manipulations of the money supply .
Is it really necessary to repeat all the insights about expectations and the dangers of inflation-induced moral hazard—insights that seem to have made it into large parts of the mainstream these past thirty years ?
A final word on the Taylor principle : it does not rule out inflation spirals .
Under certain conditions it is not enough to increase interest rates overproportionally , because even such an overproportional increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other factors that cause an increase in the price level .
These conditions seem to hold in many cases ( Orphanides 2000 ) .
Moreover , and more importantly , the entire focus on inflation targeting and interest rate targeting in particular is misleading , as Austrians have long been arguing , because bubbles can build up even at stable prices and interest rates .
Monetary theorists are well advised to regain the habit of discussing policy questions at a fundamental institutional level .
It is relevant and useful to raise the question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , and why .
And it is relevant and useful to compare free market money with fiat money .
Eclipsing such questions from the very outset might be convenient for those who derive income from the present institutions .
But it is a disserve to science , and to society as a whole .

[Editor’s Note: this article is adapted from a 2003 essay in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics entitled “New Keynesian Monetary Views: A Comment.” As economists abandon theory in favor of makeshift plans to flood the economy with stimulus, Hülsmann here provides some helpful reminders of the fundamental problems behind the current economic consensus on money.]
The essential fallacy of John Maynard Keynes and his early disciples was to cultivate the monetary equivalent of alchemy.
They believed that paper money was a suitable means to alleviate the fundamental economic problem of scarcity. The printing press was, at any rate, under certain plausible conditions of duress, a substitute for hard work, savings, and cutting prices (Hazlitt 1959, 1960).
The self-styled new Keynesians have not at all abandoned this fallacy, and they therefore do not differ in any essential respect from the old Keynesians, in spite of the pains they take to distinguish themselves from the latter. The new Keynesian recommendation for monetary policy is to “stabilize the growth of aggregate demand.” In plain language this means that the monetary authorities should never stop flooding the economy with paper money. This is recognizably the core tenet of the old Keynesian monetary program, which in itself had been nothing but even older fallacies clothed in the new language of aggregate analysis.
In many respects, new Keynesian views on monetary theory and policy seem to be even more fallacious than those of their predecessors. Whereas Keynes and his immediate followers were still trained in the old-fashioned art of economic reasoning, the new Keynesians are macroeconomic purebreds. Their expertise lies more or less exclusively in the field of modeling. As with the macroeconomics profession in general, they are devoted to a positivistic methodology, putting all their energies into modeling quantitative relationships among things that are the result of human action, rather than into the analysis of human action itself. Not surprisingly, therefore, their “science” of the economy resembles a hotchpotch of educated guesswork, conventions, and fictions, all designed to make the problems under consideration amenable to mathematical treatment. At one point in his exposition, Zimmermann briefly concludes that the optimal inflation rate should be zero. But then he goes on: “There is a consensus, however, that an inflation target between zero and two percent is optimal, allowing for measurement errors” (Zimmermann 2003, p. 7). Those who are bewildered by such turns of argument might also wonder how one can believe that policy recommendations derived from a mere consensus of academic economists have anything to do with science. Similar problems crop up with the frequent jumps between statements of facts and value judgments, and to new Keynesian uses of expressions such as “principles,” “first principles,” and so on. In the writings of Austrian economists these words have a completely different meaning.
Honest new Keynesians acknowledge that their models are not a realistic representation of parts of the observed economy. They admit that their reasoning is based on stipulations and conventions of a more or less fictional and therefore arbitrary character. But they believe that economic science cannot do any better than that, whereas Austrians think they know a better approach. As a consequence, from an Austrian perspective, new Keynesian policy prescriptions do not exactly stand on the firm ground of science. For example, is it really true that central bankers are supposed to be well-meaning economic tsars? And is it really true that central bankers seek to minimize deviations of output from potential output? More importantly still, even if we assume for the sake of argument that both of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, we still have still not even touched the fundamental problems of monetary policy analysis—problems that require sober examination before one can venture to make any “scientific” recommendations to policymakers? Here is one for a starter: How can central bankers, or for that matter anybody else, know the potential output of an economy at any point in time? And also: Can monetary policy close the gap between actual and potential output at all? Again the sober observer cannot fail to notice that new Keynesians have no genuine answers to these questions—they answer them (in the affirmative) by stipulation and by convention.
More to the point of monetary theory and policy, Austrian economists certainly agree with the commonplace [notion] that money is not neutral in the short run. But they would add that money is never neutral, neither in the short nor in the long run, because of the wealth effects that go in hand with any change in the money supply. Monetary policy therefore always has an impact on the economy, irrespective of whether the policy has been anticipated. Its impact on prices is not necessarily proportional, but in any case it permanently alters the distribution of wealth among the members of society and thereby affects the prices paid for the various consumer’s goods and producer’s goods. It makes some ventures profitable, and it makes other ventures unprofitable. It creates fortunes and elevated social positions on the one hand, and it destroys wealth and income on the other.
The fundamental question we have to confront in the theory of monetary policy is therefore not whether money affects the real economy—yes, it does, both in the short run and in the long run—but whether changes of the money supply can make society better off in the aggregate. Austrian economists who follow the approach of Mises and Rothbard believe that it cannot. By contrast, the intellectual edifice of Keynesianism—both old and new—rests squarely on the notion that money does alleviate the problem of scarcity for society as a whole. The entire case for monetary policy is based on the idea that “a decrease of inflation is followed by temporary output losses” (Zimmermann 2003, p. 6). At least in the short run, there is a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
But why should we believe that such a tradeoff is more than an accident of history—that is, why should we not believe that a decrease in inflation could with equal probability lead to temporary output gains ? At this point the new Keynesians essentially repeat the arguments of their predecessors, referring to sticky prices, the Phillips curve, and discontinuous price setting. But the Phillips curve at the very best is the statistical representation of contingent historical data (Phillips 1958; Fisher 1973). And even if we grant for the sake of argument that it faithfully represents certain historically contingent data, the fact remains that stickiness of prices is no fact of nature such as rainy weather or sunshine, but a variable that depends on political and cultural factors. On a free market, price stickiness is always as low as it can humanly be, and no monetary policy can reduce it further—as long as labor unions can hire economists trained in (new and old) Keynesian economics, at any rate (Mises 1931, 1958; Friedman 1968).
Similarly, there is no reason to assume that staggered nominal price setting per se induces disequilibria—”fluctuations in output” and “macroeconomic inefficiencies.” Contracts are always made for certain periods of time. In more or less many cases, one of the contracting parties may discover after the fact that the price stipulated in the contract was not adequate from his point of view. But how can this be said to be a general social problem? After all, the other party usually gains in such a situation, and thus there is no general problem. Most importantly, however, it is not at all clear how such problems can possibly be avoided or reduced through manipulations of the money supply. Is it really necessary to repeat all the insights about expectations and the dangers of inflation-induced moral hazard—insights that seem to have made it into large parts of the mainstream these past thirty years?
A final word on the Taylor principle: it does not rule out inflation spirals. Under certain conditions it is not enough to increase interest rates overproportionally, because even such an overproportional increase might not be sufficient to offset the other factors that cause an increase in the price level. These conditions seem to hold in many cases (Orphanides 2000). Moreover, and more importantly, the entire focus on inflation targeting and interest rate targeting in particular is misleading, as Austrians have long been arguing, because bubbles can build up even at stable prices and interest rates.
Monetary theorists are well advised to regain the habit of discussing policy questions at a fundamental institutional level. It is relevant and useful to raise the question of whether we need central banks at all, and why. And it is relevant and useful to compare free market money with fiat money. Eclipsing such questions from the very outset might be convenient for those who derive income from the present institutions. But it is a disserve to science, and to society as a whole.


newswars--2020-06-15--Australian Politician Says George Floyd Was a ‘Criminal & Dangerous Thug’

Australian politician Pauline Hanson sparked controversy over her remarks on George Floyd–the suspected fraudster who was killed by police after an officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes–calling the deceased Minneapolis man “ criminal and a dangerous thug.
” Last weekend , tens of thousands of people demonstrated in Australia for Black Lives Matter following the in-custody killing of Floyd , according to The Daily Mail .
On Wednesday , Hanson , The One Nation Leader , addressed the Australia Senate to condemn the man who sparked international protests–and riots .
She said : “ George Floyd had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ This man has been in and out of prison numerous times .
He was a criminal and a dangerous thug.
” Floyd had reportedly moved to Minnesota from Texas to start afresh after a bout of criminality in his early adulthood .
Hanson , slamming the protests , went onto say : “ It sickened me to see people holding up signs saying ‘ black lives matter ’ in memory of this American criminal .
“ I ’ m sorry , but all lives matter… we can not allow bleeding hearts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabric of our society and our freedom .
“ No one could possibly condone the way in which George Floyd died .
But what upsets me is the attitude of many people – black and white.
” In the UK , Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested the protests should not be backed as they would likely end in violence–something which was proven yesterday as patriotic protesters were attacked by pro-BLM supporters , with one stabbing caught on camera .
In recent weeks , the media has pushed a narrative to inject energy into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
A few publications described the counter-protesters as far-right thugs for protecting historical statues from vandalism .
Far-left London Mayor Sadiq Khan condemned the actions of the patriotic counter-protesters , tweeting : “ Millions of Londoners will have been disgusted by the shameful scenes of violence , desecration and racism displayed by the right-wing extremists who gathered in our city today.
” Protests are expected to continue as Western countries supposedly remain under coronavirus lockdown restrictions .
Author of ‘ From Democrat To Deplorable ’ reveals how ANTIFA tried to ruin his @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Australian politician Pauline Hanson sparked controversy over her remarks on George Floyd–the suspected fraudster who was killed by police after an officer knelt on his neck for nine minutes–calling the deceased Minneapolis man “criminal and a dangerous thug.”
Last weekend, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in Australia for Black Lives Matter following the in-custody killing of Floyd, according to The Daily Mail.
On Wednesday, Hanson, The One Nation Leader, addressed the Australia Senate to condemn the man who sparked international protests–and riots.
She said: “George Floyd had been made out to be a martyr. ‘This man has been in and out of prison numerous times. He was a criminal and a dangerous thug.”
Floyd had reportedly moved to Minnesota from Texas to start afresh after a bout of criminality in his early adulthood.
Hanson, slamming the protests, went onto say: “It sickened me to see people holding up signs saying ‘black lives matter’ in memory of this American criminal.
“I’m sorry, but all lives matter… we cannot allow bleeding hearts and those on the left to destroy the fabric of our society and our freedom.
“No one could possibly condone the way in which George Floyd died. But what upsets me is the attitude of many people – black and white.”
In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested the protests should not be backed as they would likely end in violence–something which was proven yesterday as patriotic protesters were attacked by pro-BLM supporters, with one stabbing caught on camera.
In recent weeks, the media has pushed a narrative to inject energy into the Black Lives Matter protests around the world. A few publications described the counter-protesters as far-right thugs for protecting historical statues from vandalism.
Far-left London Mayor Sadiq Khan condemned the actions of the patriotic counter-protesters, tweeting: “Millions of Londoners will have been disgusted by the shameful scenes of violence, desecration and racism displayed by the right-wing extremists who gathered in our city today.”
Millions of Londoners will have been disgusted by the shameful scenes of violence, desecration and racism displayed by the right-wing extremists who gathered in our city today. In the face of attacks and abuse, our police did a fantastic job to control the situation. Thank you. — Sadiq Khan (@SadiqKhan) June 13, 2020
Protests are expected to continue as Western countries supposedly remain under coronavirus lockdown restrictions.
Author of ‘From Democrat To Deplorable’ reveals how ANTIFA tried to ruin his life and how he fought back.


newswars--2020-06-15--Research sheds new light on intelligent life existing across the galaxy

Is there anyone out there ?
This is an age-old question that researchers have now shed new light on with a study that calculates there could be more than 30 intelligent civilizations throughout our Galaxy .
This is an enormous advance over previous estimates which spanned from zero to billions .
One of the biggest and longest-standing questions in the history of human thought is whether there are other intelligent life forms within our Universe .
Obtaining good estimates of the number of possible extraterrestrial civilizations has however been very challenging .
A new study led by the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal has taken a new approach to this problem .
Using the assumption that intelligent life forms on other planets in a similar way as it does on Earth , researchers have obtained an estimate for the number of intelligent communicating civilizations within our own galaxy -the Milky Way .
They calculate that there could be over 30 active communicating intelligent civilizations in our home Galaxy .
Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Nottingham , Christopher Conselice who led the research , explains : “ There should be at least a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the assumption that it takes 5 billion years for intelligent life to form on other planets , as on Earth.
” Conselice also explains that , “ The idea is looking at evolution , but on a cosmic scale .
We call this calculation the Astrobiological Copernican Limit.
” First author Tom Westby explains : “ The classic method for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations relies on making guesses of values relating to life , whereby opinions about such matters vary quite substantially .
Our new study simplifies these assumptions using new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the number of civilizations in our Galaxy .
The two Astrobiological Copernican limits are that intelligent life forms in less than 5 billion years , or after about 5 billion years—similar to on Earth where a communicating civilization formed after 4.5 billion years .
In the strong criteria , whereby a metal content equal to that of the Sun is needed ( the Sun is relatively speaking quite metal rich ) , we calculate that there should be around 36 active civilizations in our Galaxy.
” The research shows that the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are actively sending out signals of their existence into space , such as radio transmissions from satellites , television , etc .
If other technological civilizations last as long as ours which is currently 100 years old , then there will be about 36 ongoing intelligent technical civilizations throughout our Galaxy .
However , the average distance to these civilizations would be 17,000 light-years away , making detection and communication very difficult with our present technology .
It is also possible that we are the only civilization within our Galaxy unless the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are long .
Professor Conselice continues : “ Our new research suggests that searches for extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations not only reveals the existence of how life forms , but also gives us clues for how long our own civilization will last .
If we find that intelligent life is common then this would reveal that our civilization could exist for much longer than a few hundred years , alternatively if we find that there are no active civilizations in our Galaxy it is a bad sign for our own long-term existence .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find nothing—we are discovering our own future and fate .
”

Is there anyone out there?
This is an age-old question that researchers have now shed new light on with a study that calculates there could be more than 30 intelligent civilizations throughout our Galaxy. This is an enormous advance over previous estimates which spanned from zero to billions.
One of the biggest and longest-standing questions in the history of human thought is whether there are other intelligent life forms within our Universe. Obtaining good estimates of the number of possible extraterrestrial civilizations has however been very challenging.
A new study led by the University of Nottingham and published today in The Astrophysical Journal has taken a new approach to this problem. Using the assumption that intelligent life forms on other planets in a similar way as it does on Earth, researchers have obtained an estimate for the number of intelligent communicating civilizations within our own galaxy -the Milky Way. They calculate that there could be over 30 active communicating intelligent civilizations in our home Galaxy.
Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Nottingham, Christopher Conselice who led the research, explains: “There should be at least a few dozen active civilizations in our Galaxy under the assumption that it takes 5 billion years for intelligent life to form on other planets, as on Earth.” Conselice also explains that, “The idea is looking at evolution, but on a cosmic scale. We call this calculation the Astrobiological Copernican Limit.”
First author Tom Westby explains: “The classic method for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations relies on making guesses of values relating to life, whereby opinions about such matters vary quite substantially. Our new study simplifies these assumptions using new data, giving us a solid estimate of the number of civilizations in our Galaxy.
The two Astrobiological Copernican limits are that intelligent life forms in less than 5 billion years, or after about 5 billion years—similar to on Earth where a communicating civilization formed after 4.5 billion years. In the strong criteria, whereby a metal content equal to that of the Sun is needed (the Sun is relatively speaking quite metal rich), we calculate that there should be around 36 active civilizations in our Galaxy.”
The research shows that the number of civilizations depends strongly on how long they are actively sending out signals of their existence into space, such as radio transmissions from satellites, television, etc. If other technological civilizations last as long as ours which is currently 100 years old, then there will be about 36 ongoing intelligent technical civilizations throughout our Galaxy.
However, the average distance to these civilizations would be 17,000 light-years away, making detection and communication very difficult with our present technology. It is also possible that we are the only civilization within our Galaxy unless the survival times of civilizations like our own are long.
Professor Conselice continues: “Our new research suggests that searches for extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations not only reveals the existence of how life forms, but also gives us clues for how long our own civilization will last. If we find that intelligent life is common then this would reveal that our civilization could exist for much longer than a few hundred years, alternatively if we find that there are no active civilizations in our Galaxy it is a bad sign for our own long-term existence. By searching for extraterrestrial intelligent life—even if we find nothing—we are discovering our own future and fate.”


newswars--2020-06-15--US Surgeon General Flip-Flops From “Stop Buying Masks” To Claiming “Masks Promote Freedom”

, no lessor healthcare official that the US Surgeon General took to Twitter to demand Americans “ STOP BUYING MASKS !
” claiming that they ’ re not effective in preventing the general public from catching COVID-19 .
“ The best way to protect yourself and your community is with everyday preventive actions , like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water , to help slow the spread of respiratory illness , ” Jerome M. Adams said in a following tweet .
By the end of March , he had changed his authoritative stance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sick should wear a mask .
He added , “ If you have a mask and it makes you feel better , then by all means wear it , but know that the more you touch your face the more you put yourself at risk and know that right now the data isn ’ t quite there to say that there is a net benefit to the individual of wearing a mask.
” , Jerome Adams , who is African American , came under serious fire from all sides after he appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following President Trump ’ s coronavirus guidelines ( after widespread liberal media coverage of the inequities of the virus ’ impact on low income black and brown families ) .
“ We need you to do this if not for yourself than for your abuela .
Do it for your granddaddy , do it for your big momma , do it for your poppop , ” while suggesting that black and Latino families “ avoid alcohol , tobacco and drugs.
” And now , two months later , the Surgeon General on Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic and outlined the case for why such behavior means more , not less , freedom .
Adams , in a tweet on Sunday , dismissed the idea that face coverings curtail freedom , arguing that wearing masks to stem the spread of COVID-19 is a small sacrifice that leads to a faster reopening and return to economic and social normalcy .
“ Some feel face coverings infringe on their freedom of choice- but if more wear them , we ’ ll have MORE freedom to go out , ” Adams wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message , Adams acknowledged the issue of mask-wearing had its proponents and detractors and said it came down to individuals making choices about safety of others in the community .
“ Ultimately it is a choice we make , and I hope it ’ s made based on the best available/ current science , and a desire to do all we can to help others and ourselves/ our communities , ” he wrote , adding , “ Like vaccines , the more who participate , the greater the impact.
” So , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Surgeon General has claimed that “ staying home [ i.e .
giving up all freedom ] and not wearing a mask ” is the best way to stay safe to now claiming “ wearing a mask gives you more freedom.
” Is it any surprise that the American public is increasingly questioning the omnipotence of the “ science ” and the “ health officials ” that have led us down this dark socio-economic path ?

In late February , no lessor healthcare official that the US Surgeon General took to Twitter to demand Americans “STOP BUYING MASKS!” claiming that they’re not effective in preventing the general public from catching COVID-19.
Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
https://t.co/UxZRwxxKL9 — U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) February 29, 2020
“The best way to protect yourself and your community is with everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness,” Jerome M. Adams said in a following tweet.
By the end of March , he had changed his authoritative stance on masks, stressing that people who are sick should wear a mask. He added,
“If you have a mask and it makes you feel better, then by all means wear it, but know that the more you touch your face the more you put yourself at risk and know that right now the data isn’t quite there to say that there is a net benefit to the individual of wearing a mask.”
In April , Jerome Adams, who is African American, came under serious fire from all sides after he appeared to single-out communities of color for not following President Trump’s coronavirus guidelines (after widespread liberal media coverage of the inequities of the virus’ impact on low income black and brown families).
“We need you to do this if not for yourself than for your abuela. Do it for your granddaddy, do it for your big momma, do it for your poppop,” while suggesting that black and Latino families “avoid alcohol, tobacco and drugs.”
And now, two months later, the Surgeon General on Sunday urged Americans to wear face coverings amid the pandemic and outlined the case for why such behavior means more, not less, freedom.
Adams, in a tweet on Sunday, dismissed the idea that face coverings curtail freedom, arguing that wearing masks to stem the spread of COVID-19 is a small sacrifice that leads to a faster reopening and return to economic and social normalcy.
“Some feel face coverings infringe on their freedom of choice- but if more wear them, we’ll have MORE freedom to go out,” Adams wrote in a tweet.
Some feel face coverings infringe on their freedom of choice- but if more wear them, we’ll have MORE freedom to go out. Face coverings ➡ less asymptomatic viral spread ➡ more places open, and sooner! Exercise and promote your freedom by choosing to wear a face covering! pic.twitter.com/3A4fW2qmN8 — Jerome Adams (@JeromeAdamsMD) June 14, 2020
In a follow-up message, Adams acknowledged the issue of mask-wearing had its proponents and detractors and said it came down to individuals making choices about safety of others in the community.
“Ultimately it is a choice we make, and I hope it’s made based on the best available/ current science, and a desire to do all we can to help others and ourselves/ our communities,” he wrote, adding, “Like vaccines, the more who participate, the greater the impact.”
So, in the space of three months, America’s Surgeon General has claimed that “staying home [i.e. giving up all freedom] and not wearing a mask” is the best way to stay safe to now claiming “wearing a mask gives you more freedom.”
Is it any surprise that the American public is increasingly questioning the omnipotence of the “science” and the “health officials” that have led us down this dark socio-economic path?
Alex Jones exposes Bill Gates’ depopulation agenda!


newswars--2020-06-15--Stressed Out Parents Less Likely to Enforce Kid’s Screen Time

When parents are under stress , household rules about screen time often get abandoned , new University of Guelph research finds .
A first of its kind in Canada , the study found parents of young children reporting high levels of life or parenting stress were less likely to monitor and limit their kids ’ screen use and more likely to use their own devices in front of their children .
Published in the Journal of Children and Media , the research comes at a time when many Canadian families are experiencing more stress than usual because of upheaval caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 64 parents from 39 families of children 18 months to five years of age taking part in the Guelph Family Health Study .
The parents were asked about their stress as well as whether they monitored and limited their children ’ s screen use , and whether they used screens in front of their children .
Lead author Lisa Tang , a PhD student in the Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition , said previous U of G research has shown that parenting practices influence how much time children spend on screens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to understand the implications of parental stress on media parenting practices .
We found parenting stress does indeed affect how parents manage screen time but influenced mothers and fathers differently , ” she said .
For example , when mothers reported a high level of general life stress , they were more likely to report they used devices in front of their children and less likely to monitor or limit their kids ’ screen use .
Alex Jones exposes the goblin king Bill Gates and the globalist agenda designed to bring humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mothers anticipate conflicts with their children if they attempt to impose limits so decide it is either too hard or not worth the fight during times of stress , said Tang .
But fathers , who reported high general life stress , were more likely to limit their kids ’ screen use .
This could mean that stressed dads are more likely to enforce rules , said Tang .
Or it could suggest that when children already have screen limits , fathers are more likely to report high general life stress because children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase their demands on their parents , she added .
Mothers who reported they found parenting itself stressful were more likely to say they used devices in front of their children and were less likely to monitor or limit their children ’ s screen use .
Fathers experiencing similar stress reported no change .
“ Parents do seem to say they use their screens more when they say they are under stress , perhaps as an escape , ” said Tang .
“ This is an important finding because research has shown that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their preschool-aged children , it is associated with those children having greater levels of screen time.
” Prof. Jess Haines said this research is not about making parents feel guilty about screen use .
“ There ’ s nothing wrong with using screens now and again .
We are all doing the best we can , especially now , and parents of children under five need to allow themselves a break .
This is really about excess screen time .
It ’ s about making parents conscious of their practices and balancing active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that behaviour , ” she said .
Study co-author Valerie Hruska , a doctoral candidate in U of G ’ s Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences , said the study ’ s findings are important given the potential health consequences for young children .
“ Previous research has shown that high screen use is linked to health issues in children , including lower activity levels , obesity and even language delays in younger children because they engage in less back-and-forth conversation , ” she said .
One surprising finding involved a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos , which assesses commotion and noise in a home .
The researchers expected high household chaos would be linked to high screen use but found the opposite : chaos was linked with more screen-time monitoring by both mothers and fathers .
The researchers theorize that when children put away their devices and get involved in other activities in the house , it leads to more chaos compared to quieter screen time .
“ So perhaps a little chaos in the home isn ’ t a bad thing if it means kids take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hruska , adding the next goal is to help find ways for parents to limit screen times without increasing household chaos .
The research was supported in part by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research New Investigator Award .
Author of ‘ From Democrat To Deplorable ’ reveals how ANTIFA tried to ruin his life and how he fought back .

When parents are under stress, household rules about screen time often get abandoned, new University of Guelph research finds.
A first of its kind in Canada, the study found parents of young children reporting high levels of life or parenting stress were less likely to monitor and limit their kids’ screen use and more likely to use their own devices in front of their children.
Published in the Journal of Children and Media, the research comes at a time when many Canadian families are experiencing more stress than usual because of upheaval caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
The study surveyed 64 parents from 39 families of children 18 months to five years of age taking part in the Guelph Family Health Study. The parents were asked about their stress as well as whether they monitored and limited their children’s screen use, and whether they used screens in front of their children.
Lead author Lisa Tang, a PhD student in the Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, said previous U of G research has shown that parenting practices influence how much time children spend on screens.
“With this study, we wanted to understand the implications of parental stress on media parenting practices. We found parenting stress does indeed affect how parents manage screen time but influenced mothers and fathers differently,” she said.
For example, when mothers reported a high level of general life stress, they were more likely to report they used devices in front of their children and less likely to monitor or limit their kids’ screen use.
Alex Jones exposes the goblin king Bill Gates and the globalist agenda designed to bring humanity to heel.
That may be because mothers anticipate conflicts with their children if they attempt to impose limits so decide it is either too hard or not worth the fight during times of stress, said Tang.
But fathers, who reported high general life stress, were more likely to limit their kids’ screen use.
This could mean that stressed dads are more likely to enforce rules, said Tang. Or it could suggest that when children already have screen limits, fathers are more likely to report high general life stress because children who can’t use devices might increase their demands on their parents, she added.
Mothers who reported they found parenting itself stressful were more likely to say they used devices in front of their children and were less likely to monitor or limit their children’s screen use. Fathers experiencing similar stress reported no change.
“Parents do seem to say they use their screens more when they say they are under stress, perhaps as an escape,” said Tang. “This is an important finding because research has shown that when parents use screens in front of their preschool-aged children, it is associated with those children having greater levels of screen time.”
Prof. Jess Haines said this research is not about making parents feel guilty about screen use.
“There’s nothing wrong with using screens now and again. We are all doing the best we can, especially now, and parents of children under five need to allow themselves a break. This is really about excess screen time. It’s about making parents conscious of their practices and balancing active play with screen time, and modelling that behaviour,” she said.
Study co-author Valerie Hruska, a doctoral candidate in U of G’s Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, said the study’s findings are important given the potential health consequences for young children.
“Previous research has shown that high screen use is linked to health issues in children, including lower activity levels, obesity and even language delays in younger children because they engage in less back-and-forth conversation,” she said.
One surprising finding involved a slightly different kind of stress called household chaos, which assesses commotion and noise in a home. The researchers expected high household chaos would be linked to high screen use but found the opposite: chaos was linked with more screen-time monitoring by both mothers and fathers.
The researchers theorize that when children put away their devices and get involved in other activities in the house, it leads to more chaos compared to quieter screen time.
“So perhaps a little chaos in the home isn’t a bad thing if it means kids take a break from screens,” said Hruska, adding the next goal is to help find ways for parents to limit screen times without increasing household chaos.
The research was supported in part by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research New Investigator Award.
Author of ‘From Democrat To Deplorable’ reveals how ANTIFA tried to ruin his life and how he fought back.