Latest news with #Newtonian
Irish Examiner
4 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Letters to the Editor: We're only in phase one of Ireland's presidential election
As I contemplate the upcoming presidential election, I am reminded of three almost Newtonian laws of Irish politics as enunciated by our literary greats. For the period prior to launching a presidential campaign, Morrissey (of the multi-generational diaspora) once said: 'Shyness is nice and shyness can stop you from doing all the things in life you'd like to.' To cover the period immediately after launching a presidential campaign (and in equal but opposite reaction), you have Castleisland's legendary Con Houlihan: 'Who does Roy Keane think he is? Maurice Fitzgerald?' As we await the starter's pistol, spare a thought for the candidates as they trudge towards the Phoenix Park through clouds of casual derision, because the law that covers the middle and end of a presidential campaign is elegy and vivisection combined. Brendan Kennelly put it best: 'The good are vulnerable... And when most vulnerable / Are most themselves.' The nation holds its breath. Michael Deasy, Bandon, Co Cork Bishop 'a thorn in establishment's side' I must take issue with those seeking to conflate the record of the late Bishop Cornelius Lucey with that of those members of the Church, to which many of us belong, who were guilty of horrendous treatment of children. Ill-informed would be kind to them, bigoted would be more accurate. Some seeking to denigrate his reputation have made reference to the fact that he was mentioned in the infamous mother and baby report. However, if one took the trouble to inform themselves of exactly why he was mentioned, it would be clear that there is nothing in the report to suggest that Bishop Lucey had any responsibility for the more shameful practices mentioned in it. On the contrary, his involvement in providing for children born in the homes was to promote a framework for legal and structured adoption services and to encourage the faithful of his diocese to see structured and legal adoption as better than institutional upbringing or boarding out. Bishop Lucey was an eminent canon lawyer who gave his people credit for intelligence. It was his respect for the intelligence of the ordinary people that caused him to deliver his commentary on complex theological and social issues and led him to address these in his confirmation homilies. It was his interest and concern for the poor and underprivileged that led him to earn his reputation for being 'a thorn in the side of the establishment', a position that his present day detractors should try to emulate. However, whatever the merits of his leadership of his diocese during his time as bishop, it was what he did when he retired that he most accurately demonstrated the kind of man he was. As is known, he found himself obliged to restrict the ministry of his good friend Fr James Good — resulting in Fr Good ministering in Turkana. But when the burden of the episcopy was lifted from him, he placed himself at the service of Fr Good in that most inhospitable place. Only a man of genuine humility and grace would have behaved in this way. If we had leaders capable of demonstrating the same humility, intelligence, erudition, generosity, and leadership, Ireland would be a far better place. Cork should be proud of one of its finest citizens and proud that a place is called after him. Edward O'Leary, Ballintemple, Cork What's your view on this issue? You can tell us here Renaming park akin to 'show trials' My interpretation of the motive behind the motion to rename Bishop Lucey Park, proposed by councillor Ted Tynan, of the Workers' Party, and passed by Cork City Council on July 14, 2025, is as follows: That Bishop Lucey is unworthy because he was the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church in the diocese of Cork and Ross and is condemned because clerical abuse was going on during his tenure, though there is no evidence that he knowingly facilitated this abuse or even knew about it. The renaming to Women's Park is put forward as a form of reparation for these perceived wrongdoings. I voted against the motion because I view this move as akin to historical 'post-mortem show trials' which were commonplace in the 50s, 60s, and 70s in oppressive regimes such as USSR and China, where the reputations of the deceased were targeted because they had died holding unacceptable opinions. I believe it is wrong to judge Bishop Lucey for alleged failures without evidence of personal wrongdoing. Instead of focusing on retrospective judgment, I urge those supporting the renaming to address pressing issues like the trafficking and exploitation of women and girls in Cork's brothels and massage parlours, as confirmed recently at a conference in UCC. I call for a reconsideration of this renaming proposal, emphasising the need for fairness, historical context, and action on present-day challenges. I stand for protecting the dignity of all individuals and preserving Bishop Lucey's legacy. Councillor Albert Deasy, Bishopstown, Cork Don't tar and feather all religious My formal schooling got off to a great start in the local Mercy Primary School, where I encountered dedicated and encouraging teachers who awakened my passion for knowledge. After four years, we boys transferred to the local CBS Primary School where my values, ambitions, and loyalties began to take shape under the direction of teachers who attached great importance to a good education. I began to make the link between study and future success in life. My teachers, both religious and lay, were fair-minded and enthusiastic. Corporal punishment was (allowed) at the time, but use of the 'leather' wasn't excessive. The local CBS Secondary School emphasised study, sport, Catholicism, and republicanism, which suited me down to the ground. During my five years in secondary school, playing on the football and basketball teams was character building. My second-level education was a very happy experience. Corporal punishment still existed, but most of the physical punishment I took was delivered in good spirits on the playing fields. Great days indeed! I am very grateful to the sisters and brothers who educated me and prepared me for a fulfilling life. They were dedicated people, many of whom I remain friendly with. I never personally experienced the brutality perpetrated on other young people. I deeply regret that any pupil suffered physical or sexual abuse at the hands of sadistic or paedophilic teachers, lay or religious. But I would appeal to people not to tar and feather all religious. In any sample population, there is a percentage of evildoers. In my experience, the vast majority of religious are blameless in their devoted lives. Billy Ryle, Spa, Tralee, Kerry What's your view on this issue? You can tell us here Alan Shatter is living on a different planet I would like to commend the Irish Examiner's Paul Hosford and Gráinne Ní Aodha for Tuesday's article in relation to former justice minister Alan Shatter's position on the Occupied Territories Bill. I am appalled to glean that he repeatedly described the bill as a Father Ted measure, and then went to compare it to Jewish people being targeted during the Second World War. He seems to be living on a different planet when he proffers the notion that this bill was based on falsehoods, and that the bill itself abandoned all lessons that we should have learned from our own peace process. I found it insulting and egregious that he would draw comparisons with Nazi-era legislation. I deemed it to be an outrageous slur. I believe that Ireland taking this stance sends out a very powerful signal to the world that this country is taking a strong line on what is happening. One can't speak for those who are proposing this bill. However, one senses their argument would be that these settlements were set up illegally in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that Ireland has to take action against that. It's my contention that we cannot ignore what's happening in the Middle East. Mr Shatter's claim that the Occupied Territories Bill is a thing of complete irrelevance to peace, and comparing the bill to Father Ted is, in my mind, beyond incredulity. I am curious as to what Mr Shatter has to say about the seven innocent Gazan children who were recently killed by Israeli military while waiting for water at a distribution point? This is about morality and not about economics. John O'Brien, 28 Heywood Rd, Clonmel, Co Tipperary Cashless society forces us online The cashless society being 'accelerated' by Christine Lagarde — whom we did not vote for — to October, is the most sinister, stealthy move to take away our financial independence and privacy. Our 'Government' is playing dumb. We are being walked into a situation where 'others' will see and control our every transaction, forcing us online into a virtual world. We need to stop this. The majority of people are not even aware of this further and final grab for control of our own money. We must do more to resist this dictat from the World Economic Forum, which the Government is allowing to control all aspects of our lives. Máire Úna Ní Bheaglaoich, Aonach Mhargadh na Feirme, BÁC
Time Magazine
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
America's Founders Valued Higher Education
Political attacks on higher education are escalating as we approach next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Members of the Trump Administration, state legislatures, and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation call universities 'the enemy' to justify severe funding cuts, censorship, and restrictions on academic freedom. Yet, higher education has shaped the American experiment from the beginning. Enlightenment ideas studied in 18th-century universities provided the rationale for independence from Great Britain in 1776. Founders of the republic viewed higher learning as essential to its success. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson used ideas learned during his own college education to write the Declaration of Independence and establish one of the most consequential political doctrines in modern history: all people are created equal and possess inherent rights to a government based on their consent. Jefferson studied at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, from 1760 to 1762 under his primary mentor, Dr. William Small, professor of natural philosophy. Small introduced students from the privileged social classes who attended William and Mary to Enlightenment thought. He taught students like Jefferson intellectually revolutionary theories of empirical science, natural rights, and popular government. Small's influence over Jefferson was extensive. His teachings, Jefferson said, 'probably fixed the destinies of my life' and provided 'my first views of the expansion of science and of the system of things in which we are placed.' References to 'the system of things' as Jefferson understood it dominate early passages of the Declaration. Jefferson rooted the Declaration in natural philosophy, or the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe without consideration of supernatural causes. This was Small's specialty and the language of this academic orientation—such as 'course of human events,' 'powers of the earth,' and 'Laws of Nature'—suffuses the document. Read More: College Presidents Are Right to Defy Trump's War on Higher Education Members of the Continental Congress of 1776 substantially revised Jefferson's original draft. Some of these revisions indicate that members of congress, not only Jefferson, wanted the Declaration to reflect advanced education of the time. Benjamin Franklin made a momentous revision in this respect: he changed Jefferson's original statement 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable' to 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' The word "sacred," Franklin observed, suggested that those truths were matters of religious faith. The term "self-evident" invoked Isaac Newton. In the language of Newtonian science, a 'self-evident' truth needs no supernatural explanation. It is purely rational, empirically observable. Like Newton's laws of the physical world, the final version of the Declaration posits a natural law of the political world: people will always seek new forms of government to protect their rights. This decision to ground authority in reason, science, and secular humanism was profound at a time when European monarchs claimed that God had appointed them to the throne. In 1610, James I of England had declared that kings were 'God's lieutenants upon earth' and 'even by God himself, they are called gods.' By the 18th century, French monarchs professed to be deities on earth with 'absolute' power. Although the Declaration mentioned that people 'are endowed by their Creator' with 'unalienable Rights,' such statements vastly diminished the role of God as a source of rights and government compared to standard proclamations from European monarchs of the day. Jefferson's words implied that people are free to believe that a 'Creator' of their chosen faith is the source of their rights. The Declaration thus subtly rejected any official state religion as an element of American independence. The phrase 'Nature's God' was even more pointed in the Declaration. It classified 'God' as a passive possession of 'Nature.' The true agent of political events, in this formulation, is nature. The sole reference to God in the Declaration emphasizes empiricism over religiosity. Notably, Small was the only non-clergy member of the William and Mary faculty when he mentored Jefferson. The Declaration's references to John Locke's political treatises, which Small also taught to Jefferson and other students at William and Mary, further underscored its rejection of supernatural authority. Jefferson declared rights of 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' by imitating Locke's argument that all men possess a right to 'life, liberty, and estate [or property].' In 1689, Locke examined natural rights in the second treatise of Two Treatises on Government, but his first treatise established the full meaning of those rights. Throughout that first treatise, Locke excoriated the divine right of kings. For him, rights of 'life, liberty, and property' were incompatible with a divine right to rule. When Jefferson extended those rights beyond property-holders, replacing 'estate' with the 'pursuit of Happiness,' he invited a much larger portion of humanity to reject supernatural justifications for government. That invitation reflected the philosophy that inspired him in college. In other words, the meaning of the Declaration of Independence depends on Enlightenment ideas that university-educated classes in general, and Jefferson in particular, enthusiastically studied. After the country's founding, many framers of the new republic advocated for institutions of higher learning to educate citizens in their rights and responsibilities. Doing so, they argued, would promote equality over aristocracy, knowledge over religious superstition, and self-determination over servitude. Read More: The Complicated History of Government Influence Over Universities Jefferson was immensely proud of his role in founding the University of Virginia—a publicly funded institution established to educate 'the mass of citizens' in everything they needed for their individual wellbeing and responsible civic participation. Franklin did not attend college formally but he was instrumental in founding the College of Philadelphia, which later became the University of Pennsylvania. Throughout his life, Franklin advocated educational opportunities for working classes as well as the upper class. As president, Washington proposed a publicly funded 'national university' for the general diffusion of knowledge to promote unity in the new republic. These are only a few examples of the deep ties between higher education and the founding generation; approximately half of them attained some form of it—an impressively high level of advanced learning for the time. Like the political ideals of Jefferson and other founders, however, the ideal of higher education remained out of reach for many Americans. He and many signers of the Declaration deemed Black people especially incapable of advanced study. For much of its existence, U.S. higher education has been badly segregated by race, class, sex and gender, religion, and more. The personal prejudices of founders like Jefferson, however, do not diminish the power of the ideals that they forged from university study. Free Black people and enslaved Africans in the late 18th century recognized that the revolution was unfinished without equal access to civic institutions, particularly those of higher education. From the Jim Crow era to modern struggles for civil rights, historically disenfranchised communities (people of color, women, LGBTQ Americans, and more) have cited the Declaration in their petitions for desegregated higher education. Universities have always been integral to American independence, from Jefferson's words to later generations of Americans who pursued the full implications of those words. Defending institutions of higher education from increasingly authoritarian measures is an important way to safeguard not only academic freedom, but the legacy of 1776 as well. Bradford Vivian is Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State and author of Campus Misinformation: The Real Threat to Free Speech in American Higher Education (Oxford University Press). Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Time of India
14-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Sir David Beckham: Was Manchester United legend the most underrated footballer in the world? Decoding former Galctico's footballing legacy
'Beckham, into Sheringham… and Solskjaer has won it!' 'Manchester United have reached the promised land.' The corner came in like a hymn. Beckham's delivery—whipped, precise, inevitable—was scripture in motion. In the annals of football, there are players who pass, players who dribble, players who score. And then there was David Beckham—who could place a football on a postage stamp from 40 yards while running at full tilt. And look gorgeous doing it. Or to paraphrase Leonard Cohen: David had a secret chord that pleased the Lord. For United fans of the current vintage, it's hard to forget how good Beckham and his mates were and how terrifying it was for opposing teams when they played together. Because at that moment we were all in a Gurinder Chadha film, hoping to bend it like Beckham and if we couldn't copy his mohawk hairstyle, much to the chagrin of mothers and teachers. You had Ryan Giggs running like a cocker spaniel chasing a silver piece of paper. You had Roy Keane looking at you menacingly as he covered every blade of grass. You had Paul Scholes hitting the ball with such power that it took Sir Alex Ferguson's breath away. And you had David Beckham pinging crosses and passes with such accuracy that it seemed barely human. It's easy to forget now, with the beard oils and whisky launches, the sarongs and showmanship, that before he became a brand, Beckham was a baller. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo And not just a decent one. A magnificent one. He wasn't a dribbler like Messi. He didn't roar like Rooney. He didn't shrug off defenders like Ronaldo. He didn't drop his shoulder like Cruyff. But when Beckham struck a ball, it obeyed. As if Newtonian physics had made an exception for a young working-class lad from London. And then the universe followed for its rules of celebrity. Born May 2, 1975, he's now 50. Half a century. And yet, there are days he still looks like that boy from Leytonstone, walking up to a dead ball with a gaze so focused you'd think the world was about to tilt. And often, it did. The Lad from Leytonstone The new Knight of the Realm wasn't born into privilege, but he was born with an obsession. His father was a kitchen fitter and a rabid Manchester United supporter. His mother was a hairdresser. Together, they gifted him football boots, not fairy tales. The middle name 'Robert' was a nod to Bobby Charlton. Not that he needed the hint. While other kids played for fun, Beckham played to become. Teachers would ask what he wanted to be. He'd say, 'A footballer.' They'd laugh. But there's no dissuading a kid who knows his dharma . At age 14, he joined United as a youth trainee and was soon part of the club's golden nursery—the Class of '92. In fact, Ferguson, contrary to his image as the Devil reincarnate, would let Beckham hang out with the first team and clean their boots, a task the young Beckham thought was the greatest chore in the world. In 1995, with United letting go of seasoned names like Mark Hughes and Paul Ince, the kids were thrown into the fire. They lost 3-1 to Aston Villa. Cue Alan Hansen's infamous line: 'You can't win anything with kids.' Except these weren't regular kids. By the end of that season, Beckham and the boys had won the league. Of course, they had a wry Frenchman named Eric Cantona to help them along. But for Beckham, the true breakthrough moment came the season later when he lobbed the Wimbledon keeper Neil Sullivan from his own half. Even Eric Cantona was ostensibly impressed with the young man who worshipped him. And once Cantona retired prematurely to follow more philosophical pursuits like the proverbial seagulls, David Beckham begged for and inherited his shirt: the hallowed number 7. The Treble. The Truth. David Beckham Magic | | Manchester United Vs Bayern Munich in UCL Final 1999 Yet it was the 1998-99 season that truly made him, to borrow a line from his father, grow into a man. The 1999 Champions League final was, for Beckham, a remarkable redemption arc that began with the horror show of France 1998 when he was sent off for a cheeky pub-side hack on Diego Simeone, who fell like he was auditioning for the slasher horror movie Hostel where someone had cut his Achilles tendon. David Beckham became the most hated name in England, to the point that his effigies were burned all around. But that actually forged the siege mentality that allowed Ferguson to mould his team into world beaters. And Beckham was instrumental in that season, scoring 9 goals and providing 20 assists, though numbers hardly tell the full tale of Beckham's contributions. He scored the first goal in the FA Cup semi-final replay against Arsenal, he got the first goal in the final game of the league season against Tottenham, and delivered the precise corners that helped United triumph in the very last minute against Bayern Munich. The great lie of football is that it's a game of moments. It isn't. It's a game of margins. Beckham operated in the margins with the precision of a surgeon and the romance of a poet. It would appear that he had the secret chord that pleased the Lord. His right foot was less a limb and more a compass, pointing north every time the team lost its way. The Right Boot of God David Beckham's Top 10 Premier League Free Kicks | Manchester United If Maradona had the Hand of God, Beckham had the Right Boot of God. It wasn't just that he could cross. It was that he could cross on command, under pressure, from impossible angles. His delivery was so accurate, it felt like watching a heat-seeking missile disguised as a football. He made the football curl, dip, hover, and hum through the air—like it had fallen in love with where it was going. He still holds the record for most free-kick goals in Premier League history: 18. More than Cristiano Ronaldo. More than Henry. More than Kevin de Bruyne. More than anyone else in the history of the English game. And it wasn't just the number—it was the weight of the moments. The 93rd-minute free-kick against Greece to send England to the World Cup. The whipped-in goal against Leicester from wide. The relentless deliveries that made strikers look better than they were. Give Beckham one moment, and he gave you a masterpiece. He didn't just hit the ball. He whispered to it. And it listened. Arise, Sir Goldenballs David Beckham was never the best player in the world. But he might have been the most important. He changed the image of a footballer. He built a brand before Instagram. He bent free-kicks, and then bent the arc of what an athlete could be. Goldenballs. Spice Husband. Captain. Galáctico. Icon. Knight. Yes, he's finally a knight now—despite what the c***s on the honours committee thought for years. And through it all—through the fame, the fragrance ads, the fashion shoots and front pages—he never lost that one thing: the secret chord. The one that pleased the Lord. And the Stretford End.
AllAfrica
02-06-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
MAGA's overreaching anti-economists get it all wrong
Oren Cass, the founder of the think tank American Compass, is probably the leading intellectual voice of MAGA economics. In a recent blog post, he discusses the question of whether economic forces are like gravity. He writes: [Y]es, the physical world is governed by the laws of gravity. But it is not governed only by the laws of gravity. Indeed, anyone who thought he could reliably predict the motion of bodies with knowledge only of gravity would be something of a moron. Oh, really? Would such a man be a moron? Then please explain to me how Edmond Halley, using only his knowledge of gravity, and having no understanding of any of the other forces of nature, was able to predict a solar eclipse in 1715 to an accuracy of four minutes: In 1715…a total solar eclipse was visible across a broad band of England. It was the first to be predicted on the basis of the Newtonian theory of universal gravitation, its path mapped clearly and advertised widely in advance. Visible in locations such as London and Cambridge, both astronomical experts and the public were able to see the phenomena and be impressed by the predictive power of the new astronomy… Wikipedia will tell you that this is known as Halley's Eclipse, after Edmond Halley, who produced accurate predictions of its timing and an easily-read map of the eclipse's path. Halley did not live to see the confirmation of his predictions of a returning comet – a 1759 triumph for the Newtonian system – but he was able to enjoy his 1715 calculations, which were within 4 minutes[.] Cass — who holds a Bachelor's in political economy from Williams College and a law degree from Harvard, but has no apparent training in physics — confidently assures us that anyone who attempted what Edmond Halley did would be 'something of a moron.' This is the kind of insult that says less about the target than about the person doing the insulting. Before you make confident assertions about a field of study, you owe it to your readers to attempt to understand that field at least a little bit. A botched physics analogy is harmless enough. But Cass' main argument isn't about gravity at all — it's about economics. And it's here where his willingness to make grand pronouncements about whole fields of study gets him into real trouble. Cass' post is a response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Matthew Hennessey. Hennessey, in turn, is responding to J.D. Vance's declaration that markets are a 'tool.' Hennessey argues that markets are more like a force of nature than a tool.1 Cass is trying to rebut Hennessey, criticizing market fundamentalism while also taking a swipe at the entire discipline of economics. Now, I am no fan of market fundamentalism, and I spent my early years as a blogger bashing the field of (macro)economics — often with even more scorn than Oren Cass employs in this post. But I like to think that when I did this, I generally stuck to making specific criticisms about actual economic models and methods. A lot of econ critics don't do this. Back when I was at Bloomberg, I used to have fun poking at the grandiose broadsides against economics that periodically appear in British publications like The Guardian or The Telegraph. These critiques tend to repeat the same old nostrums over and over — economics isn't a science, it doesn't do controlled experiments, its assumptions are bad, its theories don't work, people can't be predicted like particles, etc. etc. There are grains of truth to these boilerplate critiques, but the people who write them generally haven't bothered to pay much attention to what modern economists actually do . Here's what I wrote in a Bloomberg post back in 2017: [E]conomists have developed some theories that really work. A good scientific theory makes testable predictions that apply to situations other than those that motivated the creation of the theory. Slowly, econ is building up a repertoire of these gems. One of them is auction theory, which predicts how buyers will bid for things like online ads or spectrum rights — Google's profits are powered by econ theory as much as by search algorithms. Another example is matching theory, which has made it a lot easier to get an organ transplant. A third is random-utility discrete choice theory, which is used in everything from marketing to transportation planning to disaster preparedness. Nor are econ's successful theories limited to microeconomics. Gravity models of trade, though fairly simple in nature, have proven very successful at predicting the flow of international trade. These and other successful economics theories can be used confidently in a wide-variety of real-world situations, by policy makers, engineers and businesses. They prove that anyone who claims that econ theories will never be reliable, because they deal with human beings instead of atoms, is simply incorrect. Yes, studying mass human behavior is different than studying the motions of the planets, in a number of important ways. But the intellectuals who loftily declare that economics 'isn't a science' don't seem like they've bothered to think very hard about what those differences are , or when and why they matter. For example, what do the people who write that 'economics isn't a science' think about natural experiments — the empirical technique that has taken over much of econ research in the last three decades? Do they think that these are always less informative than lab experiments in the natural sciences? And if so, why? What do they think are the strengths and weaknesses of natural experiments relative to lab experiments, and how much can they help us test theories and derive general principles about how economies work? I suspect that very few of the econ critics have thought seriously about these questions, and that far too few have even heard of natural experiments. Certainly, if they have, they must have some good reason for never mentioning them. And certainly they must have good reasons for never talking about auction theory, matching theory, discrete choice models, gravity models, or any of the other economics theories that prove themselves in the real world day in and day out. Right? But the screeds in The Guardian or The Telegraph are downright erudite compared to what Oren Cass serves up in his own criticism of econ. Here's what he writes: Economics is nothing like physics. Its principles are not generated from repeatable experiments, nor do they hold consistently across space and time. Trusting otherwise is a quite literal example of the blind faith and fundamentalism at issue. That's it. That's literally Cass' entire criticism of the field of economics in this post. He spends the rest of the post pulling quotes from conservative political thinkers — G.K. Chesterton, Robert Nisbet, Yuval Levin, Roger Scruton, etc. — who urge us to value things like community, tradition, etc., or who assert that markets can't work without a robust social fabric. Those are interesting things to think about, to be sure, but they don't bear on the question of what, exactly, Cass thinks is so inadequate about economics. Cass does not name or criticize any specific economic theories in this post. He cites zero papers and names zero researchers. I looked through a bunch of his other posts about economics, and I almost never found him naming or criticizing any specific theories in those posts, either. In one post, I did find him criticizing the theory of comparative advantage, and he did make one useful, substantive point about it — that comparative advantage can't explain trade deficits and surpluses. He's right about that. That's by far the most substantive, knowledgeable criticism of economics that I could find on his blog. If Cass is aware of any economic models other than comparative advantage and the basic Econ 101 supply-and-demand model, he plays his cards close to his chest. He doesn't mention gravity models of trade, which some economists use to try to predict the effects of tariffs (with some success). Nor does he mention Paul Krugman's New Trade Theory, which implies that countries can sometimes benefit from targeted tariffs against other countries' national champions (but which wouldn't recommend the kind of broad, sweeping tariffs Trump has tried to implement). Neither of those theories is outside the mainstream; both were invented by economists who went on to win the Nobel. Why doesn't Oren Cass mention them, or grapple with their implications, or use their existence to inform his criticisms of the field of economics? My guess — and this is only a guess — is that Cass is completely unaware that these theories exist, that he has no interest in discovering whether such theories exist, that if he did discover them he would have no idea how to evaluate them, and that even if he did know how to evaluate them he would have no interest in doing so. A sophisticated understanding of what mainstream economics actually says and does is not useful to Oren Cass' project, which is to denounce intellectual rivals within the conservative movement. If you want to actually figure out how trade works and what tariffs do, it would help to look at the research literature. If you didn't get the training needed to understand that literature, it would help to ask some people who did get that training, or at least read a little Wikipedia and ask ChatGPT a few questions.2 That won't give you all the answers — the world's best economists don't even have all the answers — but it would leave you a lot more knowledgeable than you started out, and it would give you a much better idea of where economists are on solid ground and where there are gaps in their understanding. On the other hand, if all you want is to dunk on Wall Street Journal writers, perhaps all you need is some hand-waving rhetoric about 'market fundamentalism' and a vague half-knowledge of one simple trade theory developed 200 years ago. The real problem with these econ critics — both the lefty writers in The Guardian and the new crop of MAGA defenders — is that their project is fundamentally political. The lefty writers think that if everyone accepts that econ isn't a science, and that the econ Nobel isn't a real Nobel, and people aren't like particles, and so on and so forth, then some sort of lefty ideology — Marxism, or degrowth, or whatever — will flow in to fill the hole left when economics vanishes. The MAGA writers think that it will be Trump's economic ideas that fill that void instead. But Matthew Hennessey, the Wall Street Journal writer, got one big thing right: Simply replacing academic theories with your own ideology can win you power, but there are important things it can't do. It can't change the nature of what tariffs actually do to the economy. Even if you and your friends and your political allies all shout very loudly that tariffs will restore American manufacturing, and act very scornful toward nerdy academics who tell you it doesn't work like that, the economic headwinds that tariffs actually create for American manufacturers won't change one iota. However limited mainstream academic economics is as a tool for understanding the consequences of your policies, ideology is even worse. NOTES: 1 Who's right, Vance or Hennesey? Both are right. Market forces are , quite literally, forces of nature. And markets themselves are, quite literally, a tool. Tools work by harnessing forces of nature. A pendulum clock works by harnessing the force of gravity. A market works by harnessing the forces that drive people to buy and sell things. Vance is right that markets should be shaped to serve our desired ends, rather than being an end in and of themselves. Hennesey is right that market forces can't be denied, ignored, or wished away. 2 Just to see how AI is doing, I asked ChatGPT o3 about the papers on gravity models. Its characterization of the papers' results was oversimplified and omitted crucial nuance about the ex ante predictive accuracy of Fejgelbaum et al. (2020). But overall, its explanations weren't too bad! This article was first published on Noah Smith's Noahpinion Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion subscriber here.
Associated Press
25-04-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
IBN Coverage: Newton Golf (NASDAQ: NWTG) Gains Momentum on Champions Tour with Golf.com Spotlight
This article was published by IBN, a multifaceted communications organization engaged in connecting public companies to the investment community. LOS ANGELES, CA - April 25, 2025 ( NEWMEDIAWIRE ) - Newton Golf Company Inc. (NASDAQ: NWTG), a technology-forward golf equipment manufacturer committed to enhancing player performance through innovative design, has seen its Newton Motion shafts rapidly gain popularity on the Champions Tour, recently earning a feature on for their innovative performance benefits tailored to senior players. The shafts utilize a unique variable stiffness profile - more flexible in the midsection and stiffer at the tip and butt ends - resulting in improved energy transfer, higher launch angles, and increased distance. These design advantages have made them a go-to choice for many veteran professionals seeking more consistency and power in their drives. To read the full feature, visit About Newton Golf Company Inc. Newton Golf harnesses the power of physics to revolutionize golf equipment design. Formerly known as Sacks Parente, the company's rebranding reflects its commitment to innovation inspired by Sir Isaac Newton, the father of physics. By applying Newtonian principles to every aspect of its design process, Newton Golf creates precision-engineered golf clubs that deliver unmatched stability, control, and performance. The company's mission is to empower golfers with scientifically advanced equipment that maximizes consistency and accuracy, ensuring every swing is backed by the laws of physics. For more information, visit the company's website at NOTE TO INVESTORS: IBN is a multifaceted financial news, content creation and publishing company utilized by both public and private companies to optimize investor awareness and recognition. For more information, please visit Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the InvestorBrandNetwork website applicable to all content provided by IBN, wherever published or re-published: The latest news and updates relating to NWTG are available in the company's newsroom at Forward Looking Statements Certain statements in this article are forward-looking, as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements and may not be indicative of future results. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, among others, various factors beyond management's control, including the risks set forth under the heading 'Risk Factors' discussed under the caption 'Item 1A. Risk Factors' in Part I of the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K or any updates discussed under the caption 'Item 1A. Risk Factors' in Part II of the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and in the Company's other filings with the SEC. Undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking statements in this article in making an investment decision, which are based on information available to us on the date hereof. All parties undertake no duty to update this information unless required by law. About IBN IBN is a cutting-edge communications and digital engagement platform providing tailored Platform Solutions for select private and public companies. Over the course of 19+ years, IBN has introduced over 70 investor facing brands to the investment public and amassed a collective audience of millions of social media followers. These distinctive investor brands amplify recognition and reach as well as help fulfill the unique needs of our rapidly growing and diverse base of client-partners. IBN will continue to expand our branded network of influential properties as well as leverage the energy and experience of our team of professionals to best serve our clients. IBN's Platform Solutions provide access to: (1) our Dynamic Brand Portfolio (DBP) through 70+ investor facing brands; (2) article and editorial syndication to 5,000+ news outlets; (3) full-scale distribution to a growing Social Media Network (SMN) ; (4) a network of wire solutions via InvestorWire to effectively reach target markets and demographics; (5) Press Release Enhancement to ensure accuracy and impact; (6) a full array of corporate communications solutions; and (7) total news coverage solutions. For more information, please visit Please see full terms of use and disclaimers on the InvestorBrandNetwork website applicable to all content provided by IBN, wherever published or re-published: Media Contact IBN Los Angeles, California 310.299.1717 Office [email protected] View the original release on
