Archive

Tag Archives: censorship

Five years ago I discussed the “Dutch Taliban“. I can now include Dutch “pluralist economics” to this narrative.

There is this particular course “Economics from a pluralist perspective” in English though created by two Dutch professors Irene van Staveren (ISS) and Rob van Tulder (RSM) and a PhD student. I have no access to this course so I cannot check whether they refer to my analysis in DRGTPE and CSBH or not. I presume that I would have been informed if they had. The following is conditional on the probable assumption of neglect.

I will refer to some books that I haven’t read, and explain why I will not read them. One book by Van Staveren that I haven’t read deals with economists who aren’t read. I understand that she doesn’t include me as an economist who isn’t read.

I already wrote about “Economics as a zoo” in 2005, and pointed to the terms of orthodoxy and heterodoxy as inadequate. Much is plain old history of economic thought. Apparently the new term is “pluralism”. Also, I was one of the economists who warned before the 2007+ crisis, yet Dutch economists neglect my work and neglect my protest against censorship, and apparently I am in some other dimension than their “pluralism”.

I regard myself as a neoclassical economist, in the term as coined by Paul Samuelson. I am eclectic and open to ideas but for practical work there must be a model, using theory and tested by statistics. My work is not mainstream yet because my work has been hit by censorship. My work rejects neoliberal economics (Robert Lucas), but anyone can check that neoliberal economics is emperically untenable. Readers should not confuse neoclassical economics with neoliberal economics.

My impression is that “pluralist” economists might so much fear mainstream economics and also so much desire to be accepted, that they opt for versions of “pluralism” that are not really dangerous to mainstream economics. Which means that their “pluralism” is useless. But they can applaud each other greatly in their mutual admiration bubble.

Pluralist economics, before or after the crisis ?

The two professors cause the tantalising question whether pluralism starts before or after the 2007+ crisis.

The online course refers to Irene van Staveren’s matricola textbook Economics After the Crisis. An Introduction to Economics from a Pluralist and Global Perspective.  ($61.53) (Dutch: Managementboek).

The online course manual states clearly that this textbook is not necessary for the course itself. This is fine, since the book is rather expensive, and one would wish for open access books nowadays. (See here for a cheap solution for open access publishing.) They state that the book will be helpful if you want to read from paper. The professors apparently thus think that the economic crisis hasn’t been a natural experiment that explains which approach was empirically most relevant, but only provides a case for more pluralism, perhaps to allow for more natural experiments by economists who don’t know what to think because they have so many theories to choose from.

Pluralism as Orwellian newspeak

Dutch pluralist economics is Orwellian newspeak for anything fashionable, as long as it neglects the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB). Dutch pluralist economics has these fundamental tenets:

  • Economics is an empirical science, and the censorship at CPB doesn’t exist so it cannot be observed. Any fact on this can be neglected. (If I worked there and there aren’t CPB publications to my name, then this must have another explanation than censorship.)
  • Scientists will protest against censorship, and since scientists don’t protest then apparently there is no censorship. Hail to free society and the wisdom of Dutch government and Dutch economists. Except criticism for pluralism, of course.
  • Errors by the directorate of the CPB might be made, but not on censorship and dismissals with untruths. If the Dutch legal system allows such censorship and untruths because judges assume that the Dutch government wouldn’t do such things, then this only proves that there is no censorship.
  • The censorship has no consequences for policy making either, since something that doesn’t exist clearly can have no consequences.
  • It is only possible to know what the censorship is about once it has been lifted, but since it doesn’t exist it must be about nothing.
  • The economic crisis of 2007+ confirms my analysis of 1990, yet for Dutch economists there is the special task to completely neglect his work and his protest against censorship, since Thomas and his work do not exist, as proven in the above.
  • Well, Thomas might exist as a lunatic, see his protest against this censorship by the directorate of CPB. Completely irresponsible about such a respected institute (even though the directorate goofed on the crisis and its treatment and the policy of wage moderation).

What might seem tolerant or pluralist appears to be another form of fundamentalism. Professors Irene van Staveren (ISS) and Rob van Tulder (RSM) show engaging smiles that however hide mental niqabs or beards. (There is no need to overdo the metaphor with Photoshop.)

Van Staveren is anabaptist and her answer to neighbourly love is that she selects which neighbour to love. Van Tulder has a book for students about the essential skills for studying. Indeed, in our knowledge society, studying is actually a job too, and I am in favour of a student wage. Van Tulder’s book has the advice: “Dare to build upon research from others” – and apparently he has found other others than me who he really dares to build upon for his version of pluralism.

 

Smiles that hide fundamentalism. (Source: RSM and wikimedia)

Amartya Sen, voting theory and the Brexit referendum question

Irene van Staveren states that she derives much inspiration from the work of Amartya Sen. Sen however is a very mainstream economist and is seriously misguided on some key issues, so that one wonders what Van Staveren finds so inspiring. Sen is famous and fashionable, true, but fame and fashion are not scientific criteria.

  • One of my papers that got hit by the censorship deconstructs Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem. (CPB internal memo 90-III-37, but better start now with my book Voting Theory for Democracy (VTFD).) Sen in his Collective Choice and Social Welfare gives a useful standard presentation of Arrow’s theorem. One can check that Sen doesn’t understand it. (Dutch readers can look here.) With Arrow, Sen actually helps to destroy democracy.
  • One can check that Sen’s own theorem on the supposed impossibility of a Paretian liberal is misguided as well, see VTFD.
  • Sen’s book Development as freedom is a collection of platitudes and open doors, comparable to “don’t give money but a fishing rod”.
  • Sen contributed to the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report, but this neglects the work by Tinbergen and Hueting on the economics of ecological survival (see my draft book).
  • Sen’s argument that democracies have less famines than non-democracies is questionable, see India itself. It is a better argument that the Trias Politica model of democracy fails, also in the case of hunger, whence each democracy requires an Economic Supreme Court.

While Sen has a training as an economist and mathematician, all this suggests that he is more inclided to abstract thought as a mathematician and less as an empiricist. It is not clear to me what Van Staveren’s background w.r.t. mathematics is.

It are such uncritical professors like Irene van Staveren who cause that Sen has gotten such authority in some circles. This is not without consequences. Sen’s misconception on voting theory shows also in his article with Eric Maskin in the NY Review of Books on electoral reform in the USA. The key advice that voting theorists can give to democracies is to switch to proportional representation (PR) in the House of Commons of parliament, and the selection of the executive power (ministers including PM) by such a PR House of Commons. Instead, Maskin and Sen stick to direct election of the US President, which however is subject to many voting paradoxes as has been illuminated by Arrow’s theorem. They adopt the best way to destroy democracy, namely by using methods that are unconvincing for the general population. There are various techniques of voting, but these better be used by parliament itself, once parliament has been chosen by PR. (Compare Holland with the UK.) Thus, Maskin and Sen, in their lack of understanding of voting theory, keep the US caught in suboptimality and cynicism. If there are no good alternatives, then Trump perhaps really was the democratically best choice. Similarly for the UK and India indeed. And Van Staveren cheers on, finding inspiration in Sen, and neglecting the censorship of science by the directorate of the CPB w.r.t. my work that contains the scientifically correct analysis.

Another example is Brexit. Undoubtedly many UK policy advisors have been trained either directly or via their teachers on Sen’s Collective Choice and Social Welfare as well. See my article in the RES Newsletter, April 2017, and reproduced on the LSE Brexit blog.

Environmental sustainability

A bit more can be said about sustainability, apart from Sen. Rob van Tulder has a major teaching engagement on management of sustainability in businesses. If prices aren’t right, then companies might make amends themselves. It seems that he neglects Tinbergen and Hueting’s on environmental sustainability. It would be much more effective to argue that environmental costs are included in the prices, since companies should not do what only the government can do properly.

“Professor van Tulder is co-founder of RSM’s Department of Business-Society Management, a world-leading department on the issues surrounding sustainability. The department offers a highly successful master’s specialising in sustainability.”

Also, Irene van Staveren and Jan Peil have edited this Handbook of Economics and Ethics. (2009), £168.30 in a period where open access already was a known concept.

  • Hans Opschoor there explains the topic of sustainability. I don’t have the text and would be interested to see what he states about Hueting’s work, since there are remarkable confusions about it. Opschoor coined the term “milieugebruiksruimte” (environmental carrying capacity) in 1989, but this is only an application of Hueting’s notion of environmental functions of 1974, after which Opschoor got citations that should have gone to Hueting. In this short text of 2016 Opschoor only refers to Hueting”s 1974 thesis but not to his later notion of environmentally sustainable national income (eSNI).
  • My own analysis on Arrow’s impossibility theorem might be included too, since Arrow claims moral desirability for the demolition of democracy, while I use deontic logic to show that this is unwarranted, see VTFD chapter 9.2 on page 239. (And perhaps read “Deontology” by Mark D. White.)  Yet, why would my analysis be included in this book behind a paywall, as VTFD is already online ? Hopefully some of the authors refer properly.
  • There is a chapter on Sen by Sabina Alkire, and hopefully she was aware of the above.
  • There is a chapter on poverty by Andy Sumner and on minimum wages by Ellen Mutari, and I can only hope that they have been aware of the following below.

Unemployment and poverty

In 1998 I gave Van Tulder a copy of this Dutch book on unemployment and poverty. He would read it and get back to me. This didn’t happen. Perhaps Van Tulder did not like the book ? We can only guess. This is a nice review in Dutch at DISK (lay people) and this is a misguided and misleading review by a Dutch economist, Joan Muysken, which case I already discussed on CofFEE or latte. If Van Tulder had misgivings in 1998 he could have discussed those with me. My impression is that Van Staveren can be annoyed towards Van Tulder that his silence on this may have caused her the lost years of 1998-2017 of looking for a good analysis, and the rest of the world the actual crisis of 2007+.

The book is a text for the general public, and fellow economists can find the same analysis in DRGTPE. However, journalists Hans Hulst and Auke Hulst report also on some events w.r.t. CPB which isn’t in DRGTPE.

Van Staveren’s co-editor Jan Peil, from above book on economics and ethics, also collaborated on a Dutch book on poverty and social exclusion. Translation: “Almost a million people in Holland have to deal with poverty.” This is a review at DISK in Dutch of 2007. DISK has been abolished now. Above book W&A had been reviewed also by DISK, but the review might no longer be at their site. My impression is that various channels of information have not been used.

Economists who (almost) aren’t read anymore

Van Staveren also wrote a book (EUR 22.50) for the general public, in Dutch, about economists “who (almost) aren’t read anymore”. (The brackets are logically strange.) There exists already a Dutch translation of Heilbroner’s masterpiece, but Van Staveren wants to link up to the 2007+ crisis.

The book’s cover has a problematic claim. Let me use Google Translate for the fun of it, and it actually does a remarkable good job. The first sentence is that neoclassical economics seemed to be the only relevant theory.

“After the Cold War, the only relevant theory seemed to understand the economy and influence the neoclassical. Economists who thought otherwise were dismissed as naive, or worse, as stupid. The financial crisis has painfully shown that this limited look is unjustified and can even cause a lot of damage. Irene van Staveren therefore advocates a pluralistic approach to the economy.” (Google Translate of: “Na de Koude Oorlog leek de enige relevante theorie om de economie te begrijpen en te beïnvloeden de neoklassieke. Economen die anders dachten, werden afgedaan als naïef, of nog erger, als dom. De financiële crisis heeft op pijnlijke wijze laten zien dat deze beperkte blik onterecht is en zelfs veel schade kan toebrengen. Irene van Staveren pleit daarom voor een pluralistische benadering van de economie”)

It is incorrect to say that other thoughts were generally dismissed. Perhaps there were instances, but not over the board. Good economists have kept an interest in the history of economic theory. But not everything can be used at the relevant job at hand. When there has been bad policy, a main factor has been the failure of the Trias Politica model of democracy, with too much room for politicians to manipulate information. See my advice for an Economic Supreme Court.

The unread ones are supposedly: Karl Marx, Hyman Minsky, Keynes, Frank Knight, Barbara Bergmann, Thorstein Veblen, Amartya Sen, Gunnar Myrdal, Adam Smith and Joan Robinson.

Why doesn’t Van Staveren mention my work as largely unread ? For an answer, she only allows the categories that I would be naive or stupid. This doesn’t strike me as logically and empirically sound. Her book must be the product of a severely deluded bubble.

I wonder whether I should show Van Tulder’s “Dare to build upon research from others” to give some indications about these authors. I can spend only a line on each, and this might strike the reader as dismissive and disrepectful, while the fellow economist might have worked hard most of his or her life to contribute to economic science. I wouldn’t want that my own work would be dismissed disrespectfully either. Yet, Van Staveren’s selection strikes me as rather curious:

  • Of these fellow economists, I had never heard of Barbara Bergmann before. Apparently she looked at gender in economics, and this hasn’t been my topic of interest. I suppose however that she is well read by economists who deem gender an important aspect. (E.g. on risk taking.)
  • Karl Marx is only interesting for history, in the same way as one would read Julius Caesar.
  • Perhaps Gunnar Myrdal isn’t much read nowadays, but that requires a longer explanation, including the lifting of the censorship at CPB.
  • Hyman Minsky of course is the celebrated case, but the description about his lack of influence is more complicated than mere dismissal. He really was a professor of economics, and I am not. I wonder whether there weren’t more standard neoclassical authors who said much of the same, so that Minsky’s main advantage is that he now is the best known “neglected” one. The main point is not neglect, but the failure of the Trias Politica model of democracy.
  • Keynes would not be read ? Well, one might say that many neoliberals didn’t read much of Keynes before 2007, but Ben Bernanke was chairman of the US Fed in 2006-2014, and we can be assured that Bernanke read Keynes, and that he responded admirably to the crisis, for otherwise the world had imploded. Let me also mention the biography by Skidelsky, that generated a renewed interest in Keynes, starting in 1983.
  • Frank Knight gave wrong definitions of uncertainty and risk, see DRGTPE. What was relevant however got reworked by Keynes. The 2007+ crisis caused a renewed interest in the Chicago Plan, indeed. See the comment on Minsky.
  • Thorstein Veblen wasn’t read ? I cannot believe this.
  • Amartya Sen has been amply read, see above discussion. Van Staveren wants to portray him as unread only to promote her bubble.
  • Adam Smith unread ? I cannot believe this. Contrary to Marx, he is still quite relevant, see Heilbroner.
  • Joan Robinson ? Apparently her contribution on “imperfect competition” has been included in neoclassical economics. In heterodoxy, her writings have some popularity, but it is not clear to me why she should be read more widely. Her work never seemed to matter for my own work and I haven’t really read her. Perhaps she is relevant for other fields of economics, but I would not know.

Above indication isn’t intended to mark these authors in a particular manner. The only intention is to argue that Van Staveren’s selection is rather curious. Most likely the title of her book is plain wrong. The present title might be much of a marketing ploy. A neutral title might have been: Views from the history of economics on the economic crisis.

It matters a great deal how the issue is presented (framed):

  • My analysis is that economics already contained ample information, so that the crisis has been caused by failure of the Trias Politica by abuse by policy makers. For example, policy makers could and can cherry pick an economist to defend a particular policy. My advice is an Economic Supreme Court, so that such cherry picking is no longer possible, for the ESC will weigh arguments on content.
  • Irene van Staveren puts the blame of the crisis on the economics profession itself, also at the academia, instead of the policy makers. She wants the whole of the economics profession to function as an Economic Supreme Court. This is a category mistake, since the academia do not have the task to support policy making but to generate new insights and criticism.

Misleading the public

In her bubble, Van Staveren neglects my work, doesn’t mind about the censorship, and misleads the public.

A lay person’s review shows that Van Staveren partly did a good job in reaching out to the public.

“A few jumping points from the book: Not only did many scientists see the 2007 financial crisis, the same people predict that the weather will go wrong. According to them, nothing has changed, such as the strict separation of savings banks and business banks and insurance. Taxpayers have to pay billions to save banks that were too big to fail, the banks are still too big to fail and still sell incomprehensible and uncontrollable products, so soon we have to dock again. If we all agree to vote On politicians who send themselves through the bank lobby because we just do not understand well, we have to pay for our intellectual laziness.” (Google translate from: “Een paar springende punten uit het boek: niet alleen zagen veel wetenschappers de financiële crisis van 2007 aankomen, dezelfde mensen voorspellen dat het weer mis zal gaan. Er is volgens hen niks wezenlijks veranderd, zoals het strikt scheiden van spaarbanken en zakenbanken en verzekeringen. Belastingbetalers hebben miljarden moeten betalen om banken die too big to fail waren te redden, de banken zijn nog steeds too big to fail en verkopen nog steeds onbegrijpelijke en oncontroleerbare producten, dus binnenkort moeten we weer dokken. Als we met z’n allen blijven stemmen op politici die zich door de bankenlobby laten sturen, omdat we het gewoon niet goed begrijpen, zullen we dus voor onze intellectuele luiheid moeten boeten.”)

However, this message could also have been given without this particular book.

This lay person shows a confusion between neoclassical economics and neoliberal economics. Perhaps Van Staveren has this too ? Also, this lay reviewer states to have gotten an interest in Amartya Sen because of Van Staveren’s praise. Ouch.

More points tomorrow

There are some more points, see the next blog entry.

Advertisements

The road from science and scientific discovery into political discussion is often via the channel of a particular party. Politicians of any party are less likely to discuss an idea when there is no party advocating it anyway.

In the USA, members of the Senate and House are elected via districts, which is District Representation. This likely caused the division between two main parties, Democrats and Republicans. The situation likely causes that there are a lot of Think Tanks that want to reach out across the division, to inform voters directly on their various own approaches. For Think Tanks it is important to find at least one representative who is willing to support their case. Bipartisan support is nice but not always necessary, as one can always wait for the next turn in the political cycle.

In Holland, there is Proportional Representation (PR). With 150 seats, it takes only 1 / 150 = 0.67% of the nation-wide vote to get a new party into Parliament. When an issue is important enough to start a Think Tank on it, then likely at least 0.67% of the voters would care about it nation-wide, and then it might be better to start its own party rather than a Think Tank. Political parties in Holland have their own “scientific bureau“, that can inform the rest of the world about their analyses.

This paper of mine compares DR and PR, with the example of the UK, and concludes that the Dutch system is most democratic. See also the short discussion of this in Mathematics Teaching 222 in the context of the UK referendum on PR in 2011.

Baudet starts a think tank rather than a party

Thierry Baudet (1983) started in 2015 a Think Tank “Forum voor Democratie” (FvD) (forum for democracy).

Unfortunately the FvD English page currently still gives a Dutch text on their mission. Let me translate. Their stated mission is to fight the deterioration of democracy and improve its quality e.g. by means of referenda and direct elections of mayors. They also want to move power from the EU back to Holland. They want a strict system of “green cards” for immigrants. They explain their perceived link of democracy to the latter by that “uncontrolled immigration threathens social peace” (my translation). (Like in Brexit, immigration pops up at unlogical spots, as if people stop thinking when the subject arises.)

It is remarkable that Baudet thinks that he cannot get 0.67% of the vote for such a noble cause as the defence of democracy. In Holland, the political party D66 also wants to improve democracy, but they are pro-EU and not anti-EU, and thus he cannot join up. However, as a Think Tank, Baudet would be forced to collaborate a lot with D66, because of the shared view on democracy.

Perhaps it might be easier to start a niche Think Tank rather than a political party though: for, a party requires capable representatives. It may also be a matter of temperament, as Baudet states that he has no affinity with politics itself and wants to remain “independent”. It is okay for other people to follow him but he will not follow others.

Baudet and his FvD helped initiating the 2016 Dutch referendum on the EU Treaty with the Ukraine, see my discussion here and here. Baudet is also prominent in the peuro.nl petition, discussed in the former weblog text. There I promised to look a bit closer at Baudet’s views, which I will do here.

A bit on Baudet’s background

Today’s society cannot do without education. It is always useful to look at what people got their diploma in. This is not intended for an ad hominem argument but helps to clarify their field of competence and way of thinking. The theme of the “Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow indicates that we must be alert on bridging gaps. (See e.g. here.) When people age and grow more experienced, they will tend to diversify from their diploma, but it is seldom that a person from the humanities acquires a taste for science and mathematics as well.

Baudet’s cv doesn’t state whether he did gymnasium A or B. Generally students with gymnasium B tend to specify this though. Also given his later studies in history and law there is a great likelihood that Baudet did A. We should not expect insight in science and mathematics.

He got a bachelor in history in 2006. At Vox Europ 2012 “The EU is an empire, and empires mean war“, the website claims that he would be a historian too, but generally this label would be reserved for masters, and Vox Europ better corrects the claim.

Observe that the general label “historian” is vague too. It is generally better when people study a particular field before they look into the history of that field. It is awkward to look at an issue in the past when you don’t know about the very field of study itself. Grand themes might be an exception since it is impossible to study everything, but check out this discussion on David Armitage.

Baudet’s 2012 thesis,The significance of borders. Why representative government and the rule of law requires nation states“, is a thesis in law, supervised by law professor Paul Cliteur and philosopher Roger Scruton. Thus it is not a thesis in history, though the thesis refers to historical events.

PM 1. The other members of the thesis commission are in law too, except for Alfred van Staden who is a political scientist and professor in international relations. Would he vouch for these aspects in this thesis ? PM 2. The meaning of a thesis is that it is one way of showing that you are qualified to do scientific reseach in that particular field. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you fully proved a particular argument. PM 3. An objective of a thesis is that the new doctor learns modesty about what can actually be proven. PM 4. Cliteur states on his website that he looks at issues of free speech, see also his lecture. I informed him about the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of CPB, and he doesn’t show an interest. Apparently Cliteur doesn’t see that it is a no-brainer to say that religious fundamentalism and terrorists who abuse religion present a problem to free speech. Those groups enjoy that he pays attention to them because they thrive on attention and it makes them more important than they are. In the mean time, Cliteur doesn’t defend the freedom of scientific thought right on his doorsteps, while it would be important for a free society that such defence is provided.

I am still looking for a review of Baudet’s thesis by an independent reader.

Potentially the mentioned short Vox Europ article has the same theme as the thesis. The scheme of that short article is that imperialism causes wars, that nationalism is opposite to imperialism, and (thus) that nationalism would support peace. Also Baudet classifies the EU as imperialist. Whether these definitions and statements are supported by scientists working in this field remains to be seen. I am more inclined to interprete developments in terms of political economy, and I haven’t read a key (convincing) statement by Baudet yet why his approach from law should generate key conclusions.

For example, Robert Mundell’s theory of the optimal currency area starts from economics and then provides some historical data that confirm the point. It is open for falsification from history. Baudet seems to turn this around, and starts with historical cases like Napoleon or the USSR and transfers insights to the present EU. This complicates the issue very much, since it suggests that we all must be historians of Napoleon and the USSR before we might discuss the EU. Instead, I prefer a background in political economy, and look at the EU and its future, while I am open for falsifications by historians who suggest parallels in their area of study.

For example, Deirdre McCloskey in her work as economic historian started out from economic theory and the philosophies of ethics and liberty before she discovered the key role of Holland around 1650 in the transformation from the Middle Ages towards the modern world economy. I think that McCloskey is a fine economist and historian, and her discovery of the key role of virtue ethics in this historical process is very convincing – i.e. the change of the social view of the merchant as a robber towards that of admiration and high social status, with the whole social infrastructure of bourgeois society supporting that change of perception. A good historian is always aware that one should not read modern ideas into the past. However, scientific laws are the same over time, and economic processes work the same too.

Incidently, Hubert Smeets, a journalist who has been reporting about Russia and the former USSR over many years, suggested in NRC-Handelsblad last weeks, that Baudet, Kelder & Wellens (from the peuro.nl inititative) would have compared the EU to the former USSR. This is a strong accusation, since the USSR was a totalitarian state. Wellens asked the NRC Ombudsman for a correction. The Ombudsman Sjoerd de Jong gave a fallacious reply. This is my deconstruction (in Dutch) of this affair. Conclusion: Smeets made a false accusation. Baudet’s comparison concerns imperialism which is a different issue, and what Baudet wrote by himself doesn’t have to be supported by Kelder & Wellens. The Dutch Ombudsmen do not work well, see my letter of 2013 to the international organisation of Ombudsmen.

Comparison with Hans van Mierlo and D66 who are pro-EU

In 1966, master of law and journalist Hans van Mierlo (1931-2010) founded the political party D66 (“Democrats ’66”). The “crown jewels” of D66 are: (1) a change from PR to DR, (2) direct elections of mayors and prime minister, and (3) referenda. Thus:

  • Baudet cannot join D66 or their scientific bureau (named after Van Mierlo who didn’t do science) since they are pro-EU and he is anti-EU. But he would be forced to collaborate with D66 a lot because of the shared views on the “crown jewels” (except perhaps DR ?).
  • Scientific analysis of democracy shows that these D66 “crown jewels” actually are less democratic. See my book “Voting theory for democracy“.
  • As far as I know, Hans van Mierlo never studied democracy and its electoral systems. Van Mierlo only was in love with the USA of JFK, and in Holland in the 1960s these ideas sounded new.
  • As far as I know, nobody else in D66 studies democracy. See how they disinform the UK.
  • As far as I know, Baudet never studied democracy and its electoral systems either. I am not aware of a clarification by him why D66 never succeeded w.r.t. its crown jewels. Apparently, Baudet only buys uncritically into the propaganda by D66 as if referenda and direct elections would be more democratic. Curiously, Baudet’s 2012 thesis,The significance of borders. Why representative government and the rule of law requires nation states“, discusses representative democracy and not “democracy” by plebiscite.
  • The Brexit referendum is rather disastrous from the scientific view on democracy, but it requires some study – see here – to cut through the dogma that a referendum is pure democracy by definition.
Legalistic / Popular Scientific
Pro EU and euro Van Mierlo, D66: crown jewels
Anti EU and euro Baudet, FvD: referenda, direct elections, vague on DR vs PR
Pragmatic on EU and euro Me, SvHG: anti-crown jewels

When Van Mierlo deceased in 2010, I honoured him with the pamphlet “Laat D66 zichzelf opheffen” (Let D66 abolish itself). About the dead nothing but good, and the pamphlet was intended as an antidote for his sectarian followers in D66 who might turn him into a saint and martyr of democracy. Observe that I signed this pamphlet under my personal and not scientific name, since it is a personal political opinion that a political party better abolishes itself.

Pamphlet 2010: Let D66 abolish itself

Pamphlet 2010: Let D66 abolish itself

PM. There is also the Dutch LibDem Party (LDP), founded in 2006 by Sammy van Tuyll. They are social liberal like D66, like my suggestion from 1993 of a Social Liberal Forum (SLF). Van Tuyll has a background in medicine, economics and law, and should be able to understand my economic analysis. It is not clear to me why he doesn’t study and discuss it. Van Tuyll and I met in 2007 and I explained about the censorship of science, and it didn’t ring a bell. I can only suppose that when Van Tuyll ever is elected into government then he will continue with the censorship of science by the Dutch government.

Meeting Baudet in 2010

I met Thierry Baudet at a book presentation in 2010, when he was co-editor with Michiel Visser of a collection of essays on conservatism. My comment at the book presentation was that a good starting point would be the natural conservatism in classical liberalism as formulated by J.S. Mill and J.M. Keynes. Of course my background is in economics. The book title suggests the conundrum that conservatism actually is progressive, but the content of the book did not clearly resolve this conundrum. Overall I thought that the book was useful, but did not feel that I should buy the second volume.

I gave Baudet a copy of the book by Hans Hulst & Auke Hulst in collaboration with me (1998) Werkloosheid en armoede, de oplossing die werkt” (W&A) (Unemployment and poverty, the solution that works). In response, Baudet gave me his business card, whence I sent him a note on the next day, April 13 2010, to confirm contact. The card and this link show that Baudet was already active in improving democracy.

Baudet's business card of 2010, referring to Dutch Parliament with 150 representatives

Baudet’s business card of 2010, referring to Dutch Parliament with 150 representatives

My presumption was that Baudet would read W&A, and that there would be a discussion proceeding from there. In some interviews Baudet is portrayed with stacks of books in the background so there is the suggestion that he might read books. However, while I read the book that he and Visser edited, I did not get a reply on W&A and neither on my suggestion to have a further discussion. One possibility is that he was too busy with his 2012 thesis (though W&A is relevant for that topic too). But after completion of the thesis, there still is no sign of interest.

There is my warning from January 2012 to various young Dutch intellectuals who might come across as “Young Turks“, including Baudet, that they should not forget about the need for a solid scientific approach to change of society. I knew that Baudet was a PhD student but not that he would present his thesis in June that year. Perhaps Baudet thought this warning superfluous since he was working on that thesis at that time. Perhaps it is okay to put on blinders for a thesis when finishing it. The very purpose of a thesis however is to teach you the scientific attitude that one should not neglect criticism.

In 2012 I highlighted the issue that now surfaces in the peuro.nl petition again, namely the link between the EU and euro crises to the censorship of science by the directorate of the CPB.

If Baudet and his FvD are so much interested in improving democracy, why are they not interested in my analysis of the failure of Trias Politica, and the need for an extension with a constitutional Economic Supreme Court ? Why doesn’t Baudet write a review of “De ontketende Kiezer” (2003) ? Why this island mentality and burking and elbowing out of views of others ?

Baudet doesn’t inform Kelder & Wellens at peuro.nl

Baudet in 2015 collaborated with master of law and journalist Jort Kelder and management accountant Arno Wellens on the peuro.nl petition that wants an enquiry by Parliament about the creation and future of the euro. See my discussion of peuro.nl in the former weblog entry.

Kelder & Wellens confirm to me that Baudet did not inform them about W&A and this warning of mine of 2012 to the “Young Turks”. If they want Parliament to provide “full information”, then I would hope that they themselves acknowledge that they had a glitch in their own information amongst themselves. They disinformed the 40,000+ people who signed their petition.

Because of Baudet’s neglect since 2010 of key information about economics and censorship of science, there now is this peuro.nl initiative that focuses only on the euro, while the relevant enquiry should be about unemployment, role CPB … and euro. The euro is only a symptom, and an addition to what went wrong already before.

KWB

Jort Kelder, Arno Wellens and Thierry Baudet, screenshot peuro.nl 2015-12-14

Council of Recommendation

The format of a Think Tank for Baudet’s FvD allows academics to join up in a council of recommendation, too, which some might find problematic if it were a political party.

Member of the FvD council of recommendation are professors in constitutional law Jos Teunissen and Twan Tak. They should understand my approach that there should be no taxation on minimum earnings. See the short text “Don’t tax sweat“.  Teunissen has this useful text “Vrijheid, gelijkheid en belastingen” (2010) on couples, but it is better to start with individuals, and then see DRGTPE p131-132 on couples. Constitutional lawyers should also understand the failure of the Trias Politica model of democracy and the need for an Economic Supreme Court (per nation).

Seeing the names of Teunissen and Tak causes the hope that they will be able to explain these things to the other members of the council, and that all agree that FvD can be abolished as it has been based upon a wrong analysis, neglect by Baudet and disinformation since 2010.

Here we find Baudet’s thesis advisors Paul Cliteur and Roger Scruton again. Obviously the thesis differs from the mission of FvD and it is a bit remarkable that the supervisors travel along, though the direction of travelling might also have been the other way around (from Euroskeptism towards thesis).

To my surprise I also see: Deirdre McCloskey ! After some search, though, we see that Baudet explains in his cv that he taught “between 2010 and 2011” at Arjo Klamer’s school “Academia Vitae” (though it filed for bankruptcy in February 2010), when Jos de Beus (1952-2013) got ill. McCloskey may have taught at this school too. Arjo Klamer was close to De Beus and gave an impressive presentation at the memorial meeting – see my comments on this. It is important to know that Jos de Beus did not understand Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem for collective decision making. It is important to know that there is a line in economic theory from Jan Tinbergen to his PhD student Hans van den Doel to me, with a floundering branch to political theorist Jos de Beus, who collaborated with Van den Doel. Jos de Beus and I met when I presented Van den Doel with the Samuel van Houten Penning in 1994. We had occasional contact but to no effect.

As an economist, Arjo Klamer could help out by studying my work, but he doesn’t. Klamer however is also in the council of recommendation of FvD. For some reason, economists Klamer and McCloskey prefer Baudet’s non-economic approach in theory of law above my development in economic theory from Jan Tinbergen and Hans van den Doel. If only they studied my analysis and stated why they disagree, but now the world must wonder why they don’t look at it at all. And why would they not understand that they cannot see the full analysis yet, because of the censorship ? Ergo, that this censorship must be lifted ?

A member of the FvD council of recommendation is philosopher Ad Verbrugge. He is founding chairman of “Beter Onderwijs Nederland” (BON) (for “Better Education”). At the website of BON, some mathematicians are slandering about my work on mathematics education. Verbrugge doesn’t do anything about this. There is this letter of 2009 (my website has moved to thomascool.eu). I have rephrased some questions again this Summer for fellow math teacher Karin den Heijer, now board member of BON, see page 11 here.

The link to mathematics education is important. See my letter to the president of KNAW and directorate of CPB 2016, that explains that maltreatment of my work on mathematics education hinders other people to also see the value of my work in economics.

Member of this council of recommendation is Kees de Lange, emeritus professor in physics and former chair of an association on pensions NPB. De Lange might have looked at my suggestions on mathematics education, see my suggestion on what physicists might do. I am not impressed by De Lange’s understanding of economics. I am not aware of someone in the Dutch world of pensions who warned about the 2007+ crisis. In 2009 I contacted De Lange as chairman of NBP and informed him about the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of CPB. His reply was sympathetic to my feelings, as if that were a relevant issue, and that NBP did not look into economic analyses, and that my approach might only be discussed when shared by more economists (but they didn’t look at analyses anyway). I came away from this with the impression that De Lange was lost, both as a scientist and chairman of NBP. Later in 2010 De Lange helped found a political party 50Plus, he was elected in the Dutch Senate as member of a two-man fraction of OSF 2011-2015, but then continued independently.

PM. At this spot it is useful to mention that Baudet, Wellens and De Lange also perform in video channel “Cafe Weltschmerz“, created by (bachelor in business and marketing) journalist Willem Middelkoop (LinkedIn), who after the 2007+ crisis got rich by telling people to get into gold rather than have a parliamentarian enquiry into unemployment and censorship since 1990 by the directorate of CPB. One of Middelkoop’s books was published by Amsterdam University Press and by standard arrangement adopted by the University of Chicago Press, but it should have been accepted at neither place since there is no link to science. See my discussion of the gold bugs. One supposes that Middelkoop likes it when Baudet, Wellens and De Lange continue to create uncertainty amongst viewers, so that the market for gold as a “safe haven” remains strong. It is a pity, though, that this circus also draws in young people looking for answers, like psychiatrist Esther van Fenema (wiki) and mathematician Anna Grebenchtchikova (LinkedIn) and lawyer Hester Bais. They, with their higher education that should guard them, might be falling in the journalistic trap to look at symptoms rather than causes.

Member of the council of recommendation is Tom Zwart, professor of international and European law, since 2007 director of the Dutch School of Human Rights Research. Perhaps freedom of expression is also a human right of a scientist ? Or is the option to do science no human right ?

Member of the council of recommendation are other economists Edin Mujagic, Bruno de Haas and Daniel Lacalle. Let me invite them to study my work, starting with DRGTPE (before the crisis) and CSBH (after the crisis). Mujagic hasn’t responded yet, though my analysis dates from the fall of the Berlin Wall, that also affected his past. Lacalle is a hedgefund manager and could get very rich if he would start supporting my analysis (supporting the boycott of Holland, explaining to all that it is needed, and speculating on it).

Last but not least there is Theodore Dalrymple, who might be very happy to finally understand why the Dutch welfare state isn’t working as it is supposed to.

Thierry Baudet and Paul Scheffer

At “Cafe Weltschmerz” there is also this (tedious) interview of Paul Scheffer (1954, like me, Angela Merkel and Franςois Hollande) by Baudet on the Dutch referendum on the treaty of the EU with the Ukraine. Scheffer states that he would vote Yes for the treaty. Baudet participated in setting up the referendum, with the objective that people would vote No. It is fine that they can have this civilised talk, though it was so tedious that I quit watching after 10 minutes (though the referendum has already taken place).

Baudet was for one year a post-doc in 2013 with Paul Scheffer who has a chair in European studies in Tilburg. Originally, Scheffer first wrote a popular book on migration and the multicultural society, and then turned this into a thesis for Tilburg. The Leiden professor of social history Leo Lucassen stepped down from the promotion committee in protest that not enough had been done to make it a real thesis.

Scheffer did highschool HBS A, and graduated in political science in 1986. In his student years he joined the Dutch communist party, and later switched to the social democratic PvdA. He was at the Wiardi Beckman Stichting (WBS), the “scientific bureau” of PvdA in 1986-1992.

I was a member of PvdA in 1974-1991. When I was at CPB in 1982-1991 I developed my analysis on unemployment, with the conceptual breakthrough when the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 caused me to look at some fundamentals. My analysis was censored by the directorate. I sent a copy of my 1990 paper to Parliament, so that all parties were informed, and I was free to contact PvdA of which I was a member. I contacted WBS, and I assumed that fellow social democratic scientists would be interested in an analysis on unemployment. To my great surprise and dismay, they were not. See the letter reproduced in “De ontketende kiezer” (2003) p128. See my discussion “Soms loopt het zo” in “Trias Politica & Centraal Planbureau” (1994). My contact was with fellow econometrician Paul de Beer. I met Scheffer at a PvdA convention at that time so he was in the know. I met Scheffer again at the memorial service of Jos de Beus. I later discovered that Paul de Beer was an adherent of the idea of a basic income. See my discussion about the sectarian behaviour around basic income.

Director of WBS in 1989-2006 was Paul Kalma. I had had some contacts with earlier director Joop van den Berg (1981-1989), now fellow at the Dutch Montesquieu institute. The idea that there are drawbacks to the Trias Politica structure hasn’t arrived there yet.

When Holland succeeds in having this parliamentarian enquiry on unemployment and the role of the CPB … and the euro … then these events at WBS would be important to look into as well. As said at the beginning, the road from science and scientific discovery into political discussion is often via the channel of a particular party. Politicians of any party are less likely to discuss an idea when there is no party advocating it anyway. Thus it is very relevant to know why social democratic researchers at WBS were and still are not interested in a new approach to unemployment. I will be interested in hearing what has been happening as well. Obviously, Parliament will be hesitant to ask questions, since WBS is protected by the aura of science and by that parties will not easily look into dealings of other parties. But the notion of “scientific bureau” better be taken seriously, and scientists should be familiar with the idea of answering questions. Perhaps Thierry Baudet can already ask Paul Scheffer what his recollections are, and why Scheffer didn’t and still doesn’t do anything about the censorship when he heard about it.

The three Pauls (De Beer, Kalma, Scheffer), in 1991 at WBS (wikimedia commons and website De Beer)

The three Pauls: De Beer, Kalma, Scheffer, who were in 1990-1991 at WBS (wikimedia commons and website De Beer)

I am quite neutral on the questions whether or not there is a Brexit and / or the UK breaks up. It is all up to the people in the UK what they wish to do.

My view is only that what we see isn’t democracy but political abuse. The data of the June 23 outcome are generally known, and summarised in the Appendix below. These data still leave unclear what UK voters really think. It is utterly false when politicians and their lawyers claim that the outcome represents the “views by the voters”.

This weblog entry on the Brexit referendum outcome has two aspects:

  • First there is an advice for young UK on safeguarding their future.
  • Secondly, there is the scientific outrage that voting theory has been neglected. Let me suggest to my fellow scientists to protest en masse to the political world that this Brexit referendum was & is political abuse, with deliberate neglect of scientific results on voting theory. Civilisation should not let such developments be determined by such political savagery.

Let us start by observing that the Brexit referendum question neglected the possible break-up of the UK. This isn’t hindsight but people warned for this early on, e.g. William Hague in December 23 2015 just when the referendum question was published. One might argue that people thus were warned, and if they still voted for Leave then they must have included the risk of a break-up. Thus we would live in the best-possible-world (Candide), and it is up to Scotland and Northern Ireland to decide now. However, science has shown that one cannot really interprete referenda in such manner. For example, foreign secretary of Sweden Margot Wallstrom warned on June 12 that the UK Leave might mean the end of the EU. Perhaps she intended to stimulate the turnout of Remain, but, if she was heard at all, she likely encouraged the turnout of Leave who wanted to destroy the EU too, and helped them forget about the break-up of the UK. Thus, it is too rosy to hold that people in the ballot box are fully informed and can deal well with misleading referendum questions.

For young UK (age < 50 years)

An advice for young UK who face Brexit is to study the basic theory of elections and then organise a new decision, done properly.

Four texts to study are:

  • the former weblog text on Brexit
  • my online book Voting Theory for Democracy
  • a paper that compares district representation (DR) as in the UK with proportional representation (PR) as in Holland. A), with a summary that appeared in Mathematics Teaching 222 in the context of the 2011 UK referendum on “Alternative Vote”.
  • a warning (in Dutch) to be careful with the mathematics of voting schemes.

Let us consider, for the sake of argumentation, a potential new referendum that might combine the options of Remain / Leave with UK / EU, so that voters can express better whether or not they want to leave the EU at the possible cost of a break-up of the UK. The votes on remaining or leaving the UK must be aggregated for the four areas separately, with perhaps the creation of England as a political entity too.

2016-06-29-Brexit-true-optionsWould this scheme work ? The scheme doesn’t quite deal with conditionals, like (England’s ?) “Leave the EU provided that others don’t leave the UK” or (Scotland’s ?) “Remain in the UK provided that the UK remains in the EU”. (1) Opinion polls “help” people to get an idea what others will vote, but such polls can be quite misleading. (2) A scheme is to let voters rank their preferences. For example, a youngster might rank A > C > B > D and an elderly person might rank B > D > A > C, but this ranking doesn’t quite resolve conditionals, e.g. that might cause strategic voting. And what about other issues, like on immigration ?

This hypothetical case fits the general scientific finding that referenda are predominantly no good way for collective decision making. It is remarkable that this isn’t general knowledge or even part of common sense.

Best seems that people vote for parties and that parties have negotiations in Parliament. However, this also depends upon whether Parliament has been chosen by DR or PR.

  • The political tensions in the UK rose likely because the UK has DR instead of PR. The political system in the UK excludes minorities and reduces political competition, whence non-represented minorities grow ever more extreme.
  • The Dutch system with PR includes minorities and enhances competition for votes. PR forces parties to compromise, and bearing responsibility reduces extremes.
  • Referenda are normally PR and used to correct errors of DR, but that doesn’t make referenda true corrections.

Therefor, the best solution would be to have a decision by Parliament selected in PR manner, or, paradoxically, given that this Brexit referendum has been allowed, have a nullifying referendum. One would put four issues on ballot:

  • “The Brexit referendum question was too simple, and the outcome is annulled.”
  • “Adopt for Parliament a system of Proportional Representation (PR) like in Holland, with a Prime Minister and cabinet appointed by Parliament.”
  • “Adopt a constitutional Economic Supreme Court (ESC).” The ESC provides necessary checks on the quality of information for policy making. For this, see DRGTPE, and this memo in the RES Newsletter.
  • “If there is an ESC, then also have annual elections.” When the ESC is in place, then one can have annual elections to enhance voting power on preferences, with less risk of political chaos.

These latter two conditions for a modern democracy are still lacking in Holland. Dutch readers are referred to “Democratie & Staathuishoudkunde” (2012).

The political abuse

The New York Times reminded us on June 21 2016 that David Cameron used the referendum to resolve a political fight in his own party.

“In 2013, besieged by the increasingly assertive anti-European Union wing of his own Conservative Party, Mr. Cameron made a promise intended to keep a short-term peace among the Tories before the 2015 general election: If re-elected, he would hold an in-or-out referendum on continued British membership in the bloc. But what seemed then like a relatively low-risk ploy to deal with a short-term political problem has metastasized into an issue that could badly damage Britain’s economy, influence the country’s direction for generations — and determine Mr. Cameron’s political fate.”

This use is not necessarily an abuse, since, for example, 52% of the vote legitimise the idea, and these were not party members only. Instead, the abuse is the neglect of voting theory: the misrepresentation of a multidimensional issue by a binary choice. It is like asking “Do you still beat your wife ?” and allowing only a Yes or No, so that when the answer is No then the subsequent conclusion is: “Ah, so you admit that you did beat her before !”

Surprisingly, both David Cameron and Nigel Farage got away with the misrepresentation in the question in this plebiscite. (1) There was not enough discussion on this irresponsible simplification of the issues. At least the possibility of the break-up should have been included, see the early warning by William Hague. (2) Whatever the question up for vote, a referendum can be hijacked for another populist cause, as happened in this case with immigration. Angry voters send a vote-of-no-confidence to the government whatever the consequences.

For scientists

The case for scientific outrage is obvious. It is remarkable that we haven’t heard much from UK scientists on this. Stephen Hawking warned about Brexit but didn’t say that the referendum question is silly and dangerous.

There is this open letter of June 14 by a long list of scientists who protest:

“A referendum result is democratically legitimate only if voters can make an informed decision. Yet the level of misinformation in the current campaign is so great that democratic legitimacy is called into question.”

Curiously, however, this letter doesn’t make the point that the referendum neglects voting theory, since the very question is misleading w.r.t. the complexity of the issue under decision. Would these scientists be willing to admit this ex post ?

There is a critical article in the New Scientist of June 1 for example, but the issue of misrepresentation isn’t quite mentioned. The reporters adopt the frame that the question is sound and the voters are irrational, while the truth is rather that the referendum question is a misrepresentation and that voters are upset (albeit unconsciously) by being boxed into a corner, and by being given responsibility but no means of control (the recipe for stress).

“THE EU referendum could be the most irrational yet. Uncertainty over consequences, and contradictory economic and political information, mean that voters will be swung even more than usual by feelings and biases that have nothing to do with the issues at stake.” (Michael Bond, Jacob AronHal Hodson)

It is well-accepted by students of voting theory that referenda can by abused by politicians for their own agenda. Thus the scientific outrage should be felt by many more scientists.

Insert: The Queen: “Why did nobody notice it?”- in 2008 at the financial crisis

After the financial crisis in 2008, the UK Queen is reported to have asked: “Why did nobody notice it?” (Telegraph 2008, Guardian 2012). There is the plain answer that some people warned but were not listened to, and this is the ancient issue of Cassandra or perhaps The Boy Who Cried “Wolf”. See e.g. this discussion. The same question can be asked now w.r.t. the referendum: why did not more people warn that the referendum and / or its question wasn’t sound.

Potentially, organising a new referendum would better show how the people in the UK think about a break-up. There is one catch: it may be impossible to restore the status quo ex ante. Now that Scotland has discovered that it might be dragged along by England into undesirable waters, perhaps Scotland still wishes a new referendum on independence, even when the June 23 referendum is annulled and when a new referendum confirms that the UK would remain in the EU. This is something that someone in the Policy Simulation Room should have seen coming.

Many observers already mentioned that if there would be general elections before a government dares to invoke article 50, then these elections would turn into a repeat referendum too. In that case DR doesn’t quite square with the PR of a referendum, and thus one would rather first have PR and perhaps secondly also split parties in Remain and Leave subparties.

Insert: How the UK Electoral Commission advised on the question

A kind reader informed me that the UK Electoral Commission advised on the referendum question. Looking into this is another mer à boire.

  • The Commission has the task to check that even a misleading question is “intelligible”.
  • There is a useful discussion about the difference between “remain” and “be”, and whether yes / no creates a bias for people who hate to say no. My impression is that the Electoral Commission deserves a compliment w.r.t. the clarity about the question, so that everyone can see that it was a misleading question.
  • However, the Commission entirely overlooks the possibility of including a “None Of The Above” (NOTA), while this inclusion might have tickled people into wondering about the misleading question itself.
  • There is no mention that the UK might break up after a Leave outcome. Is it really so that no-one in the UK was aware of this and that the Electoral Commission could neglect this ?
  • There were general warnings, like in the section on “Contextual understanding of the European Union” points 3.23-3.27 on page 16:

“3.25 Whilst overall awareness of the UK’s membership of the EU was found to be relatively high, many reported that more contextual information would be required regarding the voting outcomes. Particular queries included what a vote to remain a member would mean in terms of membership status: continuation of current terms of membership or something different? A small number of participants thought that a majority vote to stay would result in the UK becoming a member of the Eurozone.  
3.26 There were similar queries about what a vote to leave would mean in terms of membership status: completely leaving the EU or some other form of membership?
3.27 Those who were undecided about how to vote were particularly likely to report a lack of contextual information enabling them to make an informed vote. They reported a lack of clarity regarding what each voting outcome would mean in practice. This is considered in more detail later in this chapter.”

I didn’t find the required details in this chapter. My advice to the Electoral Commission is to refuse to participate in the creation of misleading questions. It is okay to clarify questions, but one should also be aware of voting theory that referenda can be silly and dangerous. At the minimum discuss the inclusion of NOTA.  The reason of the referendum is to recover the views of the electorate, and what happens with the view is not only “context” but key information for developing these views.

Insert: Partial agreement with Martin Wolf in the FT

Martin Wolf stated in his “What a Prime Minister Boris Johnson should do next” (FT June 28 2016), that I only saw after basically completing this text:

“Might it be possible to abort the entire process? Legally, yes. As Brexiters rightly say, the UK is a parliamentary, not a plebiscitary, democracy. The step that must be taken, if the UK is to leave the EU, is for it to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, to trigger the process. In law, a referendum is solely advisory. Only parliament can do this, because only it makes valid law.”

It is a subtle point that many will not have been aware of. The Dutch advisory referendum on the Ukraine had always been communicated as “advisory referendum”, and in the future such clarity would be advisable.

Now, both David Cameron and Jean-Claude Juncker assume that the UK will automatically invoke article 50, and the debate is only about delay (supposedly to the advantage of the UK) or speed (for the EU wishing to have it over with). There are rising tensions. Juncker’s attitude would have been different when Cameron had treated the referendum outcome only as an advice. Today, David Cameron is not present at the informal meeting of the HOSGs, and EU Council website has a statement by the 28 – 1 = 27:

“In their joint statement following the meeting, the 27 leaders announced: “We, the Heads of State or Government of 27 Member States, as well as the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, deeply regret the outcome of the referendum in the UK but we respect the will expressed by a majority of the British people. Until the UK leaves the EU, EU law continues to apply to and within the UK, both when it comes to rights and obligations.””

Nigel Farage was jeered and booed at with Juncker’s unkind question “Why are you here ?” when he presented himself in the EU Parliament. It is unkind not to allow Farage his moment of victory and for exporting his message to a wider EU area, and to imply that he was only there for the attendance fee. One should respect that it remains a political view whether one wants more integration or a return to a trade area. With this unkind and non-sportive treatment, one may better understand how Europe got into wars so often in the past. But also Farage did not treat the referendum outcome as an advice only.

Still, I agree with Wolf that the UK still has the option to backtrack. The real question is what would be the convincing argument. The argument must be made convincingly, otherwise tensions in the EU will rise, and businesses will reduce the risk of trading with the UK. For me, the convincing reason lies in the observation that the referendum question is an abuse and neglect of voting theory.  For me, it doesn’t matter whether the UK leaves or breaks up, if only the voters have been offered the true options.

Wolf is more worried about the economy, and subsequently considers some options, including re-negotiating on immigration, and starting with:

“After selection of a new leader by the Conservative party, and perhaps even a general election, Prime Minister Johnson might, to paraphrase Emperor Hirohito’s remarks at the end of the second world war, declare that, given the “unexpected” economic damage and the risk of a break up of the UK, the situation “had developed not necessarily to the UK’s advantage”. He might forget the whole thing or, alternatively, call another referendum, merely to make sure the people remained as determined.”

The argument on the Brexit is rather thin, given that the Brexit had been presented as an issue of sovereignty and the monster of the superstate. It belongs to the possibilities that Johnson doesn’t really care much whether the UK is in or out of the EU, and that the Brexit campaign was only a last resort to get Cameron and Osborne out of the way. It is also possible that Johnson might become Prime Minister now and is appalled by the chaos that he has created, and thus becomes willing to change his position. However, it is less likely that the EU will agree with re-negotiating on immigration to try prevent the UK from invoking article 50. Politics might be blackmail but the UK cannot claim a special position w.r.t. the problems in Syria or Africa.

Thus I regard this line of reasoning as not so convincing. Little stops us from combining the principles on voting with the practice of economics. However, why would we complicate a clear issue of scientific clarity on principles of voting with a messy assessment on economics ? For the experts, as Wolf indicates, the economic assessment is not messy, but we lack an Economic Supreme Court, and thus non-economists are lost in the game of guessing who the experts really are, and experience shows that this process actually is quite messy.

David Cameron might have selected his time window till October for mere party politics, but it would provide time indeed to let these arguments percolate. I would not wait for Boris Johnson but rather look to young UK and the world of science.

Insert: Gideon Rachman’s non-belief in a Brexit

Gideon Rachman doesn’t quite believe the Brexit, given some precedents (FT June 27 2016), that I also only saw after basically completing this text.

“In 1992 the Danes voted to reject the Maastricht treaty. The Irish voted to reject both the Nice treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. And what happened in each case? The EU rolled ever onwards. The Danes and the Irish were granted some concessions by their EU partners. They staged a second referendum. And the second time around they voted to accept the treaty.”

“Boris Johnson (…) hinted at his real thinking back in February, when he said: “There is only one way to get the change we need — and that is to vote to go; because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No.”

“And what kind of new concession should be offered? That is easy. What Mr Johnson would need to win a second referendum is an emergency brake on free movement of people, allowing the UK to limit the number of EU nationals moving to Britain if it has surged beyond a certain level.”

With the EU refugee crisis (an emergency for Syria and a structural problem for Africa), it is not likely that the UK will get such exception, for the other 27 members will not be able to explain this to their constituencies. There doesn’t have to be a concession from the EU. It suffices for the UK to come to terms with voting theory, apologise to the EU for the confusion, and redo the decision making process to find out what it really wants.

A cocktail of uncertainties and possible sources for confusion

The Brexit referendum has the advantage of illuminating various uncertainties and possible sources for confusion.

  • My correspondent in The Hague argues that the Brexit outcome injects new energy into society, namely the idea of “getting a life”, and being freed from the suffocating bias by the collective hive. I am reminded of 1914, when people were energised to go to war. Sebastian Haffner‘s book of 1964 still needs an English translation: Die sieben Todsünden des deutschen Reiches im Ersten Weltkrieg.
  • One might argue that Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014, and thus now has to suffer the cost. The EU might welcome Scotland but might still have greater fear for break-ups like with Catalunya. Overall, my impression is that the nation states of Vienna 1815 still have an important role to play in the immediate future. Eventually a perspective of a “Europe of the Regions” (Heineken map) makes more sense. One could make a plan for the next 25 years for gradual change with both integration and distribution.
  • The 2011 UK referendum on “Alternative Vote” was crooked because the proposed system was too complex, likely by wrong advice from mathematicians. There is the curious Dutch D66, liberal democrats who neglect science and prefer DR.
  • The demographic breakdown shows that younger people turned out less and were more likely to vote for Remain, while the elderly turned out more and for Leave. Issues are: (1) When people don’t turn out, we don’t know their vote. (2) Are non-voters really indifferent to the outcome or merely confused ? (3) Don’t young people know that elections are important for their future ? (4) Was it relevant that younger people are used to a digital world while the referendum is old technology that the elderly are used to ? (5) When they have regrets, should they sit on the blisters ? (6) Will they be able to understand that this referendum was an outrage and neglect of science, and would they be able to explain this to others ?
  • An interesting point is that this Brexit outcome challenges the “one man one vote” principle. In Public Health we oppose “lives saved” to “life years saved”. It matters whether one saves a baby or a 95-year old. See my essay on the Value of Life. In economics we have intergenerational accounting. Potentially one might argue that young people are more affected by a decision like a Brexit than the elderly. The elderly might argue that they know better what is good for their grandchildren. A 95-year old might also argue that the world has a lot of babies but few 95-year olds, and that he or she represents a huge investment in human capital.
  • Remarkably, the City of London had a great interest in remaining in the EU, but was caught in the problem that others might (obviously) think that they put their interests before those of the UK. Somehow Finance lost from the Tabloids. A mediating role might have been played by Education, but Education apparently didn’t explain about the political abuse.
Dutch EU Presidency disaster, with Dutch PM Mark Rutte

The Brexit outcome means that the Dutch EU Presidency 2016 is a disaster, under the leadership of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Indeed, even Dutch PR has its problems. The Dutch general elections 2012 might have allowed a coalition under the leadership of Diederik Samsom, with parties PvdA & SP & CDA & D66 & CU & GL & PvdD = 38 + 15 + 13 + 12 + 5 + 4 + 2 = 89 seats in a house with 150 seats, but Samsom preferred a quick deal with Rutte (VVD, 41 seats). Samsom forgot that VVD and PvdA had made rather conflicting campaign promises, so that a coalition was strange, and both are much lower in the polls now (VVD 24, down from 41, PvdA 8, down from 38). In 2017 there are Dutch elections. VVD and PvdA had been hoping that the Dutch economy would be doing well by then, but the Brexit makes this less likely again. However, my advice is that all (decent) parties are represented in the executive of the government too, since being in government helps realism. The selection of the Prime Minister can be done by the Borda Fixed Point method.

Potentially the EU regarded the UK referendum as an internal affair of the sovereign UK. European heads of state or government (HOSG) have been advising the UK voters, but always at some “respectful distance”, and not in town hall meetings as Barack Obama toured the USA. It is part of European folklore to have a European project but while maintaining the outward rituals of sovereignty. This emphasizes the distance rather than the togetherness like in the European Song Festival. The Dutch Presidency should have been more alert on this. People in the UK might argue that there are ample people from other EU nations in the UK, so that there are ample opportunities for discussion, and that the purpose of the referendum is to let the British make up their minds themselves. But why not have town hall meetings with EU HOSGs at various locations in Nigel Farage’s backyard ?

Another comment (lost the reference) was that it was Margaret Thatcher who pushed for the neoliberal agenda, as opposed to the Continent, with the Christian or Social Democratic agendas. This caused the austerity programs and the financial crisis of 2007+ and the call for more austerity. Thus the UK exported the policies to Brussels, about which the Brexiteers complain that those came from Brussels. To this, we might add that Tony Blair proceeded along Thatcher’s path, and assisted in the false pretentions for the invasion into Iraq that eventually caused ISIL and the Syrian refugees to Europe. How blind can you be about your own crookedness ? Also, Mark Rutte has hero worship for Thatcher, and thus was the last person to explain this boomerang to the UK. See what Rutte neglects: my paper on the Cause and Cure of the Crisis.

(PM. Perhaps, however, Rutte has other objectives. Now that the House of Hanover leaves the EU, perhaps the House of Orange has better cards to get adopted as the Imperial House for the EU empire, later to be united with Russia. My correspondent in Moscow informs me that president Putin is already looking at pictures of young Dutch princess Amalia. As Putin intends to rule for a thousand years, the age difference doesn’t bother him. But the Moscow correspondent  also states: “Then he swears violently, for he realises that he must also find a diplomatic solution for the MH17 problem.”)

A problem in science

There is a related issue that must be mentioned usefully. For the above, science has a positive role. However, we should not paint a picture that is too rosy. Science can also contribute to political confusion. A problem in science is that here is a common and fundamental misunderstanding w.r.t. the Impossibility Theorem of 1951 by Kenneth Arrow, a mathematician who got the Nobel Prize in 1972 for this theorem and other work. The impossibility theorem might seem complex but is rather simple, for: assume some properties and give a counterexample. The impossibility arises by a simple mechanism, namely by assuming that collective decisions can be built up from voting on pairs of issues. Obviously the world is more complex and one cannot neglect the context. However, mathematicians are very fond of the misconceptions that Arrow created, and political scientists are very fond of acting like they understand the mathematics. Thus there is a serious problem of malpractice in science itself. Cases of this malpractice in Holland are here 1, here 2, here 3. A problematic situation exists in the USA w.r.t. Donald Saari, last year the chairman of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS), the union of all mathematical associations. See also the relation of CBMS to the US Common Core in mathematics education.

In 1990, one of my papers at the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) showed that Arrow confused voting and deciding. The mathematics of his theorem is okay but his interpretation is wrong. One can use pairwise voting results but one should not regard these as decisions. The final decision can only be made when all pairwise results are in and related to each other. A cycle in voting scores translates into collective indifference. When there is a tie, then there must be tie-breaking rules. Thus, democracy is not impossible, but a bit more complex than Arrow suggested. Unfortunately, this paper of mine of 1990 got hit by censorship of science, as also my other papers, including the new approach to resolving unemployment and stagflation. The paper on Arrow’s impossibility theorem has been transformed (partially) into the book Voting Theory for Democracy, but the results on unemployment and stagflation are still importantly much under censorship that should be lifted.

Conclusion

Young UK and scientists all over the world are advised to protest against the political abuse of this Brexit referendum, and it would also help when they start boycotting Holland till the censorship of science by the directorate of the Dutch CPB is resolved.

Appendix. The Brexit referendum outcome

The following data can be found at YouGov (exit poll on ca. 5000 people) and there is a nice graphic at wikipedia (a portal and no source). John Burn-Murdoch at the FT presents a graph that turnout rises with age, from a low 65% for age 30 to a high 80% at age 50 (not copied here).

wikipedia brexit

YouGov Brexit

 

The Dutch research subsidy allocator NWO had its annual Spinoza Prize event, in which science meets journalism. About this annual event I reported critically in 2012.

The event this year carried the theme of “The scientist as activist”. NWO had invited Alice Dreger as keynote speaker to explain about the advantages and pitfalls of mixing research in the morning with social activism in the afternoon.

Thus, all of a sudden we have sex change on the table. Also, when there is controversy, then one is obliged to look into details. Thus I spent Friday morning listening to Dreger and the discussion, and was forced on Saturday “the morning after” to fact-check it all.

NWO Bessensap in Amsterdam

The invitation at the NWO website was:

“On Friday 10 June 2016 the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) will organise the sixteenth edition of Bessensap together with the Dutch Association of Science Journalists (VWN). The event will take place at the Rode Hoed in Amsterdam. Bessensap has been revamped this year to be even more in keeping with current developments, both in science and scientific communication.

The goal of Bessensap is and remains to encourage interaction between researchers, science and mainstream journalists, and other communication professionals. The former title ‘science meets the press’ is being replaced by an annual current theme, however. This year it is ‘the scientist as activist’: professors protesting against cut-price meat and climate scientists warning of the present and future disastrous effects of climate change. What role should scientists play in the public debate? And how should science journalism approach activist researchers?

Keynote speaker this year is the American activist researcher Alice Dreger [http://alicedreger.com]. As a historian, she studies the history of science and medicine. At Bessensap, Dreger will discuss what happens when science (the search for truth) and activism (the search for justice) collide. After her keynote address, Dreger will continue her discussion with visitors during a debate on this theme.” (NWO website)

Dreger informed us about her personal experience. She had participated in a social controversy, defending a fellow scientist J. Michael Bailey against harrassment, and had become a target of harrassment herself too. Her own university also hit her work with censorship, after which she eventually resigned as professor of Clinical Medical Humanities and Bioethics at Northwestern. She relates her experiences in the bookGalileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science“.

Dutch journalist Asha ten Broeke was in the audience and praised Dreger’s book, as a thriller that should become a movie. Google shows a twitter exchange between Ten Broeke and Dreger, and an earlier report in a newspaper, Volkskrant June 4, that opens with the issue of prenatal dexamethasone.

Alice Dreger, 2016-06-10, NWO, "The scientist as an activist"

Alice Dreger about “The scientist as activist”

Developing a hypothesis on the controversy

I only want to develop a hypothesis about what is happening. I have spent a major part of the mornings of Friday and Saturday on this issue, with the only objective to have a fair grasp of the situation. It will not be possible to look into all details, which would require e.g. buying and reading Dreger’s book and all commentary. Dreger observes that books are often not read and still rejected, but I don’t intend to read a full book nor to reject or accept it. Once I have my hypothesis, then it is a later option to test it, but I doubt whether I will ever have time to do so.

The situation is complicated by that Dreger may be right on many aspects, like on the matter of prenatal dexamethasone. Dreger seems also to be right in the protest against censorship at Northwestern, but one can doubt whether resignation was the proper response.

Eliminating noise, it appears that the core issue is relatively simple. This is whether Michael Bailey has a sound scientific approach or only a journalistic report on the “Clarke Institute theory of gender crossing”.

Let me invite you to read these two texts, and for readers of Dutch also a third:

Bailey apparently states that there are only two types of crossing and when McCloskey states that her personal experience doesn’t fit those two categories, then Bailey must either call her a liar or revise his theory. Why not respect personal testimony ? There is no need to concentrate on McCloskey, for there are more people for empirical testing. Thus there is no need for controversy but need for more research, and the research question is already clear too.

We find light in the tunnel by the following approach: (1) Common sense. (2) McCloskey is a brilliant economist, and I am an economist who appreciates her work very much. Her statement is to the point. For example, McCloskey is a world authority on ethical theory, and when she observes that Dreger is shallow on ethics, while Dreger’s chair is on bioethics, then this is very relevant observation. McCloskey agrees with Dreger that Andrea James is an activist and no scientist, and this is actually easy to check.

The Huffington Post article has a curious treatment of McCloskey’s position. Using your thumb to invent that two critics of Dreger “talked many times” and still disagree, and implying that both then are wrong, is bad logic.

“Well, which is it? “Proven wrong” by “almost everyone” (McCloskey) or “unfalsifiable” and without “predictive capabilities” and “untestable” (Conway)? McCloskey and Conway must have talked many times. This discrepancy in how they attacked Blanchard’s theory shows how little they cared about its truth — or that they knew it was true.” (Seth Robert)

Robert also argues: “Deidre McCloskey and Lynn Conway are both powerful persons.” This is a misrepresentation. McCloskey has no power and can only use words. People who read her work tend not to take things for granted. I have no information about Conway.

As a scientist, McCloskey is Dreger’s best ally, and it is curious when these two minds don’t meet. When McCloskey invited Dreger to send a draft text so that she could comment to prevent later confusion, then this was proper science.

A background check on potential sources of bias

Bailey’s website informs us that he originally had a BA in mathematics, and after teaching secondary school for a couple of years went to graduate school in clinical psychology. Mathematicians are trained for abstraction, and it is not impossible that Bailey’s attitude still is rather abstract and theoretical rather than focused on empirical observation, even though he has been an intern in psychiatry. An empirical scientist would be much interested in the evidence that causes a rejection of a theory.

Dreger earned her PhD in History and Philosophy of Science. The topic of the PhD study apparently was on the history of “Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex“. This background suggests that she has read about methods of science, but has no training by actually doing so. Dreger’s historical research apparently has alerted her to misconceptions by so-called scientists in the past, but dealing with current science today is a different issue. My impression is that Dreger has misread McCloskey’s accurate criticism of Bailey’s approach, and did not properly distinguish this criticism from social activists.

Adding to confusion and reducing it again

You should read the two or three texts above but let me mention that there are more sources, that contribute to information overload. For example there is Julia Serano, who has this criticism. Or there are withdrawn nominations for lammies. Etcetera, etcetera.

The bottom line is: it would be up to professor Bailey to answer to his critics.

It has been kind of Dreger to want to protect a fellow scientist from abuse by social activists. It is better to avoid the risk of becoming the next target. Best is to provide for a climate in the scientific world itself, so that Bailey indeed provides such answers. For example, Dreger might have translated McCloskey’s criticism into words such that Bailey would have understood better that this is criticism that needs a reply. One should not think that management of controversy is simple.

Insert of Tuesday June 14 2016

Though I really didn’t want to spend more time on this, I now located Dreger’s article at PubMed 2008, in which she clarifies that Bailey’s book, published at a scientific publisher, was not purely science but also intended to express personal opinions and speculations.

“From the start, Bailey intended this book to be very different from anything he had published before. Whereas most of his previous work consisted of peer-reviewed articles for scientific journals, this book would be a popularization—based on certain sexological findings of his lab and others, but replete with vivid stories of people the author had met, stories provided to put a human face on those findings. Along with accessible, abbreviated accounts of key scientific studies, the book would also feature the author’s hunches, speculations, and personal opinions. It would include suggestions for further reading, but no other documentation (Bailey, 2006b). Thus, TMWWBQ was never envisioned as a work of science in any traditional sense; instead, Bailey viewed the book as his chance to expose to the masses what he saw as the often politically incorrect truth about “feminine males”: boys diagnosable with “gender identity disorder” (GID); surgically feminized, genetic male children; male homosexuals; drag queens; heterosexual male crossdressers; and MTF transsexuals. Bailey also saw the book as an opportunity to make some money; when he was ready to sell the book, he engaged an agent, Skip Barker, who negotiated in November 2000 a contract and an advance from Joseph Henry Press (p.e.c., Bailey to Dreger, October 2, 2006). Joseph Henry Press is “an imprint of the National Academies Press […] created with the goal of making books on science, technology, and health more widely available to professionals and the public” (Bailey, 2003, copyright page).” (Dreger’s article at PubMed 2008)

Thus, Bailey was an activist himself, and it looks like Dreger may have defended not a fellow scientist but an activist.

Obviously, there is no objection to personal opinions and speculations, and these actually are an important source of information, as these for example might guide future research. However, the issue is to clearly distinguish those from corroborated findings. For example, I use a science name Colignatus. Apparently Bailey nor Dreger nor the editors of the Joseph Henry Press nor the editors of the journal that published Dreger’s article have been careful enough. Both Bailey’s book and Dreger’s article better be retracted. The abstract of Dreger’s article states:

“Dissatisfied with the option of merely criticizing the book, a small number of transwomen (particularly Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey) worked to try to ruin Bailey.” (In the abstract of Dreger’s article at PubMed 2008)

This fails as a description of what actually happened. Reading McCloskey’s statement on Dreger, referred to above, shows her position on content. This shouldn’t be misrepresented as being targeted deliberately at ruin. Perhaps others have stated such explicitly but McCloskey (p7-8) even explicitly denies this. Thus retract.

Dreger is right that the case causes some questions. When Bailey’s book is published at a science publisher, then McCloskey is right that research may be needed to have been submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB). If the book is “science journalism”, then this IRB is not needed, but then it shouldn’t be at that publisher. One cannot use one argument for the other issue. Dreger may also be right that “oral history” is excluded from IRB rules, but if Bailey uses such reports to put a face on statistical results, then he himself creates a mix that still falls under IRB (because one aspect is). Again you cannot use one argument for the other issue. Also Dreger should ask Bailey to retract and restate his views in a manner that avoids confusion.

Conclusions

Given this hypothesis, some tentative conclusions are:

  • The organisers at NWO should have had the same problem as I had, in needing to understand the situation. They should have been able to reason as above. They didn’t do so. They gave Dreger the floor, as if there all of this was entirely new and nobody had time to look into this. This is misleading to the audience, and generates a wider circle of confusion. It is costly to the audience, like I lost time in recovering what they should have done. The better alternative would have been to present the hypothesis as above, and allow both Dreger and others to comment, so that there would have been an informed discussion, leading to more information and reduced confusion.
  • The organisers at NWO left it there, and after Dreger had reported on the censorship, there was no statement by the board of NWO that they were appalled, and would investigate and potentially write a letter of protest to Northwestern. NWO has a department of science communication and they found it useful to give Dreger the floor for their own reasons of selling NWO, but, apparently, there was no commitment to really defend science against censorship.
  • This framing doesn’t help Dreger much. The newsmedia reported on the Spinoza Prize winners but not on the censorship of science at Northwestern.
  • Journalist Asha ten Broeke already reported on Dreger but should look into above hypothesis, in order to prevent misleading people.

After this discussion on controversy and censorship in the NWO lecture hall, various people in the audience went out onto the street, not to protest with banners, but to enjoy the good weather and the view of Amsterdam’s canals. Dutch people aren’t easily shocked about censorship of science.

2016-06-10-NWO-outside

It is awkward to state the obvious, but let me do it anyway.

  • This weblog advises to boycott Holland till the censorship of science since 1990 by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) has been lifted (see the About page)
  • the censored analysis concerns unemployment and poverty
  • resolution of unemployment and poverty is crucial for resolution of world hunger (unless you want to distribute food for free, which isn’t likely to happen)
  • when I was a highschool student in 1972 and wanted to resolve world hunger, I decided that I better study econometrics rather than archeology
  • when I studied econometrics I decided that unemployment was the key topic, since this affects the basic needs. At that time I also wrote an article (in Dutch) that the New International Economic Order (NIEO) was no basic needs programme. Jan Tinbergen read the article and responded on the phone that I very likely was right on this. There is some rumour in Holland that Tinbergen was an impractical dreamer who tragically pursued unattainables, but see my In Memoriam (in Dutch) for praise of his wisdom and common sense.

Jan_Tinbergen_1982-smallThus this weblog is of key importance for world hunger too. It is almost impossible to make a dent into world hunger when you don’t get the economies up and running, with systems of social welfare that are supportive of full employment.

Jean Ziegler has called attention to the issue in clear words, though he lacks the economic theory that has been hit by censorship by the Dutch CPB directorate. See this article “We let them starve” in The Guardian. I haven’t read his 2013 book but I am convinced that it is depressing reading, especially when you know that the solution is at hand, and blocked by censorship. It is depressing too, to read this report on Ziegler’s flirt with Gadaffi (and then check out the pictures of Gadaffi’s visit to Paris and president Sarkozy in 2007).

zieglerMartin Caparros also takes issue at world hunger. See this article in the New York Times. See this interview at the University of Barcelona. Remarkably, there appears to be no English edition of his book yet, and the German edition of his book costs close to $100. Readers of German may also check out this article in Die Zeit.

51w9CDRhaZL._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_

There are various organisations worldwide that try to deal with world hunger. However, their approach is bottom up in the Third World, and not targetted at protecting science in the Western World and debunking fallacies by Western governments. They are fighting symptoms and not tackling the causes. Admittedly, someone who is hungry is helped immediately with food, and thus it is difficult to be critical of micro management. However, the leaderships of such organisations should be aware where the real solution would come from.

It is the same in Holland. The Dutch chapter of The Hunger Project interviewed Martin Caparros (in English). Let me quote two questions and answers:

You argue that hunger is the consequence of a system. Capitalism is the culprit. At the same time you say that of all the major problems, hunger is easily fixed. It seems too simplistic: changing the system is not simple, is it?
“That’s a problem. Because what would it mean to solve hunger? Make sure people take in more calories each day? That is easily done. It requires some technical changes, but you can realize those if you invest enough money on for instance roads or agricultural innovations. But the point I am making is that hunger is a metaphor for poverty. You cannot solve hunger if you do not first solve the problem of poverty. And that requires an overhaul of our system.”

How do we do that?
“Well, who knows? Until the 80s and 90s people thought equal welfare and justice could be reached with socialism or communism. By now we know better. I think politics should help us change to a moral economy.”

(Quoted from an interview of Martin Caparros by Leontine Aarnoudse, OneWorld, 2016-02-19)

Morality would help but, but the track record of morality shows its limits. People will be willing to help out, but the economic process must support this. Thus, there is my economic analysis, that however has been censored since 1990 by the directorate of the Dutch CPB.

Obviously, when these Dutch organisations like The Hunger Project do not question the censorship of science by the directorate of the Dutch CPB, then they convey an image as if there would be freedom of thought in Holland, and that the problem indeed cannot be solved except by micro management and global morality. What can one do, to make these blind and deaf Dutch people grow aware of their blindness and deafness ?

I collaborated on a book in Dutch that discussed unemployment and poverty. When Holland has such difficulty to manage its own unemployment and poverty (with its level of education and technology and natural gas resources) then one should be modest about claims for the Third World, unless more can be said along the lines of this censored economic analysis. Not all is in this booklet yet, since there is this censorship. Economic scientists should look at DRGTPE. I did not yet collaborate on a book on world hunger. Is that the reason why the coin does not drop ?

905170447X

Addendum

The Hunger Project Nederland apparently was founded in 1980, and they “celebrated” the 35th anniversary in 2015. I find this difficult to square, for how can you celebrate continuation of something that should have ended in 1981 ? The official text reads that they celebrate the progress towards elimination of world hunger, with a new target for “in the next generation”, but this reads as an official excuse. The subject is a minefield, with this “celebration”, Ziegler & Gadaffi, and other such issues. I suppose that it is quite acceptable to have parties, for man is not only an animal but also a party animal, but please avoid the cognitive dissonance created here.

2015-THP-35-years

Listening to Hatzidakis, Oi geitonies to fengariou chronion o pothos

Mathematician John Allen Paulos is a floorcloth, that is, mathematician Kees Hoogland must think so. Paulos can be abused at will, shaped into desired topological form, and passed on as true, and mop up the dirt and bloodstains that you have caused.

  • Paulos (1988) Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences perhaps even created the colloquial term “numeracy” as shorthand for quantitative competence, in parallel to literacy, the ability to read and write. The term may be a meme, for there now is the scholarly journal Numeracy, launced in 2008, and the term is (ab-) used in the 21st century skills hype. Observe that Paulos also studied English, and that his popular books are not mathematical books but literary exercises to bridge the gap between alpha and beta worlds (C.P. Snow “The two cultures”). Paulos agrees that numbers are only part of it, and that a better umbrella is reasoning (but logos is calculation too).
  • Hoogland abuses Paulos’s books to defend the failed and fraudulent “realistic mathematics education” (RME) by Hans Freudenthal (1905-1990). RME denounces traditional methods of mathematics education as “cyphering” or drilling devoid of understanding. The cyphers are the digits 0,1, 2, …, 9 that are used to denote the numbers. Teaching English and understanding Shakespeare would be denounced as “lettering”. Denouncing traditional didactics in this manner, would leave only RME for proper teaching of mathematics, which would generate numeracy. Obviously, Paulos has presented his books for a general readership, and they were not intended as scholarly research within evidence based education, and to look into issues of RME or traditional didactics. Obviously, Hoogland misrepresents the purpose and scope of Paulos’s books. Obviously, he abuses those to fit his own purposes.

Hoogland’s abuse of John Allen Paulos can be found in Euclides 91 no 5, March 2016, pag 19. (Yes, this journal exists for 91 years.) For the title of his column he employs a Dutch neologism “gecijferdheid” rather than “genummerdheid” to translate “numeracy”. This is a crooked use of terms. The use of cyphers to denounce criticism of RME apparently overloads the one-track mind so that also the fine objective of quantitative competence is phrased in terms of cyphers. Check out his RME website with the same label.

RME’s abuse of traditional mathematics education by denouncing it as “cyphering” can also be found in other RME discussions. See this discussion (in Dutch) of a report by Compagnie & Keijzer 2015 about “arithmetic co-ordinators” for elementary schools.

A dirty math war with stonewalling criticism

I have informed Hoogland about my criticism in the past, he doesn’t reply and just continues preaching the RME gospel while neglecting the failure and fraud of RME.

In the article in Euclides, March 2016, Hoogland neglects the discussion of the last 15 years, and states with big blue innocent eyes, recruting Paulos for the cause of RME:

“What has happened in the last fifteen years with our education in arithmetic and mathematics? When has such a functional and inspiring view deteriorated into the call for sums on fractions, long division, and arithmetic tests without calculator? My plea is: read that new book by Paulos (…)”

(Dutch: “Wat is er toch de afgelopen vijftien jaar gebeurd in ons reken- en wiskundeonderwijs? Wanneer is zo’n functionele en inspirerende kijk op rekenen en wiskunde afgegleden naar de roep om breukensommetjes, staartdelingen en verplichte rekentoetsen zonder rekenmachine? Mijn pleidooi is: lezen dat nieuwe boek van Paulos (…)”)

Dutch is a language sink

Paulos’s books are translated from English into Dutch: which Dutch translators find easy to do, while it is easy money for publishers to piggy-back on an international bestseller. Conversely, Dutch texts are hardly translated into English: which translators find hard to do. Dutch is a language sink. How would John Allen Paulos ever discover that his work is abused here in Holland, if I were to discuss this in Dutch ?

Grawe on Paulos

Paul Grawe (2015) Mathematics and Humor: John Allen Paulos and the Numeracy Crusade, Numeracy 8 no 2 article 11, is advised reading.

  • It is an eye-opener that Shakespeare is nicknamed “gentle”.
  • Mathematicians better work on their sense of humour.
  • Teachers will enjoy the suggestions for teaching (final pages).
The Bush, Gore and Nader election in 2000

Paulos may be the first mathematician who offered apologies, see Salon November 29 2015, for his role in the Presidential Elections of 2000 between Bush, Gore and Nader (and many others).

Paulos reduces his position to that of the butterfly in Chaos Theory, but he is still a sentient butterfly, and is aware of the causal chain. He also sees the consequences: while Bush started the Iraq war on false pretense and created the conditions for current terrorism, Gore would have improved the environment and tried to avert Climate Change.

Apparently, Paulos doesn’t quite understand voting theory yet, and hence doesn’t see yet the overall guilt and incompetence of mathematicians for the disinformation that they generate on voting theory. When Paulos really feels guilty, then I advise him to study my book Voting Theory for Democracy (VTFD) and help repair the damage.

Dutch readers can look here. A synopsis is that all my papers since 1990 have been hit by censorship by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB). Had the 1990 paper on voting been published normally, the USA might have heard about it and revised the Presidential elections, or at least Nader might have retracted sooner, or there might have been a deal between Gore and Nader on electoral reform (like Cameron and Clegg did in the UK, but Clegg bodged up), and so on. Dutch voting theorist Harrie de Swart was in error in 2001, 2008 and 2016 again. In the USA, voting theorist Donald Saari is president of the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) in 2014-2016, but it would have been better in 2001 when he had specified his thoughts about VTFD. How will Saari treat my comments on the US Common Core State Standards on Mathematics (CCCSS-M) ? The mathematical mindset is a problem all-over, not only in Holland.

anl

Historians of science study the genesis and development of ideas, e.g. the interaction between scientists via the letters between authors. Van Ulsen (2001:1) reports:

“Beth operated at the difficult boundary of disciplines. Philosophers denounced him as mathematician and logician, while the mathematicians and logicians regarded him, neither in a positive sense, as a philosopher.”

My documentation w.r.t. my own results serves this purpose as well. When I protest against maltreatment of my work then this does not imply that I lack good judgement or would be impolite.

On February 18 & 19 prof. dr. H.C.M. (Harrie) de Swart (EUR) (wiki) (born 1944, age 71) blocked my attendance at some colloquia on the history of science, first with the argument that these would be a “closed shop”, subsequently, when this was shown to be untrue, with refusing to give any kind of argument. This amounts to a breach of the integrity of science. The following is a summary of the case. The email exchanges with a discussion in English are here: part 1 with De Swart and part 2 with prof. dr. F.A. (Fred) Muller, the project manager.

NWO projects 2012-2017 on Mannoury, Beth, Heyting and Van Dantzig

There are (1) a NWO-project 360-20-301 running in 2012-2016 on Mannoury and philosophy of language and (2) a NWO-project 360-20-300 running in 2012-2017 on Mannoury, Beth, Heyting and Van Dantzig, with a budget of 617,000 euros.

I have an interest in these authors since my student days around 1977. I referred to Heyting in my book “A logic of exceptions” (1981 unpublished, 2007, 2011), Mannoury & Van Dantzig in 2012 (referring to a study by Gerard Alberts), and referred to Mannoury and his students Van Hiele and De Groot on my weblog in 2015. This is a draft paper of February 18 2016 on Mannoury & Van Hiele concerning the overlap of ideas that can be found in their work. (Historians would have to check whether Mannoury and Van Hiele stayed in touch after university.)

I discovered the NWO-projects around New Year 2016. The projects mention manager prof.dr. F.A. Muller and researchers PhD-student Mireille Kirkels (Mannoury), dr. Paul van Ulsen (Beth & Heyting) and dr. Gerard Alberts (Van Dantzig). For my current focus Kirkels and Van Ulsen are the relevant contact persons. They wrote that I was welcome to attend (Kirkels January 11 and Van Ulsen January 13 2016).

I do not know what the official position of De Swart is with respect this NWO-project, other than that he apparently manages an email list for the colloquia. I actually was a bit surprised to see his involvement since the project summary did not mention him.

The breach by De Swart on February 18 & 19 2016

On February 19 2016 there was a colloquium for this project. On Februari 18 2016, perhaps not coincidentally just the day before, De Swart blocked my attendance for all of these colloquia.

  • His first motivation was that the colloquia were a “closed shop”.
  • When I showed De Swart the email by Van Ulsen (preferring the accomplished PhD above the PhD-student) and stated the inference that there is no “closed shop”, whence his statement was untrue, De Swart replied that I was not welcome, refusing to give me a motivation.

This is a breach of scientific integrity. It blocks the flow of information. A colloquium is not organised for nought. De Swart implicitly slanders to others as if there would be cause to block my attendance. There is a legal distinction between “not welcome” and “forbidden”, but this does not apply here scientifically given De Swart’s original reference to “closed shop”.

I informed De Swart of these implications, but he did not remit. I decided not to attend, if only to protect myself from further abuse. Perhaps De Swart has given a motivation to others (but not to me). If participants have information on this, it should be forwarded to me since it concerns my position.

An educated guess what might have motivated De Swart to breach science

Given the lack of stated motivation, one can only guess about it. The event however must be explained to others.

It is likely relevant to mention an earlier case when De Swart maltreated my work, namely in 2001 on the subject of social welfare and voting theory. I protest against this maltreatment in 2001, see the documentation on my website. This issue is not resolved yet.

  • I do not know of a public statement by De Swart that replies to my protest.
  • I do not know about a public statement on content by De Swart concerning my book “Voting Theory for Democracy” (VTFD) (2001, 2004, 2011, 2014) (stable text, different versions of Mathematica). I would applaud it when he would finally find time to study VTFD, and state explicitly whether or not he sees some of his misconceptions on social welfare and voting theory corrected.
  • My criticism doesn’t only apply to De Swart but also to the Dutch community of researchers on social welfare and voting theory, i.e. that they allow De Swart’s malconduct and do not protect me against it. They apparently also neglect VTFD and related work.
  • Dutch readers can benefit from my webpage that warns about mathematics about social choice and voting theory.
  • Dutch readers can also benefit from De Swart’s valedictorian speech for his departure from Tilburg in 2010: speech, Volkskrant may 19, Volkskrant June 5. De Swart sins against science on (at least) two points.

(1) He gives a wrong summary of Arrow’s Theorem, suggesting that there would be proof that no voting scheme is ideal. VTFD explains that Arrow cannot tell us what is ideal, and that his words on rationality, consumer sovereignty and moral necessity do not fit his mathematics. De Swart’s scientifically proven false statement in Dutch is on page 10:

“Nu zijn er vele andere kiesmechanismen, maar geen van hen blijkt ideaal.”

(2) De Swart proposes that the electorate does much more work in the ballot box, e.g. by giving report card numbers (10 to 0) or scores (A to F) to parties, or by ranking political parties by order of preference. Perhaps the effort can be reduced by simply sorting physical logo’s of the parties, but still it is a significant job, given the empirical numbers of parties. De Swart refers to Balinski and Laraki, 2007, in which 2000 voters scored 12 presidential candidates with apparently relative ease. I have my doubts on this. De Swart may have his personal opinion, but it is not scientific to neglect another proposal that may be even better. De Swart obstructs current discussion about electoral reform by advocating impractical ways and closing his eyes for a practical approach towards improvement. Again he appears to be an abstract thinking mathematician without proper attention for empirical matters. My suggestion is that it not only suffices but may even be optimal when people have only one vote. The relevant point is that the professionals in Parliament use the more complex mechanisms. Thus voters form the weight that is attached to the party of their choice. The power of voters can be enhanced by having annual elections. Populism can be checked by having an Economic Supreme Court. Let Parliament investigate these options, so that politicians know what these options actually are. See the Dutch booklet “De Ontketende Kiezer“.

Harrie de Swart, valedictorian speech 2010 on voting

Harrie de Swart, valedictorian speech 2010 on voting

Political economy and social dynamics of having a grudge

It would not be rational when De Swart links this issue on voting since 2001 to my attendance at these colloquia for this NWO-project. However, he may not like that I protest.

My website documents what happens with my findings. This documentation cannot be construed as a grudge on my part (i.e. an emotion that interferes with good judgement). I politely greet De Swart and hope that he finds his way towards science. It would be slander w.r.t. me to suggest that I would confuse the topic of the NWO-project in 2016 with the issue on voting since 2001, and that I would not be able to respond in scientific and civilised manner when my work and person are abused.This present text is another example of a scientific and civilised response to abuse.

When De Swart does not provide decent motivation, breaches the integrity of science and implicitly slanders w.r.t. my person, then there arises an asymmetry. It would be slander to suggest that I would have a grudge against De Swart, yet it is not slander but an unavoidable hypothesis to explain events by that he might have a grudge w.r.t. this issue of voting since 2001.

Three strikes and you are out (wiki)

It would not be the first time that De Swart breaches rules of science.

  1. Thus on voting 2001, above.
  2. De Swart also is in error in 2008 advising the EU to use square root (Penrose) weights in voting, with neglect of the refutation by Andrew Gelman in 2007.
  3. De Swart is also in error in his management (not necessarily the content) in 2007-2008 of the thesis by M. Cabbolet. De Swart tried again in Eindhoven without telling that it had been rejected in Tilburg, only to be found out later on, see Fiers 2008 and Gerard ‘t Hooft 2014.
  4. Thus on colloquia on Mannoury in 2016, above.
Conclusion

The blockage of my attendance of these colloquia should be lifted. Independently, the breach by De Swart w.r.t. this attendance must be looked into. Resolution of the issue since 2001 w.r.t. voting is required as well. These issues should not be confused. However, De Swart’s breach in 2016 may help readers to grow aware that I had reason to protest in 2001 indeed, and to grow dismayed that the Dutch researchers on social welfare and voting did not resolve this over 15 years, and neither the censorship of science since 1990 for at least 25 years by the directorate of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) (see the About page).