How Nixon Shock poisoned everything

 

The "Nixon Shock" of August 1971 neutered financial accountability by ending the dollar's convertibility to gold. By replacing a tangible, finite standard with a purely fiat system, this policy removed the built-in constraints on government spending, enabling unprecedented debt accumulation and obscuring the true costs of inflation. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The shift fundamentally altered financial structures and accountability in several ways:

• Removal of the Tangible Anchor: Under the Bretton Woods system, foreign central banks could exchange U.S. dollars for gold. When President Richard Nixon closed the "gold window" on August 15, 1971, he severed this link. Without a commodity standard to enforce discipline, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve gained the power to print money without a physical constraint, making it easier to hide deficits and the true burden of debt.
• Shift to Trust Over Proof: Financial systems were forced to transition from being accountable to strict gold reserves to relying purely on market trust in political promises. This allowed governments to rapidly increase spending without the immediate threat of running out of gold reserves, shielding fiscal policy from the consequences of over-issuing currency.
• Explosion of Debt: Uncoupled from a hard asset, global and national debt skyrocketed as money creation outpaced real economic growth. The long-term consequences of this systemic shift are still debated by macroeconomists, with many historical perspectives pointing to 1971 as a turning point for global debt expansion.
• Creation of Modern Fiat: By ending the gold standard, the Nixon administration effectively created the modern fiat currency era, where central banks can inject immense liquidity into the economy during crises, permanently altering the value of money. [1, 10, 11]

[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZc1IFOAo_k/

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/hqhx05/explain_the_bretton_woods_system_and_the_nixon/

[3] https://mises.org/power-market/how-1971-broke-economy-and-why-only-austrians-can-fix-it

[4] https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/25385981520721

[5] https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2021/08/16/from-the-history-books-the-rethinking-of-the-international-monetary-system

[6] https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/gold-convertibility-ends

[7] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUCs1JoDd9m/

[8] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4356705-what-went-wrong-in-1971

[9] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nixon-shock.asp

[10] https://www.facebook.com/AmericanExperiencePBS/posts/california-senator-richard-nixon-gave-a-memorable-speech-to-the-nation-on-this-n/1189510836557862/

[11] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/gold-standard.asp

Buckeye, Arizona officer accused of beating handcuffed detainees in seperate incidents

Former Officer Carri Carrico

A Buckeye, Arizona police officer was indicted on May 27 after a months-long investigation into two separate use-of-force incidents. Former Buckeye Police Officer Carri Carrico allegedly beat up two people that were in custody and restrained in handcuffs.

Her first victim, back in November, was a 21-year-old woman who was 9-months pregnant. That assault occurred at the police station with few, if any, witnesses present. After that, Carrico was promoted to training officer. Then, two months after the first assault, while training another officer, Carrico beat up a handcuffed man at the Maricopa County Jail, where multiple witnesses observed her behavior.

It was only after the second incident that an investigation into the first case was initiated, presumably by Chief of Police Robert Sanders. During questioning, the officer attributed her violent outbursts to her training kicking in, along with the fact that the public treats officers badly.
It's not as though the first incident wasn't known. It was, but the police department was able to keep a lid on it -- that is until people at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office came forward and reported Carrico's behavior during the second arrest at the jail.

This presents a real leadership problem for City Manager Doug Sandstrom and Mayor Eric Orsborn. It was their job to oversee the police department and they failed miserably.

The bad apples are bad apples because they think they can get away with it. Because they often do. In this instance they not only ignored Carrico’s misconduct, but they rewarded her for it, in essence ratifying her unchecked behavior. That's not a training issue, but one of accountability. It vividly paints a picture of a dangerous culture of fear & secrecy among the rank-and-file. For that, Chief Sanders needs to be terminated.

Do police departments favor dumber officers?

In Jordan v. City of New London, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police departments can legally reject applicants who score too high on intelligence tests. Robert Jordan, a college graduate, was denied an interview after scoring a 33 on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (equivalent to an IQ of 125), which exceeded the city's maximum limit of 27. [1, 2, 3]

The Background

• The Cutoff: The City of New London, Connecticut, implemented an unconventional hiring policy by establishing both a minimum and maximum score for police applicants. 
• The Reasoning: The city argued that candidates who scored too high on cognitive ability exams (like the Wonderlic) were at a higher risk of becoming bored, experiencing job dissatisfaction, and leaving the department shortly after undergoing expensive police academy training. 
• The Lawsuit: Robert Jordan sued the city in federal court, arguing that dismissing candidates based on high intelligence violated his civil rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [1, 5, 6]  

The Verdict

• Court Decision: The courts ultimately ruled in favor of the City of New London. 
• Legal Rationale: The courts and judges concluded that because the city applied the maximum score policy to all candidates equally and fairly, it did not constitute unconstitutional discrimination. The policy was deemed "rational" from a fiscal and economic standpoint. [1, 2, 4, 7]  

The Aftermath and Industry Impact

• Rejection Upheld: The courts established that highly intelligent individuals do not constitute a "protected class" under the law, meaning employers could lawfully reject candidates who are deemed overqualified. 
• Industry Standards: While the courts found New London's action lawful, many police departments across the country do not employ strict maximum intelligence cutoffs, as there are ongoing professional and psychological debates about whether intelligence directly correlates to job burnout or poor performance. [2, 9, 10, 11]  

[1] https://1cademy.com/node/example-of-cognitive-ability-testing-in-law-enforcement-selection/AOQycnTIyN4Rbus3dETI
[2] https://www.johnrisvold.com/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-for-cops/
[3] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-08-fi-1265-story.html
[4] https://racism.org/articles/law-and-justice/criminal-justice-and-racism/136-criminal-justice-generally/2395-court-holds-a-person
[5] https://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html
[6] https://www.ipl.org/essay/Jordan-V-City-Of-New-London-Case-01CB67030FBD2A29
[7] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/
[8] https://www.quora.com/In-Jordan-v-New-London-the-New-London-Police-denied-Jordans-application-to-become-a-police-officer-citing-his-IQ-was-above-the-expected-score-and-rejected-him-worrying-Jordan-would-quit-since-training-is-costly-do
[9] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/jordan-v-city-new-london-policing-hiring-and-iq-when-all-answers
[10] https://access.heinonline.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/polic26&section=27
[11] https://www.emerald.com/pijpsm/article/26/2/298/319923/Jordan-v-The-City-of-New-London-police-hiring-and