Pt. 1

Andreessen teaming up with Weinstein is an interview Tucker needs to do. After Andreessen exposing universities for discrimination against Americans, combined with a shady NSF study about STEM students, the fix has been in to decimate higher learning for Americans. Wonder who paid for the education of all the foreigners? US taxpayers? Meanwhile, companies lay off more American tech workers and call for importing H1-B's. It's about cutting America off at the knees. Who is behind it? China? China and India?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-messages-reveal-andreessens-fury-universities-declared-war-70-country

Leaked Messages Reveal Andreessen's Fury: 'Universities Declared War On 70% Of The Country'

www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/Weinstein-GUI_NSF_SG_Complete_INET.pdf

by Eric R Weinstein, PhD.

The NSF created a false shortage prediction. It got the Immigration Act of 1990 passed.

"Michael Teitelbaum, vice-chairman of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and Officer of the Sloan Foundations concurred stating: "There is no shortage, there is a surplus. Claims that there was a dearth [of scientists and engineers] began a decade ago, when Erich Bloch, then-Director of the National Science Foundation, claimed that unless action was taken, there would be a cumulative shortfall of 675,000 scientists and engineers over the next two decades. Congress poured in additional money. The National Science Foundation received tens of millions of dollars for science and engineering education. And in 1990, Congress nearly tripled the number of permanent visas for highly skilled immigrants."

"Not surprisingly, the NSF supply-side 'scarcity' study was not viewed kindly by serious analysts. In fact, one of the great mysteries of this era was why the NSF, which had hired talented applied economists, would opt for a 'crank' methodology derided by skilled analysts. In the words of Howard Wolpe who lead the house investigation into the NSF irregularities: "The NSF study projected a shortfall of 675,000 scientists and engineers without considering the future demand for such individuals in the marketplace. It simply observed a decline in the number of 22-year-olds and projected that this demographic trend would result in a huge shortfall. This could be termed the supply-side theory of labor market analysis. But making labor market projections without considering the demand side of the equation doesn't pass the laugh test with experts in the field." -Howard Wolpe Authors David Berliner and Bruce Biddle, concurred in their book "The Manufactured Crisis": "In 1985 the National Science Foundation (NSF), no less, began an energetic campaign to sell the myth [of a shortage of scientists and engineers], basing its actions on a seriously flawed study that had been conducted by one of its own staff members. The study in question argued that supplies of scientists and engineers would shortly decline in America and that this meant we had to increase production of people with these skills. This thesis was dubious at best, but, worse, the study made no estimates of job-market demands for scientists and engineers. Thus, the researcher completely forgot to worry about whether these people were likely to find jobs." -David Berliner and Bruce Biddle, "The Manufactured Crisis", pg. 96"

Pt. 2

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA426584.pdf

Thus it is said that the United States must import students, scientists, and engineers from abroad to fill universities and work in the private sector—though even this talent pool may dry up eventually as more foreign nationals find attractive opportunities elsewhere.

Yet alongside such arguments—sometimes in the very same publications in which they appear—one learns of layoffs of tens of thousands of scientists and engineers in the computer, telecommunications, and aerospace industries, of the deep frustration and even anger felt by newly minted PhDs unable to find stable employment in traditional science and engineering career paths, and of senior scientists and engineers who are advising undergraduates against pursuing careers in their own fields. Why the contradictory reports on

professions routinely deemed critical to the success of the American economy? Is it possible that there really is no shortage in these fields?

The recent history of shortage forecasts begins in the mid-1980s, when the then leadership of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and a few top research universities began to predict "looming shortfalls" of scientists and engineers in the next two decades.

Their arguments were based upon quite simplistic demographic projec-

tions produced by a small policy office reporting to the NSF director- projections that earlier had been sharply criticized by the NSF's own science and engineering workforce experts.

Only a few years later, it became apparent that the trends actually pointed toward a growing surplus of scientists and engineers. In 1992, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight conducted a formal investigation and hearing about the shortfall projections, leading to much embarrassment at the NSF. In his opening remarks at the hearing, the subcommittee's chairman. Democrat

Howard Wolpe of Michigan, declared that the "credibility of the [National Science] Foundation is seriously damaged when it is so careless about its own product." Sherwood Boehlert, the subcommittee's ranking Republican and now chair of the full House Science Committee, called the NSF director's shortfall predictions "the equivalent to shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater." They were "based on very tenuous data and analysis. In short, a mistake was made,"

he said. "Let's figure our how to avoid similar mistakes, and then move on." (U.S. House of Representatives, 1993, pp. 1-10.)

Boehlert's advice was not heeded.

Information Technology Association of

America (ITAA)