As a matter of fact, it could not have gone any better. Ross Cameron came and spoke on Donald Trump. Mark Latham came and spoke on Donald Trump. And then I spoke on Donald Trump. And as a coincidence it was also the 100th day since Donald Trump had become president. So a few highlights.
First, to find a room entirely full of Trump supporters is one of the most pleasant experiences I have had in many a while. For most of us, you know someone here or there, and occasionally come across someone else who, after oh so carefully venturing an opinion here and a comment there, and then listening very closely to the kind of response you proceed to sort of, very tentatively, go on to sort of venture into a slightly more open discussion until you find that well, bless my soul, this other person also would have voted for Trump, which since we are in Australia, no one actually does. This time, instead, it was a whole room full of such people – although it did turn out there was a media person from the Fairfax organisation who actually revealed him(her)self and in so doing, did not in even the slightest end up in fear for his/her life. But for the rest of us, a very good time was had by all.
And while a blogger’s life is spent in front of the console typing out whatever thoughts one has, public speaking is a different kind of art and we were genuinely blessed with Ross Cameron and Mark Latham. A reuniting of The Outsiders reminding of us of those Sky News vandals who have broken up the set. I could have listened forever – absolutely outstanding presentations but others who were there are invited to add their own thoughts – but eventually it was my turn, where, more or less, I followed the script I had outlined so I will only discuss a few added bits from the Q&A that came after.
So there was the question, what have I been surprised about these first hundred days, both on the plus side and then on the negative. For me, there has not been a negative of any kind. I am aware there are some who seem to think that these first hundred days should have been a major disappointment, but the only thing I have had confirmed, as I said on the night, was how useless the actual Republican Party is. Without Trump, nothing of any serious importance would change. The average of the spectrum across the party is Hillary-lite. Trump has made all the difference. As for what I have discovered that was unexpected on the plus side is how temperamentally sound he is. He does politics at an amazingly high level. No doubt he had plenty of time to learn the trade negotiating within New York and elsewhere about various projects he has had to bring through political systems of one kind or another. And now, having to deal with the consequences of Obama’s incompetence and outright anti-American malice, he has enough on his mind to occupy three presidents. I do have to say that more than ever, if you thought Obama was all right in some things and not so good in others, your political judgements are less than useless. If you are not endlessly grateful that it is Trump and not more of the same I really cannot tell you how great a fool I think you are. There are plenty of them, but their lives will only continue to work because they are oblivious of the harm Obama did and the good that Trump is capable of bringing, if he can only get the Republicrats to go along.
And the point I also made was that we do not live in Montana, where an isolationist US which has pulled its international outreach within its borders, will make little immediate difference. We are out here at the south end of Asia in the middle of the Pacific an isolated outpost of Western values. If you like this way of life and want it to continue, you had better hope that Trump continues to seek to enforce the Pax Americana that has existed since the 1940s.
The other thing that came up was my offhand comment to the effect that the parties of the left have never accomplished a single positive outcome on anything. They have brought with them mass misery through the various communist revolutions we have seen around the globe. But even where they have not been able to complete subvert our free communities and market economies, they have limited our freedoms and lowered economic outcomes, repeatedly impoverishing the bottom rungs of society by pretending to provide benefits they never quite seem to achieve. Every government of the left is eventually thrown out because of the damage they do, but back they come as soon as 50.1% of the population have forgotten the mayhem that comes with socialist practice. And having said it, I have not been able to conjure up in my mind a single counter instance where a party of the left has done some kind of general good. Meanwhile there is the shining example of Venezuela before us to remind those with the wit to understand exactly what happens if you let these people take over the political control-room with no means available to get them out again.
You can buy your own copy of The Art of the Impossible from the Book Depository for a mere $A32.48 with worldwide free delivery. The more I read the papers, the more I see the need for this book since it reminds you of the cultural-Marxist world we have been spared but which our brainless and fantastically ignorant media and political class will pull us back into the first chance they get. Read it and remind yourself of the narrow escape we have had, which will also hopefully fortify you for the ongoing assault by these 25-watt low-grade political elites and graduates of our schools of journalism.
If you need another reminder of just how dishonest the media is, and how ignorant the people who read what they write must be, let me take you to eleven things the press still doesn’t get about Trump. That Trump receives daily briefings from some of the most knowledgeable people in the American government is certainly a more reliable source for everything than reading it in the papers. And if you truly believe that Trump had been in cahoots with the Russians you are truly an ignorant moron. Here is the first:
Too often, the press forgets the very lessons Trump himself has taught us about how he operates and why it often works. For example, journalists often imply that Trump’s reliance on cable news is a liability because it leaves him ill-informed. And so it does—but it also leaves him highly attuned to that medium and able to respond to what he sees there with immediate, pitch-perfect tweets or other comments that come across as direct, authentic and trustworthy.
Another example: the power of repetition. Frequently, reporters assume that because they have already responded to a Trump assertion, the issue is settled. But then he repeats the same misinformation, as he did in defending the size of his inauguration crowds. In part, this is because he’s incapable of acknowledging loss or error. More important, it’s because one of his highest priorities is the construction of an alternate narrative and the delegitimization of the mainstream media, traditional authorities, and the primacy of facts.
Likewise, the press seems to have forgotten the power of distraction. Coverage of the Trump-ordered missile attack in Syria made little reference to how conveniently it deflected attention from Russia-gate, Trump’s conflicts of interest, his draconian budget cuts, etc. The media also understate Trump’s reliance on bullying, which works surprisingly well for him. With the recent exception of the House Freedom Caucus’ refusal to knuckle under and vote for the GOP’s health care act, most people (e.g., the other Republican presidential candidates and many TV commentators) back down.
Trump has also mastered the power of grievance and continues to use it. When an issue gets too sticky, he reverts to self-pity—fashioning himself as the victim of Barack Obama’s supposed wiretapping, for instance. The media might call such behavior weak or petty, but it also re-cements Trump’s bond with his followers as fellow victims of the Washington elite.
Finally, the press tends to forget how much Trump needs to keep experiencing the act of winning—and how much this drives his behavior. The likeliest reason for his charge that Obama wiretapped him is that Trump wants to feel as if he’s continuing to beat the biggest competitor he can find. And what bigger target than Obama?
“Families prefer to have boys rather than girls,” said Urquia, an assistant professor at the University of Manitoba. “Or, if they already have daughters, they want to have at least one male in the family.”
While Canadian-born women give birth to about 105 boys for every 100 girls, Urquia and his team from the University of Toronto and St. Michael’s Hospital, showed Punjabi-speaking mothers in Ontario, at their third birth, had 240 boys for every 100 girls.
But you know what I find the most remarkable sign of naivety never mind outright culture-bound ignorance. This:
“We don’t have a proper explanation,” he said of the preference for boys. “We really don’t know why this is happening.”
Are they truly this stupid?
Will someone please convince me this isn’t economic idiocy: PM orders gas giants: Australian consumers first:
Malcolm Turnbull will impose tough new restrictions on the country’s gas producers, introducing sweeping powers to block exports unless there are adequate supplies to meet the needs of Australian businesses and consumers.
Declaring that the domestic shortage had led to consumers paying much more for gas than overseas buyers, the Prime Minister said on Wednesday the Australia-first policy was needed to ensure prices were lower and “fairly reflect international export prices”.
“Australians are entitled to have access to the gas they need at prices they can afford,” Mr Turnbull said ahead of an announcement expected in Brisbane on Thursday.
“It is unacceptable for Australia to become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, but not have enough domestic supply for Australian households and businesses.”
Following warnings in March that gas companies needed a “social licence” to operate, Mr Turnbull hit out at the sector for failing to meet a demand to become net contributors to the Australian market — that is, producing more for domestic consumption than was exported.
“Gas companies are aware they operate with a social licence from the Australian people,” he said. “They cannot expect to maintain that licence if Australians are short-changed because of excessive exports.”
For a parallel we have this direct from Argentina in 2014:
“You have to understand that the resources of the state belong to the people”, remarked Fernández de Kirchner.
Does this government of ours have no clue how a market economy works? Are we now heading for an Argentinian economic future?
The Sydney book launch for my blog history on the election of Donald Trump – The Art of the Impossible – is tonight. Not sure how many would show up to hear me talk about my book, but as very good luck would have it, my presentation will be preceded by Ross Cameron and Mark Latham discussing Donald Trump and my book. But then it will be me, and what a pair of tough acts to follow. However, I also have some things to say. So for those of you who cannot make it, this is a brief rundown of what I will say on the night if there is enough time.
1) I am endlessly grateful to both Ross and Mark for agreeing to help put this book on the map. I’m not sure I would have come along myself if they had not agreed to come. But there they will be and then it will be myself.
2) My aim is to explain why I wrote the book as a means to explain why others might find value and entertainment in reading it.
3) Reasons to read the book:
a) It will explain how essential for our future welfare and well being it was that DJT became president. It is not just that we don’t have Hillary, but that we don’t have any of the other Republicans who were running. The way in which Trump’s agenda is held up not just by the courts but also by the Republican Congress should be all the reminder you need that if the log jams in solving our problems is ever to be broken, Trump is the only one who might possibly do it.
b) It reminds you of how much opposition there was and is to everything DJT is trying to do, which for most of us on this side of the fence are the things we ourselves want done. Dealing with the disastrous residue of eight of the most destructive years in American politics under Obama’s terms as president have left major problems that need urgent attention.
c) The book is utterly unique in being made up entirely of blog posts that were written at the time and in the moment. There is no looking back at what happened in the knowledge that Trump became president. The posts all reflect the personal concern that some other Republican might get the nomination – which was not necessarily a catastrophe although I think no one else could have won – but more crucially once DJT became the nominee why it was essential that he won and Hillary lost. The book brings back to life some of the tension that never disappeared throughout the campaign and which reached a crescendo in that last week before the election itself.
d) It reminds you of the issues at stake. The fantastic fog and misdirection laid down by the media obscures almost everything that is essential. You are reminded of the kinds of things Trump represented, but also how if he did nothing else other than not be Hillary Clinton that he would have achieved an enormous amount. That he is carefully working to put his policy agenda in place will only come back to you if you are first reminded of that that agenda was. The book makes that agenda clear.
e) It is a primer in conservative political thought. I think of myself as conservative in the most traditional Burkean sense. I therefore think about every political issue from a conservative perspective. We in the West have a long historical tradition of doing things in particular ways with a set of values in place that have been built on our Judeo-Christian heritage. It has brought us prosperity and a measure of civic peace and tolerance unknown anywhere else across the globe. It is this world I wish to see preserved even though I know change in so many directions is inevitable. And while hardly anyone else sees Trump as a conservative, I most certainly do. It may take one to know one, but I absolutely and without question see DJT as a fellow conservative.
f) The posts are made up of three different elements each of which is interesting in their own right:
i) A description of the most important events during the campaign, discussed as they occurred
ii) My commentary on these events
iii) The various articles and posts put up by others that I thought were relevant
g) The book can therefore be read in a number of ways:
i) Starting from page 1 and finishing on page 389 (or page 2 if that’s how it strikes you)
ii) Opening the book and starting anywhere you like and then continuing anywhere else you like, either going forward or backwards into the past either sequentially or at random
iii) Reading my commentary and leaving out the rest or
iv) Reading the articles written by others and leaving out my commentary.
h) This is oddly a different kind of history. There have been personal memoirs of individuals who have been in the midst of events. But what blogging has done has been to introduce a kind of memoir by someone who was no more than a spectator but one who was nevertheless as able to remain involved with events even though living literally at the other end of the world.
i) But as far away as I might have been, I did see Donald Trump speak on the very day that finally ignited the campaign that would send him to the White House. And although having lived in Australia since 1975, I grew up in North America and have a North American understanding of the American political system, with my first political memory going back to “I like Ike” which makes it no later than 1956! Beyond just that, I have been part of the political world in Australia and tangentially internationally, having worked for the Chamber of Commerce in Canberra. And it’s by no means my first book but my ninth (with a tenth that has now come after this one). And to that we may add my interest in political and economic theory and history, all of which is the background for my blogging which is the art of the instantaneous reaction to events.
4) And if I have time after I have said all of this, I intend to read three sections from the book: (i) the first post discussing Obama’s America which was written on arriving in New York in July 2015; (ii) my reaction to hearing Trump speak ten days later; and then (iii) my post on “Sunshine Conservatives” which I wrote a month before the election in which I described and discussed the #NeverTrump crowd who are pretend conservatives at best, with no common sense and none of the grit needed to get anything done worth doing.
The book turned out to be better than I had any right to hope it would be. You can buy it here if you can’t make it on the night. I will let you know what Ross and Mark said after it is all over.
It is an anti-Keynesian article so I won’t complain a lot, but still it does get me down that no one any longer has much of a clue why public spending depresses economic growth. And it’s not as if Keynes wasn’t crystal clear about his own intent. His aim was to remove Say’s Law from within the midst of economic analysis. That he has most comprehensively done. Since only if you understand Say’s Law will you understand what’s wrong with Keynesian economics, and indeed all of macro and the policies that come with it, you will never get policy right until you see the point the classical economists made.
The article is Budget 2017: This is not the time to turn to Keynes and let me say how much I agree with this:
That brings us to the most contentious budgetary option of cutting government expenditure. By crude Keynesian closed economy logic, enthusiastically embraced by Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and federal Treasury during the GFC, reduced spending can be recessionary. But this is debatable in theory for an economy like Australia that is open to international trade and capital flows. It is also at odds with real world evidence.
Economic history is replete with examples of “expansionary fiscal contraction”. For instance, there were no economic downturns following the significant spending cuts undertaken by treasurers Paul Keating and Peter Costello in the 1980s and 90s; quite the contrary. More recently, Ireland has emerged as one of the strongest performing economies in Europe after severe public spending cuts.
Keynesian economics is also at odds with sound theory, or at least the theory that existed from the time of Adam Smith until the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936. It has nothing to do with closed economy or open, nor whether we are a trading nation or not. It is that unproductive non-value-adding public spending drags an economy down (think NBN, pink batts and school halls). That is Say’s Law. That is what you need to understand.
Throwing a bit of light on a very vexed issue. The data and the subsequent quote are both from “What’s Your Major”: Another Blow to the So-Called Gender Pay Gap.
Ph.D. Fields of Study With the Highest Gender Weighting
“Most Female” “Most Male”
Art History Aerospace Engineering
Psychology Mechanical Engineering
French Electrical Engineering
Comparative Literature Physics
Sociology Computer Science
The study goes further and lists which fields of study tend to be “most male” or “most female,” meaning fields in which the gender imbalance is the greatest. One must have lived under a rock not to know that so-called “STEM” fields are in great demand and pay well in the marketplace. Lo and behold, all of the “most male” fields of doctoral study are in the STEM fields, including Aerospace Engineering, Mathematical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, and Computer Science. . . .
Ignoring how fields of study differ by gender is only one problem with the supposed 20% gender pay gap. The 20% figure ignores that men tend to work longer hours, to have more years of work experience, and to work in jobs that are more physically and financially risky than women. After accounting for these factors the unexplained portion of gender pay differences – the part that could potentially be explained by discrimination — shrinks significantly. Factoring in differences in fields of study, which exist not only at the Ph.D. level but in undergraduate and Master’s-level education as well, would shrink the potential range of gender discrimination even further.