The moral case for free enterprise – the winners

I mentioned a few days back that the American Enterprise Institute had put together a contest for the best short video showing the moral case for free enterprise. They have now announced the winners.

This one – The Joke of the Day – only came in third but I really liked it. If you would like to see the video that actually won and the runner up, in fact all of them, you can go here to the AEI website. Defending free enterprise, not just as a system that delivers the goods but also as the most moral and ethical system ever devised to provide for our material welfare, is an even greater necessity today than it has ever been.

Dealing with the ideologically deaf

It is only now, in watching the Prime Minister in her latest episode with Peter Slipper, that it has occurred to me that when she goes into political battle she carries with her a magic gender shield so that no matter what anyone says about her policies or incompetence, all she hears is that you’re useless because you’re a woman. No one actually ever thinks it or certainly ever says it, but that is what she always transmutes every form of criticism into so that nothing is personal, everything is ideological, and the ideology is some antique disdain for women that was already out of date in the 1960s.

For someone such as myself, who felt as strongly and positively about Margaret Thatcher as I did about Ronald Reagan, the notion that behind my disgust at the policies of such as astonishingly incompetent Prime Minister as Gillard has proven to be are attitudes based on her sex is both insulting and ridiculous. But for her such beliefs are a talisman that protects her from every criticism since she never has to take them seriously because to her they are based on biological facts on not on her personal incompetence.

There must be no end of such people in politics. It now strikes me that Obama is of a similar kind, transmuting every political criticism into a statement on race. The colour of his skin provides a psychological shield against taking criticism to heart since such criticisms are, in his own mind, racially based and not based on political disagreement.

The question then is what is one to do to convince such people that what is being said about them is unrelated to various existentially biological facts but to their political decisions. And it may turn out that there is nothing that can be done. But if so, it is a warning to us that to elect people such as Gillard or Obama to high office carries the risk that they are incapable of responding to normal political debate since they are incapable of interpreting criticism as based on policy difference unrelated to biology. They will therefore never respond to the criticisms they receive in the way a person – male or female, black or white – would if they were in a similar position without such beliefs about others. This will, moreover, only affect politicians on the left side of the ideological divide since the right has by and large discarded categorisation by race or gender. They are, in fact, so far outside the normal thought processes of the right that it has become almost impossible to engage in debate with such people since we are never quite capable of understanding why they are so resistant to the criticisms we make.

The inflexibility of both Gillard and Obama – over the NBN or boat people here in Australia and in America over such matters as health care and the budget – means they plough on relentlessly in the face of innumerable facts and arguments that demonstrate how wrong such policies are. They don’t listen, they are incapable of listening, because they disregard all criticisms as based on dislike of women in the one case or of black people in the other.

Romney and foreign policy

There was little doubt about the kind of foreign policy a Mitt Romney administration was going to run from the moment he met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem and Lech Walesa in Warsaw. It is even likely that the bust of Sir Winston Churchill might be returned to the Oval Office. Romney, however, gave an address last night which is presented as channeled through Rush Limbaugh whose take I could not improve on. First Limbaugh:

Another tremendous speech by Mitt Romney just now. Let me tell you something. This man is truly showing his presidential timbre.

And now Romney, this from his speech:

When we look at the Middle East today, with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, and with violent extremists on the march — and with an American ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of Al-Qaeda affiliates — it’s clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. I know the president hopes for a safer, freer, and more prosperous Middle East allied with us. I share this hope.

But hope is not a strategy.

What a line! Hope (and change) is not a strategy. The difference between Romney and Obama could not be more clear and the distance could not be greater. If they elect Obama after this, the US will have raised the white flag and we here, way off in the South Pacific, are for all practical purposes to be left on our own.

The full speech can be found here. Articulate and as clear eyed as you could wish in the increasingly dangerous world in which we live.

Leftism is the perfect ideological cover for base self interest

From Rousie, in the comments on Nicola rocks on:

Leftism is the perfect ideological cover for base self interest. There is no longer a single sacred cow that trumps personal ambition among this lot.

The modern ALP is a cabal of career careerists whose every waking moment is now spent trying to snuff out any light that might show them for the hollow, hateful, self-serving, incompetents that they are.

Smear your opponents, threaten the private sector & spend billions funding rent-seeking constituencies. Will there be a worse legacy in Australian history?

Exactly right, it seems to me.

Uh oh . . . oh, oh, Paul Ryan!

Meanwhile, on the other side of the divide, the current Vice President is taking six days away from the campaign so that he will be able to meet Ryan – perish the thought on equal terms – but so far as the Democrats are concerned, merely not to embarrass their side once again. Of course, having him away from the campaign is the only way to keep him from embarrassing them once again. But next Friday morning the VP debate will be on for us all to see just how excellent the Democrat team really is.

Nicola rocks on

Who is this Nicola Roxon and what right does she have to say so much as a word about women given that her only genuine experience seems to be actually being one, a trait shared with half the planet including a certain Mrs Abbott who sees things differently and probably more intelligently. And as far as knowing Tony Abbott is concerned, Mrs Abbott would know Mr Abbott quite a bit better, I would think, as would his daughters.

I have an article at Quadrant on Line which looks at Tony Abbott and the War on Women which is really more of a look at the ALP and its War on Good Government. My conclusion, which I get to after a bit of personal history, some discussion of child raising, Mitt Romney and Roxon’s magical career is this:

Someone with a law degree, a handful of years working as a judge’s associate, a few years in a union, she is now making the law. It makes you angry that a woman with so little true experience of anything, a woman who has done nothing with her life other than occupy various Labor sinecures, can feel the right to say anything based on the shallow and limited experience she has had with life.

You can find the article here.

Ruining my mornings

The International Institute for the Incredibly Incompetent (known as Four-Eyes to us observers from the outside) must have had the ALP amongst its charter members. It is for this reason almost always a depressing experience to pick up The Australian of a morning but to start off the week with three such bizarre examples of our government in action just makes it harder to face the day. First there was the main headline story:

ALP seeks tighter China ties

Carr Plan would put Beijing on similar standing to Washington

And then to add to the carnage, there was this which was the lead story:

We didn’t want carbon tax: AWU

Well who did but you got it anyway along with the rest of us. But the headline that may be the pick of the bunch, even though placed off to the side, read as follows:

Ministers firming on media direction

And it really was about government ministers genuinely intending to direct the media, and not in our interests either but in theirs! I suppose we take it somewhat in our stride because we are used to the Government always choosing to do the wrong thing. But still, this is a bit out of the ordinary although a long time coming. Here is the para that counts:

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Wayne Swan are leading a push for a stronger suite of reforms to curb the influence of media organisations, particularly newspapers, according to senior government sources.

At least if this legislation goes through I won’t have to worry about ruining my mornings reading headlines focusing on government incompetence ever again. The incompetence will still be there of course, just not the reporting.

The moral case for free enterprise

In June, the American Enterprise Institute launched a $50,000 video contest to illustrate the moral case for free enterprise.They have posted the finalists and the winners will be announced on 9 October.

I have put up the above video because it explains Say’s Law about as well as anything I could hope to. Watch Susie turn her desire for some object into an ability to buy it by first producing something herself. It also shows the crucial role of prior saving to finance investment.

[My thanks to Gab for drawing this to my attention and shame on me for not having seen it myself.]

Lies, damned lies and Keynesian economics

They love spending the money but with the disastrous results now being recorded everywhere, it is turning out that this deficit finance has not been such a great thing after all. We are looking in the eye of the great Keynesian fail and the world will turn to deal with those C+I+G-based theories as soon as we have dispensed with the politicians who have ruined the economies they have managed based on this Keynesian nonsense.

My Free Market Economics was written in 2009 well before these disasters. It was, in fact, written precisely because these were the disasters I fully expected. I am told occasionally that there is some other way to make sense of why this increase in public spending has led to a worsening in employment growth to accompany the debt other than through a return to pre-Keynesian classical theory and Say’s Law but if there is I haven’t come across it. Austerity is the new black which merely says governments must live within their means.

The above chart is doing the rounds – picked up on Instapundit in this instance – and shows that the deficit blow out most assuredly began with Obama who now prefers not to take the credit. The story in Australia would be even worse since the budgets all leading up to Labor taking over in 2007 were in surplus to go with our ZERO debt.

Swan and Gillard promise a surplus they will never deliver but wish they could. They now talk about the need for budget balance in the same way as any of the pre-Keynesians. And the fact is there will be no return to economic health until the public sector is reduced and the private sector is given the space to grow and expand.

Childcare and the Working A-G

My wife, having had a quite good job at IBM, when she came to having children quit her job and spent the years bringing them up based on the Jackie Kennedy principle, “if you bungle raising your children, I don’t think whatever else you do matters very much”. So to be with the children, she took up childcare and ran the programs wherever they went to school almost till the start of high school. She would have run the program at the ANU if they had had one just to stay close, but eventually she had to let them lead their own lives, and now they are in London so we probably should have kept a closer eye.

Anyway, ever since those early days in childcare she has stayed in the industry and now works a few days a week for a few hours a day just to keep her hand in and for a bit of pocket money which always comes in handy. Which is why I am always therefore pleased to hear Julia promising to raise the wages of childcare workers, not that I can see the economic logic of it, but you know how this self-interest thing works. The changes they have been making have made childcare all but unaffordable but that’s not one of my problems at the moment.

But this is all merely preamble to my contribution to the Nicola Roxon-Margie Abbott debate. Roxon, of course, has made no statement that has not been focus grouped and market tested so what she actually believes we may never know. But the latest form of distraction from the economic mess the ALP has created is to follow the same plot lines as the Democrats in the United States and accuse Abbott of being a soldier in the great War on Women in the same way Romney has had to face the exact same accusation. Neither seems to fit the bill even in the slightest, but the parties of the left are filled with such colossal stupenagels that they swallow the lot on the say so of Gillard and Obama. Evidence, who needs evidence when it is something they positively want to believe since it reinforces every one of their blind and ignorant prejudices. It is so absurd that both Mitt and Tony (a pairing I hope we will have to get used to) find it hard to make public statements to defend themselves against the left since there is nothing they have ever said or done that would make these accusations anything other than beneath their dignity to reply to. But it’s politics and so they must, and to say that you haven’t stopped beating your wife because you never had in the first place is always a difficult proposition to get across.

But childcare has come up both here and in the US as part of the political debate. There is first here in Australia where we find this from an interview in The Herald Sun.

Mrs Abbott, who runs a community based childcare centre . . . .

Well, fancy that. There are many things Tony and myself have in common but who would have thought that one of them would be that our wives both work in childcare.

But it also came up in the United States as well, but in this case it wasn’t Ann Romney who was the childcare worker, but Mitt himself. The only reason it came out was because the Democrats had argued that this plutocrat was obviously too distant from the world of work to understand much of anything about ordinary people, and the example they used was Romney’s own garbageman (ie rubbish collector). But it turns out that Romney had even worked as a garbageman as he explains in this story.

During my campaign for governor, I decided to spend a day every few weeks doing the jobs of other people in Massachusetts. Among other jobs, I cooked sausages at Fenway Park, worked on asphalt paving crew, stacked bales of hay on a farm, volunteered in an emergency room, served food at a nursing home, and worked as a child-care assistant. I’m often asked which was the hardest job — it’s child care, by a mile.

Childcare the hardest job. I can believe that. After that, being president will be a complete breeze. As for Nicola Roxon, what she knows about real work you could fit into a thimble. This is from her Wikipedia entry that covers what constitutes her entire working career such as it was:

Between 1992 [ie when she was 25] and 1994, Roxon was employed as a judge’s associate to High Court Justice Mary Gaudron. She then became involved with the trade union movement, joining the National Union of Workers as an organiser. Roxon was also an industrial lawyer and senior associate with the law firm Maurice Blackburn and Co. from 1996 to 1998.

And from there into Parliament and now attorney-general. Someone with a law degree, a handful of years working as a judge’s associate and few years in a union and now making the law. It makes you angry that a woman with so little true experience of anything, who has done nothing with her life other than fill spots in a succession of various Labor sinecures, can feel the right to say anything based on the shallow and limited experience she has had with life.