Things we always apparently knew but didn’t understand

I’ve just kept the economics related from the original list. I only wish it was this easy, I certainly don’t think some of these are true. But it an interesting list.

We’ve known for 4,000 years that debts need to be periodically written down, or the entire economy will collapse.

We’ve known for 1,900 years that runaway inequality destroys societies.

We’ve known for thousands of years that debasing currencies leads to economic collapse.

We’ve known for thousands of years that – when criminals are not punished – crime spreads.

We’ve known for hundreds of years that the failure to punish financial fraud destroys economies, as it destroys all trust in the financial system.

We’ve known for centuries that monopolies and the political influence which accompanies too much power in too few hands are dangerous for free markets.

We’ve known for hundreds of years that companies will try to pawn their debts off on governments, and that it is a huge mistake for governments to allow corporate debt to be backstopped by government.

We’ve known for centuries that powerful people – unless held to account – will get together and steal from everyone else.

We’ve known for 200 years that allowing private banks to control credit creation eventually destroys the nation’s prosperity.

We’ve known for two centuries that a fiat money system – where the money supply is not pegged to anything real – is harmful in the long-run.

We’ve known since the 1930s Great Depression that separating depository banking from speculative investment banking is key to economic stability.

We’ve known for 80 years that inflation is a hidden tax.

We’ve known since 1988 that quantitative easing doesn’t work to rescue an ailing economy.

We’ve known since 1993 that derivatives such as credit default swaps – if not reined in – could take down the economy.

We’ve known since 1998 that crony capitalism destroys even the strongest economies, and that economies that are capitalist in name only need major reforms to create accountability and competitive markets.

We’ve known since 2007 or earlier that lax oversight of hedge funds could blow up the economy.

And we knew before the 2008 financial crash and subsequent bailouts that:

The easy credit policy of the Fed and other central banks, the failure to regulate the shadow banking system, and “the use of gimmicks and palliatives” by central banks hurt the economy

Anything other than (1) letting asset prices fall to their true market value, (2) increasing savings rates, and (3) forcing companies to write off bad debts “will only make things worse”

Bailouts of big banks harm the economy

The Fed and other central banks were simply transferring risk from private banks to governments, which could lead to a sovereign debt crisis

Postscript: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it … and we’ve known that for a long time.

Open borders USA

The wrap up from The Daily Mail, ‘We’re not going to deport you’: Obama announces amnesty for millions of ‘anchor baby’ parents and illegal immigrant children – as long as they’ve been in US for five years. The headline points:

Obama addressed the nation to outline a new executive order that will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country

New plan has enraged Republicans who say he lacks the constitutional authority to pick and choose which to deport

Illegal immigrants can’t apply for months and no one who arrived after January 1, 2010 is eligible

President acknowledges that it’s a temporary fix and demands help from Congress to make it permanent

Anyone who takes advantage of the program will have to pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, pay a fee and prove their eligibility

Two Republican aides complained about an ‘amnesty’ for people who came to the US illegally and then had children here – calling their children ‘anchor babies’

And from Obama’s speech:

Now let’s be clear about what it isn’t,’ the president cautioned.

‘This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that.’

‘All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

To which Senator Jeff Sessions has replied:

President Obama’s executive amnesty will provide an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants with the exact benefits Congress rejected, in violation of federal law. His order will grant them social security numbers, government-issued ID’s, legal status and work permits. Illegal immigrants will now be able to take jobs and benefits directly from struggling Americans in a time of high unemployment and low wages. They will be able to take jobs from Americans in all occupations, ranging from truck drivers to power company workers to jobs with city government. Many illegal immigrants will also be able to obtain green cards and become permanent residents, allowing them access to almost all federal programs, to receive citizenship and sponsor foreign relatives to join them in the U.S.

In addition to providing formal amnesty benefits for 5 million illegal immigrants, President Obama has also eliminated virtually all enforcement with respect to the other nearly 7 million illegal immigrantsin the United States. As the president’s own former ICE Director, John Sandweg said: “if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.”

All you have to do is get into the country from anywhere on globe — whether through the border or by overstaying a visa — and you are free to remain, take jobs and receive benefits. This year alone, the White House has released into the United States more than 100,000 illegal immigrants who simply showed up at the border and demanded entry.

Seems like the way to run a bus station but not a nation state.

UPDATE: Iowahawk began with:

If he’s gonna pretend to make the law, we should pretend to obey it.

This is the subsequent twitter feed.

ABC reports Julie Bishop’s criticism of Obama

julie bishop president

From Radio Australia of all places. They must have thought criticising Obama is a bad thing:

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop criticises US president Barack Obama for a speech in Brisbane last weekend in which he claimed climate change threatened the Great Barrier Reef. It is highly unusual for an Australian foreign minister to openly criticise a US president.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has criticised US president Barack Obama for a speech in Brisbane last weekend in which he claimed climate change threatened the Great Barrier Reef.

Speaking to 7.30 from New York, where she is attending a meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Ms Bishop said “there was an issue regarding [Mr Obama’s] statement” and she could “understand the Queensland Government’s concern”.

In a speech at University of Queensland, Mr Obama had said that: “Here, a climate that increases in temperature will mean more extreme and frequent storms, more flooding, rising seas that submerge Pacific islands … The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened.”

Ms Bishop told 7.30: “We are demonstrating world’s best practice in working with the World Heritage Committee to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is preserved for generations to come.

“I think that President Obama might have overlooked that aspect of our commitment to conserving the Great Barrier Reef.”

I also like the picture, not from RA, projecting forward, no doubt, to the day we become a Republic.

A-Day in the US

Amnesty for illegals. And if you think that’s bad, wait till Obama pits out his executive pardons in January 2017. From Drudge:

Obama announces action on immigration…
FACEBOOK REVEAL A WINK TO ZUCKERBURG…
Networks To Snub Speech?
Will air during Latin Grammys…
TONIGHT: Dines with Dems to explain; NO REPUBLICANS…
‘Slap in face’…
SESSIONS: ‘Emperor’…
DHS: Brace for New Surge…
Bachmann: Turning ‘illiterate’ immigrants into Dem voters…
‘Throwing nation into crisis’…
Texas Plans Suit…
CRUZ: Obama Not Monarch…
COBURN WARNING: ‘YOU’RE GOING TO SEE ANARCHY… VIOLENCE’
SCHLAFLY: Modern-day ‘Fort Sumter’…
Sheriffs: ‘Destruction of Democracy’…
Illegals flooding attorneys’ offices with calls…
TUMULTY: Will pose political challenges for both parties…

This is Phyllis Schlafly’s take: OBAMA COULD LAUNCH ANOTHER CIVIL WAR: Describes president’s amnesty plan as modern-day ‘Fort Sumter’:

Asked whether she trusts Obama to secure the nation’s southern border, she replied: “No. I don’t trust him.”

She pointed out that politicians have been promising to secure the border for years, but it remains wide open. She remembers when Obama’s predecessor failed to deliver on a promised border fence.

“I remember seeing George W. Bush’s photo-op,” Schlafly said. “He was signing the law to build the fence. And they never built it.”

She is also skeptical of the idea that beneficiaries of Obama’s amnesty will be barred from receiving health-care subsidies.

“No, I don’t think he will deny them Obamacare,” she said.

So is the president lying?

“I think he lies about everything,” Schlafly said.

Debating Keynesian economics with a Keynesian

We are slowly but ever so surely finding our standard of living slipping away. In spite of all that public spending and the deficits and mounting debt – well actually because of all these things – we are slowing going under. Most of us find we are doing without some things we took for granted not that long ago. Whether you look to the US, the UK, Europe, Japan or Australia, a return to rising real incomes and full employment continues to look ever more remote.

And it’s not for lack of public sector “stimulus”. Those deficits continue and even so the money market geniuses keep worrying about deflation. What are we to do? More QE? More debt? More government subsidies for projects that cannot be funded through the revenues they are expected to earn? These are the textbook answers from the textbooks provided to every economic student in the world.

It is all the same Keynesian rot that has not only never worked on any occasion that it has been tried, it has always with no exception made economic conditions worse. If you know of some example where public spending led to recovery, please let me know. For myself, I can give you chapter and verse on all of the failures, and yet nothing seems to be more everlasting than a textbook theory that is simple, plausible and wrong.

I am now in the midst of an online debate with Louis-Philippe Rochon, an Associate Professor of economics, founding co-editor of the Review of Keynesian Economics and co-editor of New Directions in Post-Keynesian Economics. It has been organised by Edward Elgar between two of its authors, and I have just had my first go in an exchange of letters. I have also discussed this debate at Quadrant Online.

The problem remains for me remains as it always was:

What I can tell you from personal experience is that the notion of aggregate demand as a driver of economic activity is now so universally believed that it is nearly impossible to get anyone even to see that it might possibly be wrong, that there is another way of thinking about things. But before Keynes came on the scene, no economist, other than a handful of cranks, ever thought that economies were driven from the demand side.

To deny the independent existence of aggregate demand is so conceptually disorienting to an economist educated any time over the past half century that it is near impossible to get them even to see what you mean. But I have had my go and I expect Louis-Phillipe to answer in the next day or so. I am pleased that he has taken this on, but I remain curious how he will respond. I can only say that no one has ever been brave enough to take this on before. I have had plenty of slanging and ignorant comment. But if it is possible to show that aggregate demand for anything however wasteful can ever promote economic growth and higher employment – NBN, mothballed desal plants, bridges to nowhere – I hope to hear it now.

Losing the unlosable re-election

You know that one about “if you build a better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door”. The point is that no one will even notice which is where marketing comes in. Whether it is better or worse, unless it comes to the attention of others, it might as well not exist.

Both in Victoria and Federally, the Coalition has run rings around their Labor predecessors. Here in Victoria we have had three years of ultra-boring but very competent government. No dramas, no screw-ups just no-frills governance. Labor left behind its desal plant and Myki ticketing which are billions of dollars forms of waste for which no serious explanation for the expenditure has ever been forthcoming. There is nothing similar with our present government, but in about ten days they will apparently become the former government of Victoria, the first in more than sixty years to lose after only one term. And they will be losing to a socialist left Opposition leader who’s in the pockets of our most left facing unions.

Federally, the government is trying to turn around the good ship Titanic before it hits the iceberg. So many horrors left behind by Labor that it’s hard to add them up. The debt, the deficits, the boat people, the NBN and on it goes. Yet even a year later, they are in the box seat to win the next election.

Now I realise that as a mere citizen, I am not at the edge of politics. Political judgement is the major asset anyone in government must develop if they are to achieve anything beyond dogcatcher. So I have to assume that you guys are the professionals etc etc.

But here’s the thing. In the modern era – probably in every era – a government must campaign throughout its entire period in office. Labor, in the same way as Obama, never stopped campaigning even if the product was useless and only did harm. The Coalition, on the other hand, is slowly but surely putting things right across a very broad front. Yet just doing the right thing is clearly not enough. Putting your case before the public – EXPLAINING WHAT YOU ARE DOING WHILE YOU ARE DOING IT IN THE MOST FAVOURABLE WAY POSSIBLE – is a crucial part of governance. No whinging, no whining, just explaining is what is required.

Maybe you are doing it. I never watch TV, I only read a couple of papers, I get most of my news on the net so I may not be as plugged in to the max. But if you lose the unlosable re-election, whatever you may think you are achieving at the moment will be washed away in the succeeding nine years of the Shorten-Plibersek horrors what will follow. And however bad they are as an actual government, their marketing you may be sure will be supreme.

I just thought it was a long sleeved shirt

matt taylor pic

The funny thing is, I didn’t even notice the tattoos until they were mentioned by Boris Johnson. I’m sure you all know the back story by now:

Those politically-correct Earthlings who ensured Taylor was “bombarded across the Internet with a hurtling dustcloud of hate” should be ashamed of themselves, Johnson wrote. After all, Taylor may study heavenly bodies, but he is not a priest.

“He is a space scientist with a fine collection of tattoos, and if you are an extrovert space scientist, that is the kind of shirt that you are allowed to wear,” Johnson wrote.

Personally I think he should have worn a white shirt, narrow tie and a dark suit. You just can’t be too careful nowadays. He will obviously never work again after the controversy he caused.

This is the most productive time of my life

It doesn’t have to be this way for everyone but this is far and away the most productive part of my life and I see no reason that this might not go on for a while yet. What brings this to mind is an article on early retirement in academia. It is written by a woman who made the choice to opt for early retirement five years ago and believes that people who remain at their post are harming the prospects for the next generation of academics.

The inconvenient truth is that faculty who delay retirement harm students, who in most cases would benefit from being taught by someone younger than 70, even younger than 65. The salient point is not that younger professors are better pedagogues (sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t), but that they are more likely to be current in their fields and to bring that currency into their teaching.

Septuagenarian faculty members also cost colleges more than younger faculty—in the form of higher salaries, higher health-care costs, and higher employer-matched retirement contributions. Even if these costs pale in comparison to paying for bloated administrations, it’s wrong to pretend they don’t matter.

Worst of all, their presence stifles change. I’m not talking about mindless change for change’s sake, but the kind of change necessary to keep an institution thriving. A healthy university consists of departments with a balanced mix of new hires (full of energy, ambition, and fresh ideas), middle-aged faculty members at the height of their productivity, and older faculty with wisdom and a deep understanding of the evolving mission of their departments and universities. Disrupt that balance, and the foundation of an institution’s strength is undermined.

What she writes may be true in some cases but not in others. It is astonishing to me but I am amongst the leading anti-Keynesian economists in the world and am the world’s authority on Say’s Law. I also find myself, and this to my great surprise, amongst the leading scholars on the economics of John Stuart Mill, which has only taken place by accident. I still publish both books and articles and I run one of the most innovative classrooms you will find anywhere. Most importantly, I feel I am still in the conversation on the issues that matter to me, and that if I could not add my voice to the views of others, there would be something missing from out modern discussions on economic theory and policy. And it is precisely because so many disagree with what I have to say that makes my presence all the more valuable.

And being amongst economists, I am surrounded by people who are very good at mathematics but in my view have almost no idea how an economy works. The questions they ask and then answer in the articles many of them write seem trivial to me and the conclusions when they reach them of almost no value, as far as I can tell, for anyone who might need to make a decision about anything.

There may well be some faculty who hang on too long but the net result is that students are able to meet and learn from a range of people with different presuppositions about life and their own subject area. Once upon a time it was understood that scholars remained scholarly all their lives. Picking one example, that is only seen through her own eyes of someone who is past his use-by-date is just one more example of ageism, which as I get older I see more often for myself. Speaking personally, I hope to continue for a little while yet.