How surprised by this are you?

obama you let the whole world down

From Drudge:

‘We can live together’…
Netanyahu, Abbas attend Paris mass rally…
Largest in French history…
KISS-OFF: USA represented only by ambassador?
Officials skipped Washington ‘Charlie’ rally, too…
Gunman appears in chilling video, declares loyalty to Islamic State…
WIRE: Both brothers had weapons training in Yemen…
Afghanistan rally hails attackers as ‘heroes’…
FEINSTEIN: Terrorist sleeper cells are in USA…
FBI Assuming Larger Surveillance Role…

MEANWHILE BACK IN AUSTRALIA: This is titled, Our Gutless Surrender, is written by Roger Kimball, is published at PJ Media in the US, but begins:

The Melbourne-based journalist and television commentator Andrew Bolt is celebrated and reviled by all the right (i.e., all the left) people throughout his native land. He’s been threatened, sued, and otherwise harassed by the politically correct establishment that, despite the great Tony Abbott in the prime minister’s seat, holds sway in Oz. Along with the writers associated with Quadrant magazine in Sydney, Bolt is one of only a handful of people who have effectively challenged the sclerotic orthodoxy of establishment opinion on all matter of issues, from the Aborigines and immigration to the virtues of free-market economics to the cesspool of hatred that is the ideology of radical Islam.

It does require a special kind of brave, which unfortunately not everyone has.

Bolt is back

Actually, he is still in Holland. But in case you missed them, there are two new posts up at his blog. The first is, No, you are not all Charlie. Here is the whole thing:

I am in Holland and the other night, in Groningen, passed one of those demonstrations now held all over Europe in support of the magazine Charlie Hebdo and the journalists murdered this week by Islamists. Many people held up the sign seen at all these demonstrations: Je suis Charlie. I am Charlie.

Pardon me, but those signs are just not true. Charlie Hebdo was selected by al Qaeda for attack precisely because almost no one else was Charlie Hebdo. It was almost alone in newspapers and magazines to mock the ideology that so many other journalists fear. That is why it was the target, and, say, The Age, The Guardian or the New York Times not.

And I suspect this attack will work. There will in fact be fewer Charlie Hebdos than ever. More on this in tomorrow’s Sunday Herald Sun, once the lawyers have carefully checked what I am permitted to say under our already absurd laws against free speech.

The second is his column in the Herald Sun today, Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no. Here are the first two paras:

PROTESTERS around the West, horrified by the massacre in Paris, have held up pens and chanted “Je suis Charlie” — I am Charlie.

They lie. The Islamist terrorists are winning, and the coordinated attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and kosher shop will be just one more success. One more step to our gutless surrender.

UPDATE: Perhaps more than just a one-week wonder: French Premier Declares ‘War’ on Radical Islam as Paris Girds for Rally:

Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared Saturday that France was at war with radical Islam after the harrowing sieges that led to the deaths of three gunmen and four hostages the day before. New details emerged about the bloody final confrontations, and security forces remained on high alert.

“It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity,” Mr. Valls said during a speech in Évry, south of Paris.

We’ll see. Check back in about a week.

#je suis aussi juif

A very angry post by Phyllis Chesler, #JE SUIS JUIF (I AM A JEW). It’s a reaction to the #I’llRideWithYou hashtag about the willingness to protect Muslim women even when they are threatened by no one. Her point is that nothing of the sort has occurred on behalf of Jews, even while they have been under a constant and increasingly murderous threat, both in Israel and in the West. They cannot, of course, live anywhere else. These are her concluding words, but you should read it all:

I am waiting for France to make the connection between “Israel,” and “humanity,” to comprehend that Israel is a symbol for the West; to understand that Arab Jews and Arab Christians were at the mercy of such Muslim barbarians for millennia; that the state of Israel “provoked” the age-old Islamic hatred of infidels and that the Jihad against the Jews has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century.

A sovereign Jewish state has “provoked” those Muslim terrorists who believe that the entire world should be Muslim and ruled by Sharia law. And, the Western world is now in their gun-sights.

In the last fourteen years, non-Israeli Jews, French Jews, have been mocked, followed, literally tortured, stabbed, raped, robbed, shot down, stoned, and blown up. And today, they are being held hostage in a Kosher supermarket in France.

Today, I am a Jew, “#Je Suis Juif.”

To which may be added, When push comes to shove, isn’t it curious how it’s always about the Jews?. To quote from the very end:

As Damian Penny, a proud Newfoundlander and my new god, Tweeted Friday: “Jews control the media. Jews control the government. Jews are all-powerful rulers of the world. SO WHY THE F— DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING?”

“What are economists for? To make people laugh” – vale Bernard Maris

PARIS - CHARLIEHEBDO - TRIBUTE

I have written a note on Bernard Maris for The Conversation. My title was taken from an article he had written in 1999: “What are economists for? To make people laugh”. This is part of what I wrote:

“There is no doubting that our economic visions were vastly different – he was a great admirer of John Maynard Keynes, to whom he dedicated a book, Keynes ou l’économiste citoyen. But the soul of our societies is that we are able to discuss our own views with each other in a spirit of good will, and with the aim of finding the truth, as best we can find it.

“At the conference I attended in July, I was in a roomful of individuals, like Maris, who are on the opposite side on matters I hold very dear. But the conference was one of the most enjoyable I have ever been to, filled with interesting people saying interesting things, and a paper of my own has been solicited and will be published later this year.”

It was in this spirit that he lived. My hope is that he will have died in the spirit of Hugh Latimer, who said, as he was being led to the stake with is fellow martyr, Nicholas Ridley, at Oxford in 1555.

Play the man, Master Ridley; we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, as I trust shall never be put out.

The candles shown are tributes left in front of the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris.

Bernard Maris

This is a post I have written for The Conversation on Bernard Maris, who was murdered in the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

What are economists for? To make people laugh

My own introduction to the murders at Charlie Hebdo came via an email I received that morning from the Research Network on Innovation, which shares with me a deep interest in the economics of the entrepreneur. I had been invited to the first ever conference on Jean-Baptiste Say and the Entrepreneur in July last year, held at the university in Boulogne-sur-Mer. This was the note, which came in both French and English, sent out by its director.

“Dear colleagues,

“I have been shocked to learn that our colleague Bernard Maris was murdered in the office of the journal “Charlie Hebdo”, Paris. From the beginnings of Innovations, Bernard (uncle Bernard) has been a major scientific support for our journal. He has been a member of the Scientific Committee, author and advisor of the Editorial Board of Innovations.

“Best regards”

Bernard Maris is seldom named as among the victims in English-language reports. Whether I had met Maris I do not recall, as there was a very large number of economists at the conference. But he was well known in France, as the first line of this obviously recently updated Wikepedia entry shows.

“Bernard Maris (23 September 1946 – 7 January 2015) was a French economist, writer and journalist who was also a shareholder in Charlie Hebdo magazine. He was murdered in January 2015, in the Charlie Hebdo shooting at the headquarters of the magazine in Paris.”

Everything I am about to say about Bernard will therefore be stitched together from other sources, since my only association is via his work on innovation and entrepreneurship which is only a small part of what he did. But the one word description that does come out in what I have read is “iconoclast”. That he was so closely associated with Charlie Hebdo makes that very clear. And brave as well, as undoubtedly he understood the risks, as did each of the others. This is from an AFP write up that I came across yesterday (my translation assisted by Google).

“As a recognized researcher, he was familiar to many for his many appearances on radio, television and in the press.

“Shareholder of Charlie Hebdo since 1992, he wrote a weekly satirical weekly column signed “Uncle Bernard”. And what illustrated his talents as a difficult-to-categorise populariser was his frequent description as a “journalist-economist”.

“He had written numerous books with evocative titles including, in 1998, Ah that economic Lovely War!, and in 2010, Marx, Marx oh, why have you forsaken me? But it was his Anti-saving manual, released in early 2000, in which the first volume is devoted to the ants and the second to the grasshoppers, that was his most successful publication.

“He was a member of the scientific board of Attac, and the Green candidate in the 2002 legislative election. In 2011, the President of the Senate, Jean-Pierre Bel, was surprised that Maris had been asked to join the General Council of the Banque de France.”

Another side to Maris has been provided this morning by his fellow Frenchman, Alain Alcouffe, on the Societies for the History of Economics online discussion forum.

“Among the victims of the attack against Charlie Hebdo magazine was Bernard Maris, (January 8th). He was a well-known figure in the world of economics and especially among historians of economics as he has devoted several essays to Keynes and economic methodology. His wit and irony were directed against any bigotry and pedantry and contemporary economists were not spared.

“Among his last books one was coauthored with Gilles Dostaler, Capitalisme et pulsion de mort : Freud et Keynes [Capitalism and death drive] (2009). As far as I know, few of his publications have been translated into English (if any).”

There is no doubting that our economic visions were vastly different – he was a great admirer of John Maynard Keynes, to whom he dedicated a book, Keynes ou l’économiste citoyen. But the soul of our societies is that we are able to discuss our own views with each other in a spirit of good will, and with the aim of finding the truth, as best we can find it. At the conference I attended in July, I was amongst roomsful of individuals, like Maris, who are on the opposite side on matters I hold very dear. But the conference was one of the most enjoyable I have ever been to, filled with interesting people saying interesting things, and a paper of my own has been solicited and will be published later this year.

I will finish with something written by Maris that was translated into English by Alain Alcouffe as a tribute to Maris’s memory. It is from the last pages of Maris’s 1999 book, Lettre ouverte aux gourous de l’économie qui nous prennent pour des imbéciles (Open letter to the gurus of economics who take us for idiots). And for that title alone, I feel even more deeply the loss to the world of this brave man, who stood by the values of the enlightenment against a darkness that threatens us all.

What are economists for?

If economics is the science of the market, they are useless – we have known it for a long time (since Keynes), and we get confirmation now from the most ultra orthodox (Debreu).

If the economy is a science that predicts the future, then the greatest economist is Madame Soleil [a famous French astrologer]

If economics is the science which deals only with “trust”, then the greatest economist is Freud. If economics is the science which deals only with “transparency”, then the greatest economists are accountants, policemen, customs officers or judges.

If economics is a religion, then Camdessus is the high priest of it, but the best economist will remain Pope John Paul II.

If economics is only gossip and chatter, many journalists can aspire to be awarded the Golden Palm.

Every activity has a social utility. Even parasites are useful: they allow us to highlight the so-called “useful” people. Just as there is nothing “harmful” in ecology – except in empty heads of hunters – it is rare to be unable to associate a utility to a part of the social body. The parable of Saint-Simon, which showed that the wealth of France would not decrease if we removed many lazy people, writers and others, is questionable, and the same holds for the uselessness of the ancient Greek and music taught at University. So … What are the casuists of utilitarianism for?

Unquestionably the “experts”, the merchants of economic tales have a function of exorcism of the future. In a world without religion, they have the same function as gurus and cult leaders – and many of them combine the two businesses. They also play the role of bards, shamans or witch doctors of Indian tribes who talk incessantly to prevent the sky from falling on the heads. They are the inexhaustible storytellers of irrational, credulous, illiterate and but not uncultured societies that are no doubt more cheerful than ours.

But what have the children of Smith, Marx and Keynes to do? Are they condemned to play the roles of sorcerer, high priest or guru?

Obviously not. They can denounce the merchants of confusion, promote economics as a science of man, and not as a hard science, they can question history, civilizations, they can think about value and wealth. They can denounce efficiency and productivity – or simply leave it to business managers, they are paid for it! – And they can return to psychology, sociology, history, philosophy. Thinking about labor, time, money. In short, they can go back to Smith, Keynes and Marx.

They can also go for soup and sell their beautiful science for the lentils of expertise, and be content with the role of the fool whose legs are pulled twice a year when growth projections are presented, and every day when the Russian mafia recycles dollars which have been loaned to it in false candor.

But then, they should not speak of “quality assessment” or “technical correction”

Let them put a pointed cap, a red nose, let them wag with their ears and tickle the armpits.

What were economists for, one will ask a hundred years from now? To make people laugh. (English . Alain Alcouffe]

Counterfactual regret minimization

This is an article about the first algorithm to solve a game of poker. Chess can be more easily solved because everything is open. Checkers the same. But poker has a very large level of uncertainty since some of the cards held by others are unknown. And the game that has been solved is only the two-person head-to-head version, not the game where half a dozen players are sitting around the table. But what interested me was the conceptual mechanism used, which is how I think most people behave in most genuinely risky situations.

The algorithm, named CFR+ by its creators, uses an improved version of a technique called counterfactual regret minimization (CFR). Past CFR algorithms have tried to solve poker by using several steps at each decision-point: coming up with counterfactual values representing different game outcomes; applying a regret minimization approach to figure out the strategy leading to the best outcome; and averaging the latest strategy with all past strategies.

Yet in the real world, although one can say that over time, this is the strategy that works, it doesn’t necessarily work all the time and other strategies can be successful in the short run for a minority of players. And therefore recessions. This is particularly the case in the financial sector, which is why everyone should be forced to play with their own money, and to personally absorb the losses when things go wrong.

A round-up of the usual suspects and others less usual

From Kathy Shaidle: If you can read this, I guess I didn’t block you yesterday during #JeSuisCharlie.

From Mark Steyn: The Fire Rages and “I’d Rather Die Standing Than Live on My Knees”.

From Jay Curry: Useful Horror.

From Frank Pledge: The Left’s Unholy Alliance.

From Peter Smith, On Making Hatred Disappear.

From Paul Mirengoff: Four observations prompted by the Paris attack.

From Anjem Choudary: Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?

From Stacey McCain: On Anjem Choudary

From Pam Geller: Jihad in America 2014

From Ezra Levant: Slams Media’s #JeSuisCharlie Phonies with must-see video

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Charlie Hebdo: West must stop appeasing Islamic purveyors of hatred

From Roger Simon: 2016 and Paris. It’s the jihad, stupid

From Brendon Bordelon: I am not Charlie: Leaked Newsroom Emails Reveal al Jazeera Fury over Global Support

Peter Hitchens: The sinister, screeching mob who want to kill free speech (And no, I DON’T mean the Islamist terrorists in our midst)

Robert Crumb: Legendary Cartoonist Robert Crumb on the Massacre in Paris

From Henry Ergas: Eyes wide shut to Islamist threat

From Clarice Feldman: Je Suis Sick and Tired of Cant

Pope Francis: Pope condemns ‘deviant forms of religion’ in the wake of French massacre, accusing them of causing ‘the breakdown of society and spawning violence and death’

From Victor Davis Hanson: Multicultural Suicide

From Marine Le Pen: To Call This Threat by Its Name: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism

t+50 – it’s not a pretty sight

Let’s face it. Between birth control and abortion, the European parts of the world are shrinking, if not in absolute numbers just yet, but certainly as a proportion of the world’s population. The territories we have inhabited, some for as long as humans have lived upon the planet, are being ceded to others. Here is a straw in the wind, invisible because social change is so slow that most people are just too unaware to register it is even happening. Titled 45 Signs That China Is Colonizing America, it begins:

Just because you were once the most powerful nation on earth does not mean that you will always be the most powerful nation on earth. Every single year, hundreds of billions of dollars leaves the United States and goes to China. This enormous transfer of wealth has had a dramatic effect on both countries. In case you haven’t noticed, many of our formerly great manufacturing cities such as Detroit are rotting away while shining new factories and skyscrapers are going up all over China. If you go into any major retail store today and start turning over products, you will find that hundreds of them have been made in China and that very few of them have been made in America. As a nation, we buy far, far more from China than they buy from us. As a result, China is absolutely swimming in cash and they have been looking for things to do with all that money. One thing that China has done is loan the U.S. government over a trillion dollars and this has given the Chinese a tremendous amount of leverage over us. China has also started to buy up businesses, real estate and natural resources all over America. This kind of “economic colonization” is similar to what China has already been doing in Africa, South America and Australia. The formula is actually very simple. We send them our money and then they use it to buy us. With each passing day China’s ownership over America grows, and it is frightening to think about where all of this could end.

You can read the 45 listed items for yourself. But if colonised we must be, this is the least worst of the options now before us, although I would have preferred that we could stay as we were. But that is the one option that is out. Fifty years from now, our once great civilisation may be as isolated as the state of Israel is today.