Via Drudge ‘LES DEPLORABLES!’ Trump floors cheering Miami crowd as he enters to Broadway anthem and speaks in front of giant ‘Les Mis’ video screen art. Whatever you may think about his policies, he is a marketing genius.
This is the story heading Business bosses slam Pauline Hanson ‘divisive’ speech and this is what it’s about:
The nation’s business leaders have blasted the “divisive and intolerant” rhetoric coming from federal parliament in the wake of Pauline Hanson’s claim that Australia was being “swamped” by Muslims, sending a message to others to speak out against the new senator.
Chief executives from more than 120 of the country’s biggest companies are backing the call to “set the right tone” in the debate over religion or immigration, days after a dispute over the welcome given to Senator Hanson after her contentious remarks.
It is therefore interesting to read the ten “top comments” on the story.
(1) It’s at last good to see that Senator Hanson is getting a reaction from our business and political readers which is just what we all want. Well done Pauline. Now, perhaps we will see if they have the gumption to initiate an open an honest debate on religion and immigration in this secular country of ours. Everything should be on the table including Sharia Law, Halal certification, polygamy, under age marriages, FGM, enclaves, lessons to be learnt from European and other countries with significant Muslim populations. We need to closely look at cause and effect of Muslim immigration. Bring it all on as we desperately need this debate now for the sake of future generations.
(2) “Chief executives from more than 120 of the country’s biggest companies are backing the call to “set the right tone” in the debate over religion or immigration”. Yet when the ALP and Greens want to push high tax, spend and anti-business policies all you here is the sound of crickets chirping. If CEO’s saved their passions for issues that impact shareholders instead of trendy and progressive distractions they would better earn their large salaries.
(3) It’s begun again. The demonisation of Pauline Hanson. The ABC and Fairfax have their co-agenda of ridicule and hatred in place and have begun delivering it. Religious leaders, particularly Christian ones whose pews are becoming emptier and emptier each week, are quick to damn her and her followers. And now, somewhat surprisingly, the Business Council. My guess is their latest outbursts do not reflect the views of the majority of their members. A bit like the AMA went for some years under leftist leadership.
(4) I’m sure all these members of the BCA live near the mosque at Lakemba or in Dandenong and have lived in the middle east to experience the “rich” islamic culture and the barbarism that goes with it! These are the people who earn more in bonuses each rear than the average person can save in a lifetime. How dare they speak for us! You either believe in free speech or you don’t.
(5) I don’t personally agree with all of Senator Hanson’s comments, but I’m absolutely shocked that at last the business ‘leadership’ of our country has finally said something. The modern management era in Australia is well and truly deserved of Mr Husic’s Spineless Award. I’ve had a Laryngectomy and my voice box was removed, as has the voices of our wimpish business leaders.
“We support a culture of free speech and parliamentarians expressing their views. However, we note that freedom of speech within democratic debate is only constructive when it is balanced by the responsibility of others to speak up when they disagree,” the BCA said.
So why don’t you speak out to support tax cuts, the ABCC, Union governance, productivity reforms, etc.? Why do you only support social issues such as Same Sex Marriage, Gender Diversity and the like? Why do you allow those who advocate the social causes you support to call those who oppose them “bigots”, “homophobes”and the like. Whilst their is nothing wrong with these issues, they are a far cry from business specific priorities and returns to your employees, suppliers and shareholders.
Time you guys (deliberate use of that word) found your spine and voice box.
(6) Many of these people who call themselves business leaders are busy getting it all mixed up with positive discrimination and other useless causes. They can be seen talking about celebrity causes with their mates in the elite classes at Davos. Stuff like climate change with George and all those flying in on private jets. These are the people that love the EU and caused Brexit. You know them, always pontificating when they never get down to the lower levels. Never being seen in anything less than the Chairmans lounge or business class. Always agreeing on new forums to mix in and say the same things they did last year in a different way.
I will not invest in any company led by the above types. They always end up being bled with huge salaries not earned but gouged from others by their leaders. They are not in touch with their customers and end up in trouble like a certain huge retailer whose staff played the books.
Hanson learned more about life, hard work and community in the fish and chip shop in outer suburban Ipswich that these people ever will.
(7) These self styled business leaders who have turned into latter day PC advocates can go and jump in the proverbial lake. We are not going to take elitist lecturing from main party politicians and we won’t take it from elitist business leaders either.
Why don’t you people go and get a tailor made cardboard box and sleep rough again just to sympathise with the homeless experience you ignore for the rest of the year.
Hypocritical silver tails who they know better than anyone else. These idiots are as bad as union bosses. They have too much money and influence. I fear they are turning into maniac greens.
(8) “Chief executives from more than 120 of the country’s biggest companies are backing the call to “set the right tone” in the debate over religion or immigration, ”
Who are they? You have a consumer base. You have employer base. You have shareholder base.
Ultimatey, you have your local constituency to answer to. Explain how you provide emploment opportunities, harmonise the woriforxe,deal with radixals, etc etc.
Do you have answers?
(9) those business leaders are most likely among the elites, their common sense is out of touch with ordinary people like their salary package
(10) Name your business sir and we will boycott for your blindness and lack of savvy.
I’m not sure if anyone can get through a Niki Savva column any more – I certainly don’t – but the comments section is pure entertainment. The latest: In the time of moderate Malcolm, Abbott must shut up. The first six of the top comments:
(1) This Abbott whom Niki despises is a regular bloke with a mortgage, a working wife and a history of community service who, on his first Christmas break as PM, took all the family to France in economy and paid for all of them including himself. At the same time Bill Shorten (quite reasonably) flew to Europe in business class at the tax payers expense. The rest of the world would be dumbfounded to hear of the nations leader footing his own bill to fly down the back end of the plane. The world needs more Abbotts.
(2) Nope. He must not shut up. His voice and the contributions he makes are too valuable. Some examples:
> Let’s be under no illusions the carbon tax was socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
> The prime ministership of this country is not a prize or a play thing to be demanded. It should be something which is earned by a vote of the Australian people.
> Your hard-earned savings – yes, they might be tax advantaged – but your hard-earned savings, they belong to you. They aren’t a piggy bank for government to raid whenever it’s in trouble and this is one of the key differences between us and our political opponents right now.
> The nature of politics has changed in the past decade. We have more polls and more commentary than ever before. Mostly sour, bitter, character assassination. Poll driven panic has produced a revolving door Prime Ministership which can’t be good for our country. And a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery. And if there’s one piece of advice I can give to the media, it’s this: refuse to print self-serving claims that the person making them won’t put his or her name to.
> Our moral obligation is to receive people fleeing for their lives. It’s not to provide permanent residency to anyone and everyone who would rather live in a prosperous Western country than their own.
We are indeed fortunate to have a politician of the credibility and the calibre of Tony Abbott in our parliament. And long may this boat-stopping, trade-deal-signing, tax-repealing, union-corruption fighting former prime minister continue to rise above the play-the-man grubs.
(3) Did you ever tell Malcolm to shut up when he was white anting Abbott for 2 years ?
(4) Yet another installment of Niki Savva’s rivetting 437-part series on “Why I don’t like Tony Abbott”.
Dull. Predictable. Boring.
I still keep looking for the disclaimer that makes known the bulk of the Savva family income is derived from being directly employed by Malcolm Turnbull.
This clear conflict of interest undermines any pretense of objectivity and impartiality.
(5) Honestly, this is not bordering on, this is demented. Who edits this and allows it to pass for supposed reasoned commentary? It’s blatant propaganda, straight from the PMO. This commentary is sub par (at best), and the diatribe towards Abbott is unhinged, undergraduate, and unfit for public comment. The fact of the matter is this; Turnbull isn’t a leader. Intelligent, in some capacity, sure (yet to see any evidence of this although the MSM seem to bang on about how brilliant he is) but a leader, neigh. He doesn’t command respect, his emotional intelligence is non existent and his political judgment is inherently flawed. He is not a conviction politician. He simply sways with the breeze, intent on appeasing the populist minority. Abbott however was a conviction politician. What you saw was what you get. You knew where he stood on Small Government, Super, Border Protection, Fiscal Responsibility and just about every other matter of government business irrespective of whether you liked him or not. Who knows what Turnbull stands for? I certainly don’t and that’s the problem that Niki and her ilk cant’ seem to grasp. The majority of Australian’s don’t like feeling left in the lurch. He’s been in the job for year and coupled with the significant political capital he had at his disposal following the coup, achieved what? He won an election by one seat? Wasn’t he supposed to romp home because everybody loved Malcolm? Ah, that’s right, it’s the fanciful reasoning of the press gallery who pursued this narrative and who seem to be completely divorced from reality. Turnbull has achieved nothing other than backstabbing a sitting Prime Minister for his own personal gain. I’d be happy for Niki to debate me on this, but alas, I can only dream.
(6) I know who needs to shut up and it ain’t Abbott or Credlin, but rather you Niki.
The original post on The Flight 93 Election was exceptional, and if you haven’t read it yet, you should read it now. The writer, who goes under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus, has written a follow-up which is even better. Because of the wide circulation of the original, it attracted an immense amount of criticism from all the right sorts of people. He titles his follow-up, Restatement on Flight 93 in which he picks up the various criticisms of the first article and replies to them one by one in ascending order of importance. This is where the second article leads, but all of it should be read:
If Hillary wins, there will still be a country, in the sense of a geographic territory with a people, a government, and various institutions. Things will mostly look the same, just as—outwardly—Rome changed little on the ascension of Augustus. It will not be tyranny or Caesarism—not yet. But it will represent, in my view, an irreversible triumph for the administrative state. Consider that no president has been denied reelection since 1992. If we can’t beat the Democrats now, what makes anyone think we could in 2020, when they will have all the advantages of incumbency plus four more years of demographic change in their favor? And if we can’t win in 2016 or 2020, what reason is there to hope for 2024? Will the electorate be more Republican? More conservative? Will constitutional norms be stronger?
The country will go on, but it will not be a constitutional republic. It will be a blue state on a national scale. Only one party will really matter. A Republican may win now and again—once in a generation, perhaps—but only a neutered one who has “updated” all his positions so as to be more in tune with the new electorate. I.e., who has done exactly what the Left has for years been concern-trolling us to do: move left and become more like them. Yet another irony: the “conservatives” who object to Trump as too liberal are working to guarantee that only a Republican far more liberal than Trump could ever win the presidency again.
It is a depressing article but what do you know that makes what he describes seem anything other than the most likely outcome we face? But what continues to get me is not just the outright lying but the willingness throughout the media to lie on her behalf, which is followed by an exceptional willingness to accept these media lies as the good-enough truth. People want to feel good about themselves, and don’t wish to see they are supporting a corrupt and dishonest whose only principle is never to tell the truth.
The incredible defensive formation within the media following Hillary becoming ill is amazing, since its dishonesty is unmistakeable. These are lies designed only for those who do not wish to face the truth and need comfort rather than facts. When it really comes down to it, who’d have thought that 1984 was an instruction manual? I thought I would have a look at what the papers said about Hillary’s health just to see how it was discussed, but I have to say I did think it would be discussed. To my astonishment, there was not a single negative word about the entire episode in The Herald Sun, The Age or The Australian. The blogs, moreover, have been virtually wiped clean of any such mention even in those few instances where it was mentioned at all. Hillary falling ill has been a one-day wonder, allowed to be mentioned, it seems, only because the video evidence could not be suppressed, at least not on the net. A spot of pneumonia which she will be over in a tick and that is that, unless it was dehydration. Here are the mentions from what are now yesterday’s papers.
In The Australian:
Hillary Clinton says she feels better after falling ill at a 9/11 memorial ceremony, insisting she never lost consciousness and that her pneumonia diagnosis was too insignificant to disclose before hand.
On the other hand, if you are looking for an anti-Trump story, nothing finer than Trump for dummies: hes’s immoral, dangerous and anti-conservative [the headline found in the paper but not online].
From The Age:
Put enough nonsense out there and some of it might just collide with a fact – and thats what happened on Sunday when Hillary Clinton’s apparent kerbside collapse in New York became a video that can be run as an endless loop with internet claims about every real and imagine ailment that must surely disqualify her from the presidency.
The Herald-Sun ran a mini-story on page 2 under the heading Clinton Health Scramble, but really, that so-called right of centre columnist, Rita Panahi, put it perfectly under the heading “Hillary can’t handle her own truth”. The point is that because Hillary is such an inveterate liar whose word can never be trusted, she gets caught out on those odd occasions when she is actually telling the truth:
Despite the myriad conspiracy theories about her health issues it is possible that she is perfectly healthy and that the occasional episode of ill-health are normal for a 68-year-old woman taking part in a gruelling campaign.”
That she might actually be ill, as well as ill-prepared to be president, there is not a word. But just to remind you what we read yesterday on Drudge, where, I might note, there is no follow-up of any kind today. Here is yesterday’s news which has really, for all practical purposes, disappeared.
PAPER: HILLARY MYSTERY ‘NURSE’…
ON-SITE NEUROLOGICAL TEST?
Clinton Admits She Has Passed Out ‘A Few Times’…
Can’t Remember…
Campaign Avoided ER To Conceal Details of Medical Treatment…
FLASHBACK: FAINTS DURING SPEECH…
FLASHBACK: HEAD FIRST BOARDING PLANE…
FLASHBACK: SCARY COUGHING FIT AT BENGHAZI HEARING…
FLASHBACK: SURGERY TO REPAIR ELBOW FRACTURED IN STATE DEPT FALL…
Allies grow angry over secrecy…
MORE DOCTORS SOUND ALARM…
Three blood clots, a concussion, deep vein thrombosis…
DEMS READY FOR KAINE…
If even a tenth of this applied to Trump, the stories would be all front page and endless. Amazing to have seen how the coverage went. Interesting to understand the times in which we live. Here is the video one more time which you can look at until it finally also disappears for good.
I originally linked to the post on The Flight 93 Election here which is a post you really ought to read. The writer, who goes under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus, has now written a follow-up which is even better since because of the wide circulation of the original, has attracted an immense amount of criticism. This he titles, Restatement on Flight 93 where he picks up the various criticisms of the first article and replies to them one by one in ascending order of importance. This is where the article leads, but all of it should be read:
If Hillary wins, there will still be a country, in the sense of a geographic territory with a people, a government, and various institutions. Things will mostly look the same, just as—outwardly—Rome changed little on the ascension of Augustus. It will not be tyranny or Caesarism—not yet. But it will represent, in my view, an irreversible triumph for the administrative state. Consider that no president has been denied reelection since 1992. If we can’t beat the Democrats now, what makes anyone think we could in 2020, when they will have all the advantages of incumbency plus four more years of demographic change in their favor? And if we can’t win in 2016 or 2020, what reason is there to hope for 2024? Will the electorate be more Republican? More conservative? Will constitutional norms be stronger?
The country will go on, but it will not be a constitutional republic. It will be a blue state on a national scale. Only one party will really matter. A Republican may win now and again—once in a generation, perhaps—but only a neutered one who has “updated” all his positions so as to be more in tune with the new electorate. I.e., who has done exactly what the Left has for years been concern-trolling us to do: move left and become more like them. Yet another irony: the “conservatives” who object to Trump as too liberal are working to guarantee that only a Republican far more liberal than Trump could ever win the presidency again.
It is a depressing article but what do you know that makes what he describes seem anything other than the most likely outcome we face?
Who’d have thought that 1984 was an instruction manual? I thought I would have a look at what the papers said about Hillary’s health and there is not a negative word about the entire episode in The Herald Sun, The Age or The Australian. The blogs have been virtually wiped clean of any such mention. It has been a one-day wonder, allowed to occur, it seems, only because of the video evidence that could not be suppressed, at least not here on the net. A spot of pneumonia which she will be over in a tick and that is that. Just a quick reminder of what you were told yesterday before it went down the memory hole.
In The Australian:
Hillary Clinton says she feels better after falling illat a 9/11 memorial ceremony, insisting she never lost consciousness and that her pneumonia diagnosis was too insignificant to disclose before hand.
On the other hand, if you are looking for an anti-Trump story, nothing finer than Trump for dummies: hes’s immoral, dangerous and anti-conservative – the headline found in the paper but not online.
From The Age:
Put enough nonsense out there and some of it might just collide with a fact – and thats what happened on Sunday when Hillary Clinton’s apparent kerbside collapse in New York became a video that can be run as an endless loop with internet claims about every real and imagine ailment that must surely disqualify her from the presidency.
The Herald-Sun ran a mini-story on page 2 under the heading Clinton Health Scramble, but really, that so-called right of centre columnist, Rita Panahi, put it perfectly under the heading “Hillary can’t handle her own truth”. The point is that because Hillary is such an inveterate liar whose word can never be trusted, she gets caught out on those odd occasions when she is actually telling the truth:
Despite the myriad conspiracy theories about her health issues it is possible that she is perfectly healthy and that the occasional episode of ill-health are normal for a 68-year-old woman taking part in a gruelling campaign.”
That she might actually be ill, as well as ill-prepared to be president, there is not a word. But just to remind you what we read yesterday on Drudge, where, I might note, there is no follow-up of any kind today. Here is yesterday’s news which has really, for all practical purposes, disappeared.
PAPER: HILLARY MYSTERY ‘NURSE’…
ON-SITE NEUROLOGICAL TEST?
Clinton Admits She Has Passed Out ‘A Few Times’…
Can’t Remember…
Campaign Avoided ER To Conceal Details of Medical Treatment…
FLASHBACK: FAINTS DURING SPEECH…
FLASHBACK: HEAD FIRST BOARDING PLANE…
FLASHBACK: SCARY COUGHING FIT AT BENGHAZI HEARING…
FLASHBACK: SURGERY TO REPAIR ELBOW FRACTURED IN STATE DEPT FALL…
Allies grow angry over secrecy…
MORE DOCTORS SOUND ALARM…
Three blood clots, a concussion, deep vein thrombosis…
DEMS READY FOR KAINE…
If even a tenth of this applied to Trump, the stories would be all front page and endless. Amazing to have seen. Interesting to understand the times in which we live. Here is the video one more time which you can look at until it finally also disappears for good.
Is this not one of the most obscene scandals in American political history? If they knew she had these mental conditions, problems that make her unfit to take on the role of the president, why would anyone concerned about the future of the United States cover it up?
PAPER: HILLARY MYSTERY ‘NURSE’…
ON-SITE NEUROLOGICAL TEST?
Clinton Admits She Has Passed Out ‘A Few Times’…
Can’t Remember…
Campaign Avoided ER To Conceal Details of Medical Treatment…
FLASHBACK: FAINTS DURING SPEECH…
FLASHBACK: HEAD FIRST BOARDING PLANE…
FLASHBACK: SCARY COUGHING FIT AT BENGHAZI HEARING…
FLASHBACK: SURGERY TO REPAIR ELBOW FRACTURED IN STATE DEPT FALL…
Allies grow angry over secrecy…
MORE DOCTORS SOUND ALARM…
Three blood clots, a concussion, deep vein thrombosis…
DEMS READY FOR KAINE…
Most people seem to treat this as just what you would expect as part of politics, but I cannot believe it is. There are other Democrats who can serve as president. Why risk having someone elected who cannot fulfil the duties of office? If they actually knew she was this unwell, and it is certain they did, she should have been made to withdraw long before now. Someone needs to explain why this has been allowed to continue to within two months of the election.
It is not hard to see how unlikely it is that a theory that has been examined and endorsed by most economists since first brought into the world in 1936 is utterly wrong in its theoretical construction and totally misguided in the advice it gives. But that is how it is. That is what this book is intended to explain.
What’s Wrong with Keynesian Economic Theory? is a collection of thirteen articles by economists each of whom had previously written critical articles about Keynesian economics. The authors come from every corner of the non-Keynesian world, and therefore you are guaranteed to like some approaches more than others. But at least it is in print, and there is at least this much evidence that the theoretical case behind public spending and low interest rates to create recovery has its enemies. You would think, given how badly our economies have been performing, that there would be more, but such it is. Keynesian theory remains the most easily understood fallacy in economics, retaining its savour across the world in spite of its never having had a single success. Although the application of Keynesian economic theory has never worked in practice, it continues to be the basis for macroeconomic policy with its conclusion universally applied by governments at the first sign of recession.
I cannot emphasise enough how unique this book is. The following was written in 1959 and is as unfortunately true today as it was then. It is from Henry Hazlitt’s The Failure of the “New Economics”: An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies. It is a book in which Hazlitt attempted to explain what is wrong with Keynesian economic theory. There he wrote:
‘There must be hundreds of economic books that may be variously described as Keynesian, pro-Keynesian, semi-Keynesian, or “post-Keynesian,” and there must be thousands of such pamphlets and articles; but there is a great dearth when we come to any literature since 1936 that may be described as definitely anti-Keynesian – in the sense that it is explicitly and consistently critical of the major Keynesian doctrines. In the works of such writers as Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, Frank H. Knight, Jacques Rueff, and others, we do indeed have an impressive non-Keynesian literature, based on “neo-classical” premises, with occasional explicit criticism of Keynesian tenets. But full-length books exclusively devoted to a critical analysis of Keynesianism may be counted on the fingers of one hand.’ (Hazlitt 1959: 437)
There has been an economic consensus going back into the nineteenth century that public spending should go up during a recession. It was part of classical policy, at least in its later stages, for governments to employ the unemployment in temporary forms of work during recessions. What is different about Keynesian theory is that stimulating aggregate demand is now seen as the solution to unemployment rather than just being a palliative while the economy gets back on its feet.
It would be one thing if such policies had had a string of successes rather than the trail of catastrophic failures that have inevitably followed every peace-time Keynesian stimulus in the past.
This book brings together in one volume a series of articles by economists who find Keynesian economic theory fundamentally wrong. Even with our economies continuing to falter, in none of which there has been a genuine recovery since the GFC in 2009 in spite of every effort to stimulate demand, the allegiance to Keynesian theory remains as strong as ever. Economists must at some stage recognise that modern macroeconomic theory, built on the supposition of aggregate demand, may be fundamentally wrong in every important respect. The aim of this book is to clarify these issues so that you can understand why our economies are not responding to these Keynesian policies and therefore begin to understand what should be done instead.
If you are interested in either economic theory or policy, you should read this book.
Law of Markets 