It’s one of former ambassador Kim Beazley’s favourite White House stories: the time Tony Abbott met Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
“I was deeply worried,” Beazley told an audience gathered for a superannuation conference in Sydney yesterday. “It didn’t matter if it was social policy, or environmental policy, whatever it was, Tony Abbott had a totally different view to Barack Obama.”
Beazley diligently prepared briefing notes for the visiting PM, but Abbott wasn’t interested.
“It’s all bullshit. Don’t worry about it. I’m not going to use any of this stuff,” Beazley recalled Abbott saying.
So in they went to the Oval Office to find Obama, vice-president Joe Biden, secretary of defence Chuck Hagel, secretary of state John Kerry and national security adviser Susan Rice.
Then the president handed over to Abbott. Perhaps you might like to say something?
“Well, Mr President, I don’t actually have a list of complaints,” Beazley recalled Abbott opening. “I know most people who come to this office have a list of complaints. I’ve got nothing to complain about to you. Others come with a list of things that they want from you. We don’t want anything from you.”
Tony Abbott and Barack Obama
Beazley recalled Abbott continuing: “But I want to say one thing. I think you’re about to get into a lot of trouble in the Middle East. And when you do, I want you to understand this. We are going to be with you and we are going to be with you in numbers.”
Our former ambassador still remembers a sharp intake of breath along the line of Americans.
Australia’s 28th prime minister certainly made an impact.
Beazley said for months after that encounter, it was reported back to him that whenever Obama was frustrated by his various opponents, domestic or international, he would say: “We need more Tony Abbotts.”
If you are looking for Christmas ideas, you might consider Economics for Infants, the only book of its kind.
A perfect book to read to your children and grandchildren! How do you explain the complexities of the economic order to a child? This retro-inspired illustrated book attempts this task in storybook form. A basic primer on economics for the youngest of readers.
For myself, what I like best about the book are its pictures which illustrate the points with an astonishing clarity. There is no children’s book anywhere, past or present, that has illustrated Say’s Law so incredibly well along with so much more. In a recent pee’er reviewed study, 97% chose Economics for Infants as their favourite book (astonishingly, the same as the proportion of climate scientists who believe global warming is caused by humans!). The above photo was taken during that study and is conclusive proof that if your child is to succeed in getting into the best kindergartens and play groups, this is the book you will need to ensure they have read and its contents absorbed. You can see how the other books were ignored while Economics for Infants held the attention of this particularly bright child not entirely chosen at random.
And let me also say this. There may be parents of young children whom you may feel need a refresher course in the economics of the market. Give a copy to their children and contemplate the pleasure it will give in reading about how the capitalist system works for the betterment of all, that is, the pleasure it will give you contemplating their parents vetting the book while deciding whether to pass it along.
Every so often someone is able to slip the bounds of political correctness and he is one and is near unique since he can say all of what he says and not be pulled to the ground.
A Pareto pattern – a small proportion of people end up with the bulk of the goods. But it’s not the same people, just the same one percent proportion but with different groups at the top.
The only movie that has ever been made from a book I wrote. The movie was put together by that genius, John Papola, producer of the greatest economic video ever, The Keynes-Hayek Rap. And as noted in the credits for Macro Follies, there I am found in truly stellar company:
Special Thanks to Russ Roberts, Steven Kates, Larry White, Steve Horwitz, James Adams and Steve Fritzinger
As for the book, if you are looking for a Christmas present, let me recommend my Free Market Economics which is the book from which the movie was made. It is the only economics book written in approximately the last 150 years that is built on classical economic principles. As it says at the Book Depository website
“In this thoroughly updated third edition of Free Market Economics, Steven Kates assesses economic principles based on classical economic theory. Rejecting mainstream Keynesian and neoclassical approaches even though they are thoroughly covered in the text, Kates instead looks at economics from the perspective of an entrepreneur making decisions in a world where the future is unknown, innovation is a continuous process and the future is being created before it can be understood. Key Features include: * analysis derived from the theories of pre-Keynesian classical economists, as this is the only source available today that explains the classical pre-Keynesian theory of the business cycle * a focus on the entrepreneur as the driving force in economic activity rather than on anonymous `forces’ as found in most economic theory today * introduces a powerful though simplified model to explain the difference between modern theory of recession and classical theory of the business cycle * great emphasis is placed on the consequences of decision making under uncertainty * offers an introductory understanding, accessible to the non-specialist reader. The aim of this book is to redirect the attention of economists and policy makers towards the economic theories that prevailed in earlier times. Their problems were little different from ours but their way of understanding the operation of an economy and dealing with those problems was completely different. Free Market Economics, Third Edition will help students and general readers understand classical economic theory, written by someone who believes that this now-discarded approach to economic thought was superior to what is found in most of our textbooks today.”
You can order a copy here. For anyone who wants to get a sense of how an economy works, and also why government intervention beyond a minimum creates harm, this is the place to go. Of course, you might instead decide to save your money and have an even better Christmas next year, but you might also instead just think of it as helping to build your own human capital, as well as helping you to contain your rage watching Malcolm and Co butcher economic policy before Bill and Co are allowed to take over who will do even worse.
Serving as the keynote speaker at Caijing Magazine’s three-day annual conference on Tuesday, the former secretary of state called on Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to avoid “bluster” and “personal taunts” when dealing with Pyongyang, according to Bloomberg.
She reportedly criticized the Trump administration for retreating from diplomacy in recent months and said she hoped that China wouldn’t follow suit.
While Clinton focused much of her sentiment on the US stance toward North Korea, she took most of her jabs at the Chinese — claiming they, too, were taking the wrong approach to the situation and making things worse with their “secret” military buildups.
“Beijing should remember that inaction is a choice as well,” Clinton said.
That’s worked so well up till now it’s hard to see why we can’t just keep on being inactive in just the same way as in the past.
Quite an amazing rant! How does he keep his job at a university? His greatest ability beyond clarity of thought is patience. I don’t know how he does it. Just watch.
Then there is this rant on the oppression olympics: “of course you’re a victim” – “things are complicated”. Here his advice: “Be a better person”. “We’re so ungrateful!”
And just one more on: advice to students, beginning with: “Read Great Books!”
And then finally, the Top Ten Rules for getting on.
Very sound! Anyway, one more and this one on intelligence.
IQ as a predictor of perfomance with conscientiousness as the other possible predictor which, unfortunately, no one knows how to measure. Practical intelligence – street smarts – has shown no relationship to outcomes. Anyway, all common sense, as with everything else he says. And a continuation below since the first one ends so quickly.
Massive contributor to life-time success. And, my goodness, one more on not being a patsy.
Necessary, as Jung said, to integrate your shadow.
And one more, and the last which might have gone first.
Jordan Bernt Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.
He earned a degree in political science in 1982 and a degree in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1997, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.
Dr. Jordan B Peterson has been a dishwasher, gas jockey, bartender, short-order cook, beekeeper, oil derrick bit re-tipper, plywood mill labourer and railway line worker. He’s taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and businessmen, consulted for the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms, identified thousands of promising entrepreneurs on six different continents, and lectured extensively in North America and Europe.
He has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt plane, piloted a mahogany racing sailboat around Alcatraz Island, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with a group of astronauts, built a Native American Long-House on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe.
With his students and colleagues, Dr. Peterson has published more than a hundred scientific papers, transforming the modern understanding of personality, and revolutionized the psychology of religion with his now-classic book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief. As a Harvard professor, he was nominated for the prestigious Levinson Teaching Prize, and is regarded by his current University of Toronto students as one of three truly life-changing teachers.
Elizabeth Warren pretended to have Native American bloodlines which has turned out to be absolutely untrue. A liar, but what else is new. Cultural Marxists see absolutely no scandals on the left. All this is discussed in The Oz: Donald Trump in ‘Pocahontas’ race slur. One might be described as a racist for saying something about someone else’s racial background, but cannot be a racist by making fun of someone who describes themselves as a Native American who is not in fact a Native American. And to add to the pile-on, there is then this which has just come up: Elizabeth Warren ancestors rounded up Cherokee people for trail of tears. But that is just background to this:
As sexual misconduct allegations widen in the US congress [no details since they all involve Democrats], the President has broken with leading Republicans [Republicans! whose side are they on?] in effectively backing the conservative former judge accused of unwanted sexual advances towards teenage girls [forty years ago].
While warning that a Democratic victory would be a disaster for Alabama and the US Senate, Mr Trump has stressed that Mr Moore denied all the allegations [not to mention the absence of evidence aside from a single signature in a high school yearbook which is fake, fake fake].
Mr Moore, a populist fundamentalist Christian [and therefor obviously unfit to sit in the Senate], unveiled a campaign ad that claims he is the victim of “false allegations” in a “scheme by liberal elites and the Republican establishment” [where would he get such a notion not to mention what a really really strange pairing it is]. . . .
Meanwhile, Mr Trump badly needs a Moore victory to maintain the Senate’s 52-48 Republican majority [and why don’t the Republicans in general need this victory as well?]. A loss in Alabama would make it even more difficult to muster the votes to pass his tax, infrastructure and welfare reforms [don’t the Republicans want tax, infrastructure and welfare reforms?].
Critics speculate that his support for Mr Moore’s candidacy is partly influenced by Mr Trump’s own experience in facing sexual harassment allegations from several women before last year’s election. Mr Trump denied the claims [for which, surprisingly, there was also no evidence].
The allegations against the President followed the release of the “Access Hollywood tapes” in which Mr Trump made disparaging comments about women. The New York Times has reported that the President has privately denied the tapes were genuine, despite admitting last year to making the comments. But the White House said yesterday Mr Trump’s position on the tapes had not changed.
Democrat senator Al Franken, who has been accused by four women of inappropriate touching or groping, returned to Washington yesterday saying he was shocked and embarrassed [what about the pictures??? – without the pics he would have admitted nothing].
“I have been trying to take responsibility by apologising and by apologising to the people I let down. I’m going to work to regain their trust. I am going to be accountable, [whatever that means, which for a Democrat and media enablers is literally nothing]” Senator Franken said.
He refused to resign [among the great surprises of our time] and has pledged to co-operate with the Senate ethics committee. “I know that I have let a lot of people down. People of Minnesota and my colleagues, my staff, my supporters and everyone who has counted on me to be a champion for women [what a champ!]. To all of you I just wanted to say again I am sorry,” he said. [This wouldn’t be a different standard for Democrats, would it?]
Long-serving Democrat congressman John Conyers has stepped down from his position on the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of using taxpayer dollars to settle an unfair dismissal claim made by a former staffer who accused him of sexual harassment [he paid out money to settle the claim; now that is what I call evidence but he has not resigned from Congress].
And that’s The Oz although what difference does it at this stage really make? Will add a couple of comments from the story.
Mr Stewart lets give the real story. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic congresswomen, told a bald faced lie when she stated that she had a native American heritage to gain benefits from the government.The press named her Pocahontas as a joke. Trump, as he does, picked up on it, and he is not above name calling as we all know. What a breath of fresh air for someone to call it like it is. And yes, the last of the Navajo code talkers from WW2 are the real Hero’s and REAL native Americans who did not need to lie to serve their country or make a fraudulently claim.
Should have called her by her original nickname Fauxohontas, more accurate than Pocohontas and is a fairer description of her deceit. Like all Leftists they will do whatever it takes to advance themselves and then the media criticises the critics who call it out. Strange days indeed.
From Canada. Discussion of discipline handed down to Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student and Teaching Assistant Lindsay Shepherd for playing a 3 minute clip of a TV program with Jordan B Peterson debating Canada’s bill C-16 which would criminalise the use of certain gendered pronouns. The point Peterson is trying to refute is a statement made by some other PROFESSOR that there are “no biological differences between men and women”. Peterson begins at 2:17.
Lindsay Shepherd describes the eventual reaction of the university and her fellow students.
She is tougher than they are, shrewder, more clued in, but this is now and not even the medium term. Finally, here is the full recording of her discussing the issue with the University. Runs more than 40 minutes but worth your time. The disturbing notion presented by one of the academics was the equation that Opinion minus Evidence is Prejudice (O-E=P) with the only form of evidence permissible publication in a peer reviewed journal. Once control over what is published in peer reviewed journals is sealed up (see the debate on climate change which is even brought in by one of the professors) certain ideas can never be presented within an academic environment. The enemy seems to be “alt-right” opinion. So they have to provide them with a “critical tool kit” before they hear different opinions. Try this on for size (33:35):
“Everyone is entitled to their opinions but we have a duty as educators, as scholars, as academics, even as public intellectuals to make sure we are not furthering the kind of what I call charlatanism”.
Such self-delusion! Makes you sick. And there is little doubt that the same idea would be found at the highest reaches of the academic world.
Terrifying. I am actually astonished that when this became public that there was still enough reality left in their heads that they pulled back on their consideration of whether to terminate her employment. This then is an interview with Lindsay giving the background.
And here is one last commentary, this one from the United States. Has an excerpt from her tape of the interview which really gets to the heart of the issue.
She is astonishing and brave. Dissidents come in all forms and it is fortunate we are still able to bring these things to the attention of others. And like she says herself, her enemies are “insane”. Meanwhile will we still be able to teach free market capitalism when they turn their attention to that?
And for some direct quotes from the Inquisition Ms Shepherd was forced to endure here via Steve Hayward “are some key excerpts and delightful commentary from Raffi Grinburg at Heterodox Academy“. But of more value are Grinburg’s comments between the quotes such as this which was picked up by Steve Hayward and is really to the point.
At Laurier—and other universities—can teachers be disciplined for being anonymously accused of violating an undefinable policy? If so, this has chilling implications for teaching and learning. Teachers will have to guess at what policies might protect students’ sensibilities, and eye their classrooms with fear. Each student is a potential accuser, so teachers must plan their lectures with the most easily-offended student in mind, taking account of all topics that could cause offense. In fact, since 2015 we have been hearing many reports of teachers self-censoring, “teaching on tenterhooks,” and cutting potentially controversial materials from their syllabi.
Anyway, I am thinking of applying for membership in the Heterodox Academy whose structure and aims are discussed here. My hesitation is Conquest’s Second Law: any organisation that is not by nature right wing eventually becomes left wing.
Given some of the comments on a previous post let me give you a Bowdlerised version. Says the same thing as before but perhaps not quite as pointed. For myself, reading some of the reactions to what I wrote I can see there are quite a few, even amongst those who come here, who have no idea what the problem we are dealing with is nor what needs to be done. Anyway, see what you make of this.
The one blessing about being brought up in a communist household is that you understand the left a good deal better than most. It also brings an added measure of concern when I see how easily a public unused to lying as a tactic is influenced by these manoeuvres which are standard practice on the left. My Dad was an expert in agit prop and I grew up understanding the role of the agent provocateur only too well. These are not well-meaning individuals who wish to investigate the truth. They are individuals whose only interest is to disrupt the communications among those on the other side through whatever lies they might find convenient and they hope persuasive.
The example I am going to use is my post Remember Michelle Fields? It is simply undeniable that Fields told a story that was intended to harm Donald Trump’s run for president but was thoroughly discredited by the videos that showed everything she said, and the Washington Post initially said, were lies. The point of the post was to remind us that the media will lie without any hesitation if they can see some political advantage for the left’s political agenda. That is also the message of this post, and it is one that can never be repeated often enough. You will be lied to by the left to the furthest extent they believe they can get away with. That there is not an instantaneous scepticism amongst us on this side of politics from any unverified political story carried by a mainstream media organisation fills me with dread since most of us are so middle class that we find it hard to believe others will lie, distort, or withhold relevant information without the slightest hesitation if it serves their ends. The attitude you need to take when reading anything from an MSM report is the same attitude you might take when buying a used car. Do not trust a thing you are told and make sure you verify everything you can from a separate source.
Dishonesty is the trade mark of the left, not that they have a monopoly, but it is a specific tactic aimed at the fair minded who are seldom as aware as they need to be of the practice, and seldom think of the need to guard against the premeditated lies they tell. You would have to be pretty thick not to know that Michelle Fields was a liar and that her aim was deliberate and strictly political. The interesting part is that for the left to succeed, they can only achieve their ends by lying. For the right, what you hear people say is almost invariably what they believe. The left often mimics the same concerns but it is tactical and never substantive unless for a change good policy overlaps what they see as tactical advantage.
The one valuable part of being on this side of the fence is that with so many out there on the left who will swarm around any genuine falsehood stated by someone on the right, the standard of probity is higher. This is part of the reason why sex scandals, to just name the issue in relation to Roy Moore, are not as common on the right as on the left. Except that when they are caught out – such as with Bill Clinton – it is no longer a scandal and is put to bed as soon as it is practical to do so. They never mean it. It is not hypocrisy, it is a policy of deceit. They are perfectly aware they are lying and just take the rest of us for fools.
Oh by the way, have you caught up with the CNN story about Trump feeding the fish in Japan.
It is the only economics book written in approximately the last 150 years that is built on classical economic principles. As it says at the Book Depository website 
Law of Markets 