How to describe my next book

This was the outline of my next book that has been proposed to me by the publisher.

‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’

Exposing the zenith of analytical power and depth of understanding that economic theory reached in the middle of the nineteenth century, this book discusses the importance of John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. Steven Kates explains what took place in the ensuing Marginal and Keynesian Revolutions that hindered economists’ understanding of how economies truly operate.

Chapters explore the false mythology that has obscured the arguments of classical economists, providing a route into the theory they developed. Kates offers a theoretical understanding of the operation of an economy within classical economic theory by classical economists, providing a new perspective for viewing modern economic theory from the outside. This provocative book also not only explains the meaning of Say’s Law in an accessible way, but also the origins of the Keynesian revolution and Keynes’ pathway in writing The General Theory.

A crucial read for economic policy-makers seeking to better understand the key policies needed to generate economic recovery, this book will also be of keen interest to economics and economic history scholars. It offers an alternative theory to modern macroeconomics for those studying economic theory and policy.

OK, but not what I think is needed. This is what’s needed.

‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’

The book starts with two premises: First, that economic theory reached its deepest level of understanding in the writings of John Stuart Mill and the classical economists of his time, and then, secondly, the author of this book has understood Mill and has accurately explained what the classical school of the late nineteenth century wrote. From these premises, this then follows.

If you are to have any hope of understanding how an economy works, and how modern economic theory became the dead end it has become, you will need to read this book.

The classical economists, and John Stuart Mill in particular, lived through the Industrial Revolution, saw its astonishing economic transformation before their eyes, and explained, so others could understand for themselves, how their prosperity had been created through the emergence of the market economy.

Mill, the greatest utilitarian philosopher of his age, refused to use utility as part of his theory of value. Mill explicitly and emphatically denied any role for aggregate demand in the creation of employment. In reaching these conclusions, there was no disagreement among the entire mainstream economics community of his time.

First through the Marginal Revolution of the 1870s, and then through the Keynesian Revolution of the 1930s, the entire edifice of classical theory has been obliterated. From a classical perspective, modern economic theory is Mercantilist trash. If you are interested in how economic theory became the wasteland it has become, and wish to understand the classical theory no one any longer has the slightest clue about, this is the book you must read.

If that’s your interest, then you should certainly read this book.

How to avoid an argument with crazies

You can see by reading through that what they suggest will not work: How to Win an Argument with Your Liberal Relatives. One assertion against another will not work for either but will cause bad blood.

My advice, avoid talking to anyone on the left about politics. If they bring it up, just laugh at them for their ignorance and for the cruelty they would inflict on anyone where their politics should happen to exist: China, North Korea, California.

They have nothing left. Their economics is only about re-distribution not about increasing the flow of output. Green policies are about destruction of proven technologies, not about making our energy supplies more secure. Migration policy is about open borders where anyone from anywhere speaking any language but our own are permitted to land and claim a welfare-financed existence towards which they contribute nothing, not about bringing in migrants who are productive and will fit in with the existing culture. As for gender, it is anything anyone wishes to declare themselves to be, whether in relation to the sports they play or the public facilities they are permitted to use rather than having any relation to the physical equipment one happens to have been born with.

There’s lots more, but in the end you are dealing with crazy people who have nothing to say to you and will not listen to anything you say to them.

Here’s something to help you make these issues a bit more clear.

Merry Christmas and a Happy Chanukah

May love, peace and contentment be your lot for the coming year.

And let me now add these:

All four all at the same time. We live in such political luxury for the moment.

Hong Kong gets the woke treatment

From Samantha Bee Horrified That Hong Kong Protesters Like Trump, Republicans. I don’t know who she is but assume she is supposed to be a comedian fake-news specialist from the woke side of the equation. Meaning she is a moron who is dealing with one of the major issue of our time, but cannot even hint a teeny weeny bit that perhaps the President is on the right side of an issue and has plenty of support in Hong Kong.

And you never know. She may even have been convinced that the President is acting correctly, wants to show it, but knows she cannot say so to the morons on her side of politics or to the people she works with and still keep her job. The message is, after all, extremely clear.

Mainlining classical economic theory

This is an astonishingly excellent text which understands a great deal but misses the most important part. This is the text: Applied Mainline Economics: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Public Policy by Matthew D. Mitchell and Peter Boettke. And there we find (pp. 2-3):

And though mainline concepts are constantly evolving, they draw their inspiration from, and are intimately connected with the enduring lessons of early economic thinkers. A line connects the contemporary variants of these ideas to insightes of Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century; the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, such as Adam Smith of the 18th century; and the Neoclassical school of the early 20th century. Thinkers in the last few decades have extended this line of inquiry, including Nobel laureates F.A Hayek, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Douglass North, Vernon Smith, and Elinor Ostrom.

Let’s see who’s included:

  • Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century;
  • the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, such as Adam Smith of the 18th century;
  • the Neoclassical school of the early 20th century
  • thinkers in the last few decades, including F.A Hayek, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Douglass North, Vernon Smith, and Elinor Ostrom

Now let’s see who is missing? Who is missing in particular is the Classical School of the mid-19th century and especially John Stuart Mill.

And then there is a list of characteristics that have been suggested over the years that breed strong economies which include everything discussed by Mill and the his contemporary classical economists:

  • specialisation and the division of labour
  • institutional structures
  • natural endowments
  • geographical advantages
  • capital accumulation and growth
  • cultural inheritance
  • personal traits such as attitudes to thrift and hard work
  • technological sensibilities
  • individual liberty
  • social attitudes to commercial activity

And yet it is Mill and the Classical School whose perspective is the perspective most congruous with these characteristics which is nevertheless left out. And you know why that is? Because no one has any idea what they said. There is a gap between Ricardo, who died in 1821 and the coming of the Marginal Revolution in 1870 that is almost entirely unknown to economists today.

Culpable monsters

UPDATE: Bushfires: Greta Thunberg lashes ‘political inaction’. Is it possible for her to be more stupid and obnoxious? Actually it is. This is only mid-level for her.

And from where we were before_______

The Greens, of course. Everyone cares about the environment with no exceptions. But really, first the response from Scott Morrison (now back in Oz): Action to be taken on managing fuel loads: Scott Morrison.

Scott Morrison has flagged a push to overhaul the management of fuel loads in national parks as well as the rules around land and native vegetation clearing as he warned the fires would rage on after the Christmas period.

In a media blitz this morning, the Prime Minister stood firm against ramping up Australia’s climate change commitments after meeting with NSW fire crews and opening the door for compensation for volunteers fighting the nearly 200 blazes across the nation.

Speaking on 2GB, Mr Morrison said that action was “absolutely” needed to better address “how fuel loads are managed in national parks” and said a greater focus should be placed on the “rules that sit around clearing trees” close to properties.

He warned that some people had been “quite difficult” in preventing progress in these areas but agreed it was necessary to change the existing rules.

“Some people” is it? Who are these people, which party are their representatives and who are their leaders?

Everyone is a “green” in some sense but not when it comes to this: Bushfires: More than 1000 homes set to be destroyed, and dead people as well. There are people who are personally responsible for this devastation which has nothing to do with global warming, but quite a lot to do with global idiocy.

The law is an integral part of the Deep State

This is the title of the article, Israel’s winner take all election, but this is what it’s about.

For the past 25 years, with the support of the media and the cooperation of radical NGOs, the Supreme Court, the attorney general and the state prosecutors have seized the powers of Israel’s elected leaders by judicial decree and legal opinion. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s decision last month to indict Netanyahu for behavior that has never been defined as criminal either in law or court precedent is just the latest bid to empty elections of all meaning and deny elected leaders, and the voters who elect them, the sovereign power to determine the path that Israel will advance along.

Obviously, Netanyahu’s revolution and Barak’s revolution cannot coexist in peace with one another. And so, by indicting Netanyahu and inserting the legal fraternity into Israel’s political system as the most powerful decisive force in the country in the midst of Knesset elections, Mandelblit, the justices and the prosecutors are seeking to complete their seizure of power. The only way to stymie them, and restore Israel’s democratic system by legislating checks and restraints on their powers is by reelecting Netanyahu with a parliamentary majority.

Lawyer’s are the worst legislators, understand nothing about law other than their own Byzantine interpretations of interpretations. Lawmaking lawyers sitting on judicial bodies should never be allowed to dictate the meaning of a law, but should only be allowed to indicate where more clarity is needed on any issue that can be legislated. If a popular elected government can make a decision on abortion, to take one example, then no judge should provide any ruling one way or the other.

Like virtually every part of our society that has been taken over by people who make their living from using words – the media, the academic world, law – they are now on the loopy left. They cannot be allowed to make the rules by which we are permitted to live our lives. It is just one part of the Deep State.

The aspect of Trump’s personality that makes him so unusual is that he is able to articulate a different philosophical position, which most politicians are unable to do. Politicians normally are schmoozers, people whose stock and trade is to get on with others and form coalitions. Trump, uniquely, is able to stand apart from the consensus. Glick goes on from Israel to the US.

In 2016, when the Democrats refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, the party stopped being a normal political party and became instead a “resistance” movement that rejected the right of the American people to choose their president.

Just as the legal fraternity has made no effort to hide its desire to destroy Netanyahu as the apotheosis of the democratic system they are subverting, so Trump’s impeachment was a foregone conclusion from the moment the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in last year’s midterm elections. The excuse didn’t matter. The fact that Trump broke no law in his dealings with Ukraine is entirely beside the point.

And of course, the Democrats weren’t alone. As Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice showed last week in his report on FBI abuse of the foreign intelligence surveillance court to spy on the Trump campaign, the top tiers of the federal bureaucracy happily joined them in the “resistance,” with the intention of undermining Donald Trump first during the 2016 election, and then after he entered office….

Almost from the outset, Trump recognized that the game against him was rigged. The special counsel probe, predicated on fabricated evidence paid for by the Clinton campaign was not about discovering ties that never existed between the Trump campaign and Russia. It was about criminalizing Trump’s candidacy and later his presidency. And the impeachment was never about Trump’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Vlodomir Zelensky. It was always about overturning the 2016 election results.

Because Trump recognizes that the campaigns against him are political, not legal, he has never accepted their legitimacy. He has never dignified his enemies with the respect that generally confers to legal authorities and political opponents. And because he has been willing to expose the nakedly political goals of his opponents, he has kept his supporters in his court and mobilized them to defend him. As a result, Trump’s approval numbers have rarely diminished. Moreover, by remaining on offense, despite the media’s blanket support for the campaign to unseat him, Trump has successfully tarnished the reputations and the legitimacy of that campaign.