Is this dumb or what ?

An exchange of emails with a friend which he began under the subject heading, “Is this dumb or what ?”.

He: Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment

Me: Do you really trust the BBC to report a story on Trump accurately?

He: Steve my buddy

He said this during this morning’s daily briefing and I was watching as were millions of others. The video evidence is irrefutable.

Perhaps he should try not ad lib , gets him into too much trouble .

But I guess everyone knows when to ignore his more outrageous comments and tweets by now.

Me: My point really is that you quote only where you think he was wrong.

Me: Why don’t you quote this?


You do know the whole thing is a scam, don’t you?

He: That not true , I never inundate you posts , this was just so outrageous
Sorry 😐

Me: READ IT: Lysol Issues PSA In Response To False Social Media Claims About Trump’s Comments

In response to “speculation and social media activity” surrounding President Trump’s questions about new findings during the coronavirus briefing Thursday, RB, the maker of Lysol and Dettol, felt compelled to issue a public service announcement warning against “improper use of disinfectants.”

“Due to recent speculation and social media activity, RB (the makers of Lysol and Dettol) has been asked whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2),” reads RB’s PSA issued in response to false claims about Trump’s comments on potential treatment methods (full text of PSA below). “As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route).”

The announcement comes after some social media users claimed that Trump told people to “inject themselves with disinfectant” and “drink bleach” in order to kill coronavirus. Among those who made the claims were Democratic activist Chris D. Jackson, who tweeted that Trump had “urged Americans to inject themselves with disinfectant,” and Jake Maccoby, a former speechwriter for the Obama Justice Department, who tweeted that Trump “told people to drink bleach.”

But, as The Daily Wire reported, Trump of course did not advise people to “inject themselves with disinfectant” or “drink bleach.” Trump’s comments that sparked the misrepresentations came in response to DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology Bill Bryan detailing some “striking” observations about what impacts the virus at a press briefing.

Me: Also this:

Media erupt over Trump comments on disinfectant and sunlight to cure coronavirus: Here’s what he said

HERE’S THE TEXT: You can watch the President’s comments on the BBC link above and here are the words from there as well.

“So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous – whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, “and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it.

“And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting,” the president continued.

“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

“So it’d be interesting to check that.”

Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: “I’m not a doctor. But I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.”

Here is what he said.

(1) A disinfectant kills the virus within a minute.
(2) It would be good to find something you could inject that would do the same.
(3) So he asks, is there a way to do that?

I don’t know if the first is true, but if it is, then the second is true. And in the end all he did was ask a question if there were some means to achieve that end with these kinds of means.

The left and the media are disgusting, liars and stupid. All this is so obvious that were it not for the tremendous lack of good will among the left, nothing further would be said. What a repulsive lot the President has to deal with.

IT’S WORSE THAN YOU THOUGHT: Or depending on your perspective, better: Christina Cuomo Says She Took Clorox Bleach Baths to Combat Coronavirus.

Christina Cuomo wrote of her use of bleach baths to combat coronavirus. As Rolling Stone magazine reported on Wednesday.

Cristina Cuomo, wife of CNN anchor Chris Cuomo (and sister-in-law to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo), is the founder and CEO of a wellness publication called The Purist. So it is not exactly surprising that, following her own COVID-19 diagnosis, she would blog about her family’s coronavirus health and wellness regimens, which are replete with wellness buzzwords such as Ayurvedic diets and oxygenation and cleansing shakes and body charger devices .

In the actual blog, The Purist,  Mrs. Cuomo states:

“At the direction of my doctor, Dr. Linda Lancaster, who reminded me that this is an oxygen-depleting virus, she suggested I take a bath and add a tiny amount of bleach, and I mean a 1/4 cup of bleach which in an 80 gallon water tub is a ratio of 1:5000. Why? To combat the radiation and metals in my system and oxygenate it.”

“As Dr. Lancaster said, “We want to neutralize heavy metals because they slow up the electromagnetic frequency of our cells, which is our energy field, and we need a good flow of energy. Clorox is sodium chloride — which is technically salt. Clorox is made by introducing an electric current to water and sodium chloride (saline) creating sodium hypochlorite. There is no danger in doing this. It is a simple naturopathic treatment that has been used for over 75 years to oxygenate the cells.”

I personally don’t thing the President was being sarcastic, as he described his words, but metaphorical, “a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance.” It would have just been too hard to say that it was a metaphor given the pig ignorance of the audience he was trying to address.

Madness and politics

From The Other McCain and in full.

Study: 56% of Liberal Women Under Age 30 Have Been Diagnosed as Mentally Ill

Posted on | April 22, 2020 | 42 Comments

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real:

Zach Goldberg . . . has analysed the latest dataset released by the reputable Pew Research Center. This is the Pew Research Panel, Wave 64, which interviewed a representative sample of 11,537 American adults between March 19th and March 24th. . . .

Among those aged 18 to 29, some 20.9% of those who described themselves as “Conservative” answered “Yes” to the question “Has a doctor or healthcare provider ever told you that you have a mental health condition?” For those in this age group who were political “Moderates,” 26.3% answered “Yes.” But among those who self-classified as “Liberal” those answering “Yes” jumped up to an astonishing 45.9%.

So, to be clear, almost half of young white American Leftists have been diagnosed with a mental illness. . . .

In general, females are more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than males, because one of the most common of these conditions is depression. According to psychologist Daniel Nettle in his 2007 book Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are, females, being more prone to worry and anxiety, are more prone to depression than males. So Jonathan Haidt, known for his Moral Foundations Theory of political preferences whereby Liberals and Conservatives have a fundamentally different system of morality, asked Goldberg if he had broken down the data by sex.

And Goldberg — who is doing a PhD in Political Science at Georgia State University — analysed the data again, breaking it down by gender. The results were as predicted and were all the more striking for it. According to Pew Research Center data, 56% of Liberal females aged 18 to 29 have been diagnosed with a mental health condition . . .


The obvious question is, “Why?” And the most obvious answer, supplied by Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute, is “locus of control”:


Part of the reason liberals and conservatives disagree about the causes of poverty and wealth is that they disagree about the extent to which personal choices or external forces directs people’s lives. In other words: they disagree about the role of personal agency.
This idea is related to a concept in psychology called the locus of control. People who tend to believe events in their lives are within the control of the individual are described as having an internal locus of control. Those who tend to believe events in their lives are outside of a person’s control are described as having an external locus of control. While in reality both external forces and personal choices play a role, the question is what individuals emphasize. . . .
The [2019 Cato] survey finds that liberals emphasize external forces and that conservatives emphasize personal choices in explaining personal outcomes in their own lives. . . .

These data demonstrate that liberals and conservatives emphasize the impact of personal agency on outcomes differently. Conservatives are more likely to believe that people are responsible for their situations and use their agency to direct their lives, and liberals are more likely to believe that people’s situations are shaped by their environment and other external factors.

Modern liberalism (or “progressivism”) is obsessed with inequality, claiming that all disparities in outcomes are a result of systemic oppression, which must be ended in the name of “social justice.” Everything is interpreted through the lenses of identity politics, where racism, sexism, homophobia and other biases are believed to define the axes of oppression. Because vast social and historic forces are involved in this worldview, it is easy to see why it tends to breed an attitude of helplessness. If the “patriarchy” has been oppressing all women for the past 6,000 years — a core claim of feminist ideology — a young woman who buys into this worldview must see herself engaged in a desperate struggle, even though she herself might be highly privileged, by any objective standard. Feminist activism, I would argue, is a chief cause of the epidemic of insanity that prevails among girls at elite universities.


Think about this: You’re an upper-middle-class suburban white girl whose parents can afford the tuition at Oberlin, Stanford or Yale. Given your advantageous socioeconomic background, your success in life is almost guaranteed — or it would be, were it not for a curriculum that teaches you deranged nonsense, e.g., “gender is a social construct,” in a campus climate where becoming an “activist” is considered a smart career move. The path of progressive activism is unlikely to lead to personal happiness in life, because this sort of activism is all about grievance-mongering around claims of oppression.


Correlation should not be confused with causation, of course. Does liberalism create insanity, or does it merely attract insane people? A political movement based upon policy ideas that are obsolete, discredited and harmful will not attract the best people to its banner. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the core belief of leftism — equality through economic redistribution imposed by an all-powerful government — has been entirely discredited. No honest and intelligent person could endorse the crypto-Marxist policy agenda of the Democratic Party, which is why Democrats attract so many stupid and dishonest people.

Young people have no memory of the Cold War. They do not remember the failure of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs (about which Amity Schlaes has written a new book). Academia is now so dominated by the Democratic Party that Republicans can never be hired to the faculty at elite universities. Students thus never encounter a professor who will explain them that “progressive” policies are doomed to failure, and are instead encouraged to devote themselves to the politics of futility.

You have nothing to lose but your supply chains

Ocasio-Cortez is a true-life parody account since no one can be that thick.

Picked up here.

The app to automate contact tracing

Better than Malcolm is about the best I can say about him. From here.

Scott Morrison has said new guidelines are coming on a range of restrictions in place, and Australians can expect the COVID-19 contact tracing app soon.

Mr Morrison said the app to automate contact tracing was now in the final stages of development, and that rapid response measures were being bolstered to handle outbreaks.

The Australian Government’s controversial app will store users’ personal information in a central database hosted by US tech giant Amazon, it was confirmed today.

But Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the database would be hosted on servers within Australia and it would be “illegal” for the multibillion-dollar company to use the information for any other purpose than for what it was originally intended.

It’s not that words fail, but I am not quite yet ready to say them.

Who is the Prime Minister to order the banks to do anything?

PM roasts banks over Covid fail.

Australia’s biggest banks have been stymieing business attempts to gain bridging finance for wages before the $130bn JobKeeper payments begin next month, prompting Scott Morrison to order them to be read the riot act.

What does “stymieing” mean? Shall we go to the dictionary.

Stymie. The verb stymie means to obstruct or hinder.

Is this what has been happening?

Australia’s biggest banks have been obstructing business attempts to gain bridging finance for wages.

Seriously? Why would they do that? This sounds more like what has been happening.

NAB chief executive Ross McEwan on Thursday night acknowledged the government’s frustrations and said his bank was “working overtime” to provide assistance. “We’ll (today) launch a dedicated hotline for customers needing support with JobKeeper bridging finance and we’ll also expedite any requests we’ve already received from customers so far,” Mr McEwan said.

“We recognise this funding is critical to keeping businesses afloat, people in jobs, and food on the table for the many people who are doing it tough right now.

“We’re working as quickly as we can, with more than 350 people retrained to support customer facing roles so far, so we can support as many customers as we can over this hurdle.”…

The ABA conceded that while the banks had worked “tirelessly to process applications as quickly as possible”, more needed to be done to keep businesses afloat until they could access the $1500 JobKeeper payments.

I find this unbelievable.

A furious Prime Minister vented his anger about the big four during a phone hook-up with tax commissioner Chris Jordan and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg early on Thursday….

Mr Jordan is believed to have delivered Mr Morrison’s blunt message to the chief executives of ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and NAB in a later phone conference that included Mr Frydenberg and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar….

One chief executive is believed to have tried to make excuses for the delays on getting cash through to businesses, earning a rebuke from Mr Jordan, who said the banks would have a hard time convincing the Prime Minister of that.

Let me see. Out of nowhere the banks have been landed with a massive increase in responsibility that has come from out of the blue and are struggling to fulfil the obligations that have been placed on them. And I will just add this from the end of the story.

Restaurant and Catering Australia chief executive Wes Lambert said many of the association’s members had been asked to prove their acceptance under the JobKeeper program before receiving their bridging finance. That had not been possible because formal applications for JobKeeper only opened this week.

The one thing I could not find out is how much the government is paying the banks to undertake all of this additional effort.

Mill and marginalism

A conversation based on John Stuart Mill and the theory of value.


Obviously I don’t find this stuff as interesting as you do. But have just, admittedly quickly, looked at JSM’s theory of value. I can’t see how this stacks up: “almost equally disastrous [as the Keynesian Revolution] was the Marginal Revolution which undermined the classical theory of value”. Which of Mill’s 17 propositions does it undermine?


The Marginal Revolution starts with Marginal Utility. And let me mention that Mill was the greatest and most influential utilitarian philosopher in history, yet he absolutely refused to incorporate utility into his economic analysis, as noted here. The abstract begins:

“The concept of utility, which stood at the heart of J. S. Mill’s utilitarian moral philosophy, played only a minor role in his account of economics. The economic idea of (individual) utility, as is well known, neither inspired Mill directly nor excited his attention when developed in the work of other economists.”

And the reason in part, as discussed in my forthcoming book, was, and I argue from plenty of evidence, that the introduction of utility took the analytics of the economy from the supply side to the demand side. Lots of other things I could say and do say, but I hope this is enough for you to see my point. In my textbook I go into it in much more detail but do preserve cost-benefit analysis as part of what an economist needs to understand.

There are around 1200 economists on that website but I doubt any of them will want to buy into any of this and they are typically a fractious lot. Not that it’s the reason I bought into this query, but it did stoke my annoyance that it is the editor of our local journal, who want to dispose of the two papers, including mine, that he has held in his hands for two years, that asked the initial query which began thus:

My long message emerges from a series of papers I have received from a retired physicist, Kevin Wilks, who is 95 and argues (as physicists are wont to do) that laws of physics underlie economics, in this case production itself and the industrial structure. Economies capture energy and convert it into value (my summation). He draws on Quesnay and the primacy of agriculture, which I [is] why I write to SHOE for help, both to advise Kevin and to sort things out in my own head. And perhaps Kevin is onto something; if so, it is not straight HET, so what journals or outlets cater for speculative papers by intelligent amateur economists? The main concern here is not what Quesnay really said, but why what is valid in Quesnay is absent from textbooks. Wilks argues that introductory economics should locate the dependency of what we now call the secondary and tertiary sectors on the primary sector. Textbooks would be written differently. Of course, what is valid in a body of thought need not be regarded as important, but I press on.

This chap is a complete economic illiterate who thinks that economics should be reduced to energy flows – an old and idiotic economic concept that completely omits the notion of value and pricing. My article on Mill is however beyond his ken. Is it any wonder that economics has stagnated for the past hundred years, if not actually going backwards? Actually it has gone backwards, but who is this cretin to notice? This is why it is so difficult to get published when trying to say anything against modern textbook theory runs such obstacles as this. It’s only fortunate that I am now beyond the realm of publish or perish.


Marginal utility is a demand concept for sure but I would have thought the fault which led to Keynes was the focus on demand as an aggregate not on demand per se.


Want more? Utility cannot be measured and in any case has nothing to do with relative prices, whereas the supply side of the economy and the cost structure of the economy is the way in which the resource base is allocated to different outputs.

No classical economist bought the marginal stuff in the English speaking world until Joan Robinson and Edward Chamberlain turned the concepts into diagrams.

And fwiw, marginal utility has disappeared from our texts and been replaced by indifference curves, which are just as useless, and also unmeasurable.


And this from “The Physiocrats and Say’s Law of Markets”. I by Joseph J. Spengler.

The Physiocrats and Say’s Law of Markets. I
Author(s): Joseph J. Spengler
Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Sep., 1945), pp. 193-211

The physiocrats always expressed their theory of circular flow in interclass, rather than in interindividual, terms. Notwithstanding, their theory of circular flow forced upon them several conclusions of importance. They looked upon money as an instrument whose essential function it is to facilitate the circulation of goods and services, to serve as a medium of exchange. In consequence, they recognized that commerce consists, not in buying and selling, but in the exchange of goods and services for goods and services. They thus laid the ground work for the formulation of Say’s law of markets and evoked its actual statement by their treatment of consumption and expenditure. They recognized, too, that if money ceases to perform its function, the nexus between potential purchasers and potential sellers is broken, thus anticipating Keynes; but they did not develop this theory, for they supposed that in a healthy economy founded upon their principles money would always perform its proper function. (p. 205)

Notable here is that goods exchange for goods and the circular flow is in real terms with money facilitating the exchange. This is what Say himself would include in his Treatise in 1803. What Keynes did was recast the entire process into a circular flow of money forgetting to separate out and on their own the real exchanges that simultaneously occur. In a Keynesian model, and therefore in modern macro, the real half of the process is no longer distinguished and discussed.

John Stuart Mill and the theory of value

I have just posted this note onto the Societies for the History of Economics website in regard to François Quesnay, an eighteenth century French economist.

I found this, from Spencer Banzhaf, the most astonishing sentence I may have seen in quite some time, and I could not agree more.

“One cannot possibly discuss what happened to the role of agriculture/nature in value between Quesnay and today without talking about what happened to the meaning of “value,” conceived of as a moving target.  Rival theories of surplus value from Quesnay to Jevons will have to come into play.”

I often go on about the disastrous effect on economic theory of the Keynesian Revolution, but almost equally disastrous was the Marginal Revolution which undermined the classical theory of value, which was outlined comprehensively by John Stuart Mill in Book III Chapter VI of his Principles. Before I state my conclusion, I will just mention this, which comes from the brief profile of Mill that is on the HET website:

“John Stuart Mill’s greater economic performance was his magnificent 1848 Principles of Political Economy, a two-volume extended restatement of the Classical Ricardian theory.  He believed  Ricardo’s labor theory of value to be so conclusive that, in the beginning of a discussion on the theory of value, Mill confidently notes that:

‘Happily, there is nothing in the laws of Value which remains for the present or any future writer to clear up; the theory of the subject is complete: the only difficulty to be overcome is that of so stating it as to solve by anticipation the chief perplexities which occur in applying it.’ (J.S. Mill, Principles, 1848: Book III, Ch. 1).

“Thus putting a stone on the matter, and burying supply-and-demand theory for another quarter-century.  When Jevons’s later grumbled at the ‘noxious influence of authority’ preventing the development of economics, there is little doubt he was referring to J.S. Mill.”

That is all we think we know about the classical theory of value and it could not be more completely wrong. Mill did not restate “Classical Ricardian theory”. He explicitly discussed supply and demand. If you go to Mill, the first two of the seventeen elements in his theory of value are firstly, that the issue is not price as such, but relative prices, and then secondly, that the “temporary or market value” of something can be determined by supply and demand. There is no labour theory of value to be found anywhere. This is what Mill wrote:

“I. Value is a relative term. The value of a thing means the quantity of some other thing, or of things in general, which it exchanges for. The values of all things can never, therefore, rise or fall simultaneously. There is no such thing as a general rise or a general fall of values. Every rise of value supposes a fall, and every fall a rise.

II. The temporary or Market Value of a thing, depends on the demand and supply; rising as the demand rises, and falling as the supply rises. The demand, however, varies with the value, being generally greater when the thing is cheap than when it is dear; and the value always adjusts itself in such a manner, that the demand is equal to the supply.

The shallow reasoning and lack of depth in a modern textbook is a scandal, but is kept from most of us because no one knows what the economic theory of the past actually consisted of. If Spencer Banzhaf intends to be stating that “rival theories of value from Quesnay to Jevons” will need to be examined, then that is absolutely the case. What astonishes me is that both macro (which has replaced the classical theory of the cycle) and micro were much more profound among the later classical economists than amongst the majority of the economics profession today. We have more diagrams, they had a deeper understanding.

And this from “The Physiocrats and Say’s Law of Markets. I” by Joseph J. Spengler.

The physiocrats always expressed their theory of circular flow in interclass, rather than in interindividual, terms. Notwithstanding, their theory of circular flow forced upon them several conclusions of importance. They looked upon money as an instrument whose essential function it is to facilitate the circulation of goods and services, to serve as a medium of exchange. In consequence, they recognized that commerce consists, not in buying and selling, but in the exchange of goods and services for goods and services. They thus laid the groundwork for the formulation of Say’s law of markets and evoked its actual statement by their treatment of consumption and expenditure. They recognized, too, that if money ceases to perform its function, the nexus between potential purchasers and potential sellers is broken, thus anticipating Keynes; but they did not develop this theory, for they supposed that in a healthy economy founded upon their principles money would always perform its proper function.

Lucky country no more

This sort of thing is always news to politicians, most of the community and to almost all economists: The Economy Doesn’t Need Government ‘Help’ To Reopen.

Governments don’t create economies. It’s not only beyond their legitimate functions, it’s beyond their abilities. They need to stay out of the way and let the wisdom of markets steer us back to normal.

“The wisdom of markets!” Do you think Dangerous Dan Andrews would have any idea what that means? There are many others I would ask that same question of but will leave it there. Because this is the reality that comes in the very next sentence after.

But some officials see an opening through which they can drive their big government dreams.

These people are incompetent to direct an economy. Or let me put it this way. THESE PEOPLE ARE INCOMPETENT TO DIRECT AN ECONOMY. This is Daniel Andrews bio from Wikipedia.

Andrews was born in Williamstown, a suburb of Melbourne, to Bob Andrews (1950–2016) and Jan (born 1944). In 1983 his family moved to Wangaratta, where he was educated at the Marist Brothers‘ Galen Catholic College.[1] Andrews moved back to Melbourne in 1990 to attend Monash University, where he was a resident of Mannix College and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in politics and classics in 1996. After graduating, Andrews became an electorate officer for federal Labor MP Alan Griffin. He worked at the party’s head office from 1999 to 2002, initially as an organiser, and then as assistant state secretary.

Following his election to parliament in the Legislative Assembly seat of Mulgrave at the 2002 election, Andrews was appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Health in the Steve Bracks Labor government. Following the 2006 election, Andrews was appointed to the Cabinet, becoming Minister for Gaming, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs. In 2007, Andrews became Minister for Health in the John Brumby Labor government….

Brumby resigned as leader of the Victorian Labor Party following the Labor defeat at the 2010 election, after 11 years of Labor governments. On 3 December 2010, Andrews was elected Victorian Labor Party leader, becoming Leader of the Opposition in Victoria.

At the [2014] election, Labor gained seven seats for a total of 47, a majority of two.

And thus Daniel Andrews, economic cypher but socialist extrordinare became premier. And now he not only guides Victoria right towards the rocks, but he is signalling the way for the Feds to do the same. Shall I mention Scott Morrison and his career. Why not?

Morrison was born in Sydney and studied economic geography at the University of New South Wales. He worked as director of the New Zealand Office of Tourism and Sport from 1998 to 2000 and was managing director of Tourism Australia from 2004 to 2006. Morrison was also state director of the New South Wales Liberal Party from 2000 to 2004. He was later elected to the House of Representatives at the 2007 election, representing the Division of Cook in New South Wales.

Etc etc. And just how on top of things is our PM? The news just in: Scott Morrison to push for WHO to be given ‘weapons inspector powers’.

Australia will push for the World Health Organisation to be given the powers of an international “weapons inspector” that would be mandated to enter a country without invitation to trace the source of outbreaks in any future pandemics.

It is believed that Scott Morrison raised the idea with world leaders over the past several days while seeking a consensus for reform of the organisation be given priority and should not wait for any review or investigation into COVID-19 pandemic which could take as long as five years.

It is believed that Scott Morrison raised the idea with world leaders over the past several days while seeking a consensus for reform of the organisation be given priority and should not wait for any review or investigation into COVID-19 pandemic which could take as long as five years.

Let me add that after all this disruption, the most useful way to get us back to something like how things only so recently were is not to disrupt markets any further but just let conditions work themselves out on their own. Gently, gently. Thus we have the Head of the RBA coming up with this:

Handing down a detailed assessment of the damage being wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr Lowe warned that the nation could not rely on a quick return to a pre-coronavirus economy and suggested long-ignored calls for income, consumption and land tax reform, as well as stripping regulations that stifle innovation, would need to be revived.

Does no one in charge know how to run an economy any more?