The long march through the institutions stops here

This is from Pete Buttigieg isn’t going to win. The question for me is, why do I not already know this? And the answer is, no one on the left – ie the media – wants me to know.

Mayor Peter is the openly gay son of the editor and translator of Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks. Gramsci’s important contribution to the literature of totalitarian tyranny was his idea that Communist dictatorship could only come to free countries by means of a ‘long march through the institutions’, cultural as well as political. The left has pretty well accomplished this with respect to the universities and the elite cultural institutions of the media and the so-called ‘arts community’. Mayor Pete wants to finish the job through such expedients as packing the Supreme Court with six more seats, abolishing the electoral college (it’s ‘undemocratic’, he says), disarming the populace (a precaution tyrants always take), providing a ‘glide path‘ for the government takeover of healthcare, opening up the borders, and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for college, even for illegal immigrants, whom he also wants to offer amnesty. It’s a start, Comrade.

How does he even get elected as mayor? How dangerously uninformed the American electorate has become.

All forms of Keynesian theory are nonsense but the Milton Keynesians may be the worst

So earnest, so learned, so stupid. A different kind of Keynesian. That she tries to make the point that living standards have not risen for we normal citizens since incomes have not risen along with rising productivity represents a kind of obliviousness that is truly remarkable. But her views are the views of many. The photo is taken from Powerline where the comments thread is a real treat. The video is from here.

But whatever you might say about her knowledge and depth, she has been an active force in shifting American politics to the screwball left.

I’ve even been to Milton Keynes to a conference. How she would have even heard the name and registered it is as strange as her willingness to pontificate on just about anything.

Is Romney angling for the Democrat nomination for President?

As we can see the President has their number, the Democrats have nothing and every one of them running for president is an almost certain bust. But Romney. Despicable scum that he might well be, will attract some from the conservative side although absolutely on the left in every way that counts. He almost knocked off Obama in 2012 until he decided to scuttle his own ship.

No idea if it is technically possible, but if it is, this is no doubt on his mind.

AND NOW THIS: From Instapundit.

SEE ALSO: KENNEDY, TED. Media suddenly fall in love with Romney now that his politics align with theirs.

Romney’s vilification by the press in 2012 was a key mile marker on the road to Trump. And as with the late John McCain, his Stockholm Syndrome-levels of seeking the proverbial “strange new respect” from those who clearly hate him is painful to watch.

40.01% odds that Trump will lose

Saw this the other day and it reminded me how chancy everything is: 2020 odds jump for Trump, 59.99% chance for reelection, 16.7% for Sanders. I realise how infra dig it is to have a president tweeting, or demonstrating that socialism doesn’t work, or creating more peaceful outcomes across the world than we have seen in decades, but you can’t please everyone.

The media and the university-educated are the most bizarre in their opposition to Trump, showing I am not sure I even know what. And what about this?

JOBS SOAR
WAGES ACCELERATE!

We had the best economy in the world and elected Rudd. You just never know what’s in people’s heads. As in:

Yet there are many soft spots in the economy that Democrats can work with, Furman said. For example, a Congressional Budget Office report in December concluded that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts disproportionately benefited wealthy Americans. The CBO, a nonpartisan institution, forecasts that the richest 1% of Americans will enjoy roughly triple the gains in after-tax income compared with the bottom fifth.

Nor has the economy’s growth reversed long-running wealth disparities. Federal Reserve data shows the top 1% owned more than 32% of the nation’s housing and financial wealth, up slightly from when Trump was inaugurated.

Nothing like envy to ruin everything. If you don’t pay tax already you cannot have a tax cut, but so what?

Paul Krugman and the strawman economy

Got sent the following from Quora yesterday: Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate economist, NYT op-ed columnist, & author, answered 44 questions. Here are a few, but let me tell you how all of his answers work.

First, he is a Keynesian so believes that government spending inevitably creates jobs.

Second, he invariably uses strawman alternatives as the supposed alternative position. His answer on laissez-faire is so absurd since there is literally no economist anywhere who believes there is no role for government. All of the debate is over what can governments do, which regulations will be effective and how much should be left to the market.

Third, as with his answer on climate change, he immediately shifts the terms of the debate into environmental protection in general. Climate change is a complete con, that uses environmental protection as a cover. No one, but no one, is against protecting the environment as a general proposition, but there is lots of discussion whether we should dismantle our economy to deal with what is to me the phantom problem of global warming.

It is all a con, but he has made quite a career from it.

Is capitalism failing all over the world and what are the economic solutions to the current woes such as rising income inequality, opportunities for all and big players dominance in businesses?

I don’t think “capitalism” is failing. Unregulated laissez-faire leads to extreme inequality and environmental damage. But regulated markets with a strong social safety net…

(more)

What is, in your opinion, the best solution to climate change without destroying the economy?

This “destroying the economy” thing is disinformation. Interest groups always claim that environmental protection will do terrible things, and they’re always wrong.

Econ 101…

(more)

I don’t think we’re going to get away from relying on markets to provide a lot of what we need. But there are some things that government does better than the private secto…

(more)

What is the best alternative to capitalism? Please describe it.

I don’t think we’re going to get away from relying on markets to provide a lot of what we need. But there are some things that government does better than the private secto…

(more)

And then there’s this today from Instapundit.

PAUL KRUGMAN ON ELECTION NIGHT 2016: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”

Today: Dow hits record, joining S&P 500, Nasdaq.

Related: Over Three Years After His Doomsday Prediction, Paul Krugman Makes Reluctant Admission About the Trump Economy.

.
This is from that last article.

Will finish with this, which I agree with as well.

In the year of the rat we have Mitt Romney as Exhibit A

Between Romney and McCain, conservatives never had a candidate on their side during the two elections against Obama. Not even sure they had an actual Republican. This is Romney defending the indefensible.

And why say that?

If Romney cannot even see that routine arm twisting is part of the way governments work – and that is not even what we saw here anyway – he really is too high minded for politics. I’m sure Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden will provide a higher ethical standard for us to admire.

More here.

Clueless Keynesian RBA boss leaves ministers frustrated

From the Oz: RBA boss Philip Lowe leaves ministers frustrated.

The Morrison government is ­increasingly frustrated with ­Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe’s calls for it to spend more to lift the ­nation’s flagging productivity, after a confidential cabinet briefing from the RBA boss on Monday left ministers exasperated by an absence of detailed policy ideas.

Dr Lowe in a speech on ­Wednesday again exhorted the ­Coalition to do more to foster business spending as he highlighted a “troubling decline in productivity growth”, despite “fantastic” economic fundamentals. “While the reasons for this are complex, it is hard to escape the conclusion that higher levels of investment spending would promote productivity growth and our collective living standards,” he said.

Look Phil, have you not been paying attention to the last lost decade of public sector spending and how it’s left the economy adrift, and not just ours?

Hop on one of those streetcars down George Street to see just how wildly wasteful public spending is. Come along to Melbourne and look at the new tunnel we’re building.

Why don’t we build some more windmills? Solar panels?

Maddening to see how shallow public sector economists are. They will be the ruin of us.

State of the Union 2020 + the Pelosi tantrum

There is not a line in the speech that is not worthy of the applause it received. Watching Pelosi during the speech, however, is watching a woman under extreme distress. The speech is for the adults while the follow-up was for the children.

This is her explanation.

Why aren’t the Democrats deeply embarrassed? No loyal opposition when the socialists are not in power.

Productivity growth and classical economics

Trade-off

I wasn’t going to bother with the story because its title was so ridiculius – Britain’s Productivity Decline Is the Worst in 250 Years – as if you could measure productivity going back even sixty years. But what they show in the chart is true enough, and about which I have been writing quite a bit. The Keynesian “stimulus” has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried, with the example here the UK. To compound their idiocies, this is what they wrote:

Productivity was almost 20% below its pre-2008 path in 2018 — the worst slowdown since 1760-1800, as the Industrial Revolution took hold. The present-day malaise may have been caused by the end of the information and communications technology boom, the financial crisis, and Brexit.

And the authors are, of course, part of the mainstream and at its very heights:

It’s a “shockingly bad” performance, said Nicholas Crafts, who co-authored the paper with Terence Mills, researchers at the University of Sussex and Loughborough University. The findings will published by the National Institute Economic Review on Feb. 6.

Productivity is here measured as output per hour worked. If the government diverts production from the private sector to its own public agenda, you inevitably get a vastly diminished level of value-adding production, even though employment continues to increase because the real wage adjusts. Why people cannot see this is amazing to me, but here is yet more evidence of just how out of it economists now are. That the period in question is the period following the GFC ought to have been a clue, but Keynesians – i.e. modern macroeconomists – are notoriously clueless.

Let me again mention the cover description for my next book:

‘Classical Economic Theory and the Modern Economy’

Steven Kates

Economic theory reached its highest level of analytical power and depth in the middle of the nineteenth century among John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. This book explains classical economics when it was at its height, followed by an analysis of what took place as a result of the ensuing Marginal and Keynesian Revolutions that have left economists less able to understand how economies operate.

Chapters explore the false mythology that has obscured the arguments of classical economists, clouding to the point of near invisibility the theories they had developed. Kates offers a thorough understanding of the operation of an economy within a classical framework, providing a new perspective for viewing modern economic theory from the outside. This provocative book not only explains the meaning of Say’s Law in an accessible way, but also the origins of the Keynesian revolution and Keynes’s pathway in writing The General Theory. It provides a new look at the classical theory of value at its height that was not based, as so many now wrongly believe, on the labour theory of value.

A crucial read for economic policy-makers seeking to understand the operation of a market economy, this book should also be of keen interest to economists generally as well as scholars in the history of economic thought.

My book is premised on the belief that a modern economist is incapable of understanding what’s wrong with modern economic policy. This paper proves it all once again.