Author Archives: lawofmarkets

The Queen may be the only one in England who really likes Donald Trump

Posted on by
Reply

Image result for queen trump

In contrast, let us say, with Theresa May: Donald Trump to get parting shot from Theresa May during London visit.

US President Donald Trump and Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May. Picture: Getty

Here’s some text.

Theresa May will give Donald Trump a copy of Winston Churchill’s blueprint for the United Nations in a parting shot at his America First approach to international and trade relations.

The prime minister today will hand the US president a framed copy of the wartime leader’s Atlantic Charter agreed with Franklin D Roosevelt in August 1941.

The eight-point agreement on Allied war aims and vision of a post-war world became the basis of multilateral institutions including the UN and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The document, with Churchill’s handwritten amendments, is an explicit reminder that many of the institutions opposed by President Trump were conceived by the US and UK.

President Trump has repeatedly criticised multilateral bodies including the UN and his willingness to use tariffs to further US economic aims runs directly counter to one of the key tenets of the Atlantic Charter.

Mrs May’s choice of gift may lack subtlety but is consistent — she has been trying to give him the same lesson since he took office.

At least on this one matter, she can agree with the leader of the Labour Party: Jeremy Corbyn to lead massive protest against Trump in London

Do you think things might have changed just a tad since 1941? I imagine that Churchill and Trump would have gotten on extremely well. I cannot think of anything of importance they would have disagreed about.

And from P in the comments:

These are truly people who like each other.

Remember, remember the fourth of June

Posted on by
Reply

Chinese navy personnel stand guard aboard one of the warships docked at Garden Island in Sydney yesterday. Picture: AAP

OK, so it doesn’t rhyme, but we should remember the date all the same. Here’s the story from today, fourth of June even: Storm over surprise warship visit.

Defence experts said it was ­important there was transparency about engagement with China, ­arguing the decision not to form­ally announce the arrival of the biggest Chinese naval taskforce to Australia in years was “a bad look”.

It is a bad look, a very bad look. And here’s the context which, long though it may be, you should read from start to end if you want to understand the Great Game of the era in which you live: Much More Than a Trade War with China. Here’s a bit.

Chinese actions today mirror those dating back 4,000 years, when the Shang Dynasty—China’s first major dynasty—rose to prominence thanks to totalitarianism and imperialism. By assessing these basic patterns over the course of thousands of years, then, one can see how China has identified the United States as a major threat to be toppled. And, it is also why the United States cannot compromise with China in the ongoing trade war—no matter what Beijing offers. For, if the Trump Administration makes a deal, the Chinese will continue their aggressive assault on the American economy—moving from the manufacturing sector to the higher-paying innovation sectors (they already are).

Unlike the United States, China desires to not merely exist as a preeminent power in an anarchic international system. Instead, they view the United States as the hegemonic global power. Such a global power threatens Chinese state security and, as such, China’s leadership cadre believes that they will only be safe if the American hegemon is dismantled and eventually replaced by themselves.

No more surprise visits! We are part of the free, democratic West and want to stay that way.

Toronto life

Posted on by
Reply

https://twitter.com/aslater00/status/1135353570851794949

I suppose something like it could happen in Melbourne. And then there’s this: A Call to Slaughter Jews at Toronto’s Al Quds Day March.

If you don’t understand the reference, go to the link. And it just so happens that something like it did just happen in Melbourne: WATCH: Melbourne Al Quds Rally Participant: “Hamas Should Be Here”.

So while reading about that, I was also reading this: Spinoza and Friends about seeing the world as God might Himself. And then most unexpectedly, right in the middle came this.

I have followed Israel’s situation for nearly two decades now. I see what the Palestinians are up to and I see what the Israelis are up to and I conclude that peace will only come about when Israel extends sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza and kicks out the Palestinians who refuse to recognize the Jewish state. Which means most of them. People call me right-wing. Most of my friends call me right-wing or worse. I barely talk to them now. I do not understand how they can believe in a two-state solution when the Palestinians, in word and by deed, proclaim their desire to liquidate the Jewish state and murder its people. Has not one Holocaust been enough? I understand people’s predilection for peace. It is an expectation normal to a democratic society. But the Arab Muslim world is not a democratic society and is not going to become one anytime soon. Why observe their world through western eyes? Do not excuse what they say or do by claiming it is a response to western arrogance, colonialism, or any of the other sins which so many have so wrongly laid at the doorstep of the West. As if peoples and countries have not been conquering and plundering each other since time immemorial! My friends would do better to read the Bible, but they don’t do that anymore either.

If you want peace, prepare for war, and if war comes, kill your enemies. Is that really the message? Whether it is or not, it is the message our enemies have in store for us, but one we cannot use ourselves.

AND THERE IS ALSO THIS: Toronto Muslim: Executing gays may sound “unfair,” but that’s sharia law and “it’s coming to Canada”.

Art Laffer receives Presidential Medal of Freedom

Posted on by
1

Both of the following links were found at Powerline: Trump Gives World’s Worst Economist the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Trump is giving Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Economists aren’t smiling.

These sour economic vandals. It’s not even that they are incapable of understanding what he says, but they are even unwilling to listen. The belief that economies are driven from the demand side is so inane that I find it hard to see how anyone with any sense can take it seriously. Everything about how an economy is driven forward and jobs created is dependent on individuals making decisions to do things, then working out what needs to be done and then doing it. No economy in history has ever slowed because there was an unwillingness to buy things. The idea is so stupid it is hard to imagine how it could ever happen in the world as we know it.

The core issue is Say’s Law. If you don’t understand Say’s Law, let me impress on you that you are incapable of understanding how an economy works. If you are interested, however, you can find out from my Free Market Economics, Third Edition, An Introduction for the General Reader. This is what Art Laffer himself wrote about the book, which you can find on the back cover of the text:

‘This book presents the very embodiment of supply-side economics. At its very core is the entrepreneur trying to work out what to do in a world of deep uncertainty in which the future cannot be known. Crucially, the book is entirely un-Keynesian, restoring Say’s Law to the centre of economic theory, with its focus on value-adding production as the source of demand. If you would like to understand how an economy actually works, this is one of the few places I know of where you can find out.’

The American economy is the only economy that has fully recovered from the effects of the stimulus which followed the GFC. It is also the only economy in the world that is managed largely by the supply-side principles, which is why PDT is giving Art Laffer this award.

Socialism may not be the answer but do socialists know that?

Posted on by
Reply

The reality is that you have to be kidding yourself if you think your standard issue modern leftist knows that. The video is taken from here. Watch it for yourself. If you understand why socialism is not the answer, then it is hard to fathom that people in bulk numbers can really be this insane, but they are.

So let me continue with this. I have been sent an article from a friend in New Zealand – Why Call it “Socialism”? – which opens in the following way.

I’ve been coming around to the belief that most modern arguments over “socialism” are a waste of time, because the content of the term has become so nebulous. When you drill down a bit, a lot of “socialists” are really just saying that they would like to have government play a more active role in providing various benefits to workers and the poor, along with additional environmental protection.

Socialism is thus, as he sees it, nothing more than an unfocused desire for better social welfare and a more egalitarian society. Well, maybe, but pay attention to the video. It is beyond ignorance and beyond stupidity. We are truly looking at a cult of some kind, but it is a cult that encompasses near half of the population. This was my reply to my friend.

Thank you for that. Very interesting, and yet, and yet…. Socialism is a personal belief system that has no specific definition. Everyone makes up their own version so whenever some actually existing socialist economy is set up and then inevitably fails, everyone else can say that what they did was not what they had meant by socialism, that what was done was not what they had had in mind.

No one any longer describes what they believe in as “socialism” but I know it when I see it. It is ever and always a means to supplant the market through some kind of government direction in which individuals are not made responsible for their own personal welfare. Instead, governments manage and direct major economic entities; there are huge burdens placed on enterprises, through the taxes that are levied, the wages and benefits they are made to provide, and the regulations that they are made to follow; and there are huge amounts of public expenditures, almost inevitably more costly than the economic benefits they provide, that shape the direction in which an economy is made to follow. There are then large efforts to equalise incomes between those who provide more value than they are paid and those who either do not work or who are allowed to receive incomes well above the value added they have personally created. There are other features too, but you get the picture. The incentive structure is completely warped so that economic returns are very badly correlated with economic contribution.

And with every turn of the electoral cycle, we move further in a socialist direction. Scott Morrison is hardly a free-market capitalist, but he is well ahead of anyone on the Labor side. Your own PM is a complete economic dunce who will do you in if she is given half a chance. Everyone wants to be Mr, Miss, Ms and Mrs Niceperson. I only wish they had some prior understanding of how economies work before they bought in on it.

There you are. Interesting article, but economists turn out to have no political or philosophical sense whatsoever.

I would be placated to some extent if everyone before they waded in on the need for more regulation and re-distribution first explicitly stated that of course, free market capitalism is the only way to manage an economy so these suggestions are only intended to slightly alter the way we go about things. But no one ever says that. Replacing capitalism with something else is the underlying aim, or so it seems to me. There are so many gadgets around, from computers to widescreen television, that everyone will be easily lulled into disaster as in Venezuela with no way out at the end. And none of it will be mentioned by our media who are more into an apathetic torpor than anyone in Orwell’s time could ever possibly have imagined.

Socialism is not the answer

Posted on by
Reply

But you have to be kidding yourself if you think your standard issue modern leftist knows that. I have been sent an article from a friend in New Zealand – Why Call it “Socialism”? – which opens in the following way.

I’ve been coming around to the belief that most modern arguments over “socialism” are a waste of time, because the content of the term has become so nebulous. When you drill down a bit, a lot of “socialists” are really just saying that they would like to have government play a more active role in providing various benefits to workers and the poor, along with additional environmental protection.

Socialism is thus a desire for better social welfare and a more egalitarian society. Well, maybe. This was my reply.

Thank you for that. Very interesting, and yet, and yet…. Socialism is a personal belief system that has no specific definition. Everyone makes up their own version so whenever some actually existing socialist economy is set up and then inevitably fails, everyone else can say that what they did was not what they had meant by socialism, that what was done was not what they had had in mind.

No one any longer describes what they believe in as “socialism” but I know it when I see it. It is ever and always a means to supplant the market through some kind of government direction in which individuals are not made responsible for their own personal welfare. Instead, governments manage and direct major economic entities; there are huge burdens placed on enterprises, through the taxes that are levied, the wages and benefits they are made to provide, and the regulations that they are made to follow; and there are huge amounts of public expenditures, almost inevitably more costly than the economic benefits they provide, that shape the direction in which an economy is made to follow. There are then large efforts to equalise incomes between those who provide more value than they are paid and those who either do not work or who are allowed to receive incomes well above the value added they have personally created. There are other features too, but you get the picture. The incentive structure is completely warped so that economic returns are very badly correlated with economic contribution.

And with every turn of the electoral cycle, we move further in a socialist direction. Scott Morrison is hardly a free-market capitalist, but he is well ahead of anyone on the Labor side. Your own PM is a complete economic dunce who will do you in if she is given half a chance. Everyone wants to be Mr, Miss, Ms and Mrs Niceperson. I only wish they had some prior understanding of how economies work before they bought in on it.

There you are. Interesting article, but economists turn out to have no political or philosophical sense whatsoever.

I would be placated to some extent if everyone before they waded in on the need for more regulation and re-distribution first explicitly stated that of course, free market capitalism is the only way to manage an economy so these suggestions are only intended to slightly alter the way we go about things. But no one ever says that. Replacing capitalism with something else is the underlying aim, or so it seems to me. There are so many gadgets around, from computers to widescreen television, that everyone will be easily lulled into disaster as in Venezuela with no way out at the end. And none of it will be mentioned by our media who are more into an apathetic torpor than anyone in Orwell’s time could ever possibly have imagined.

Me old china plate

Posted on by
Reply

Two stories, separate but thematically linked. The first about Chinese foreign policy starts with this.

Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon has warned that Australia will become “a tributary state” to China unless the Morrison government joins the US in forcefully challenging Chinese hegemony in the region.

And then this: from the Herald Sun.

Premier Daniel Andrews has made a big deal out of talking up the Australian content in Victoria’s huge $45 billion investment in infrastructure projects.

Local content should be a priority and, indeed, the government needs to keep construction unions inside the tent to contain costs and keep industrial peace.

Mr Andrews had pledged a minimum 92 per cent of Australian steel would be used in the $6.7 billion West Gate Tunnel project.

But as revealed Thursday by our state political editor Matt Johnston, contractors for the project have ordered a 33,000-tonne shipment of steel from the Chinese government-owned firm ZPMC.

There are serious questions about what agreements were touted by Mr Andrews to foreign investors during his trip to China last month. Mr Andrews, the only Premier to have signed on to China’s controversial Belt and Road Initiative, has previously said he would work to attract Chinese investment in Victoria’s infrastructure program.

No doubt imported Chinese steel would be a lot cheaper than Australian steel. But the decision may yet cost Mr Andrews much more in union fury and public faith.

The title, btw, is a bit of rhyming slang I learned when I first reached these shores those many years ago. Seems quite appropriate in the present context. And while I’m on it, if one is interested in free trade, this might be of interest: How does China cheat on trade? Let us count the ways.

China cheats by protecting its home market from American imports with high tariffs, tricky non-tariff barriers, and costly, constantly changing regulations.

China cheats by subsidizing the exports of government-owned “national champions” to crush its free market competitors and dominate global markets.

China cheats by preying on weak counties, locking up their natural resources with “debt traps” in an obvious effort to gain a global stranglehold on key resources like bauxite, copper, nickel, and rare earths. These monopolies are not only being used to fuel China’s industrial machine, but to punish those countries who would oppose its predatory policies.

China cheats by subsidizing manufacturing with cheap loans and cheap energy, and also by turning a blind eye to environment, health and safety standards. Because of its cheating, it already dominates industries ranging from ship production and refrigerators, to color TV sets, air conditioners, and computers.

Above all, China cheats by stealing key technologies and intellectual property from the United States and other countries. These activities range from cyberespionage and forced technology transfer down to massive open-source collection and plain-old physical theft.

Economics is and has always been a subset of politics. No economics text can ever tell you what ought to be done, only what the consequences of different decisions might turn out to be. And a modern text doesn’t even do that.

The aim is to replace capitalism with something else

Posted on by
Reply

I have been sent an article from a friend in New Zealand – Why Call it “Socialism”? – which opens in the following way.

I’ve been coming around to the belief that most modern arguments over “socialism” are a waste of time, because the content of the term has become so nebulous. When you drill down a bit, a lot of “socialists” are really just saying that they would like to have government play a more active role in providing various benefits to workers and the poor, along with additional environmental protection.

Socialism is thus a desire for better social welfare and a more egalitarian society. Well, maybe. This was my reply.

Thank you for that. Very interesting, and yet, and yet…. Socialism is a personal belief system that has no specific definition. Everyone makes up their own version so whenever some actually existing socialist economy is set up and then inevitably fails, everyone else can say that what they did was not what they had meant by socialism, that what was done was not what they had had in mind.

No one any longer describes what they believe in as “socialism” but I know it when I see it. It is ever and always a means to supplant the market through some kind of government direction in which individuals are not made responsible for their own personal welfare. Instead, governments manage and direct major economic entities; there are huge burdens placed on enterprises, through the taxes that are levied, the wages and benefits they are made to provide, and the regulations that they are made to follow; and there are huge amounts of public expenditures, almost inevitably more costly than the economic benefits they provide, that shape the direction in which an economy is made to follow. There are then large efforts to equalise incomes between those who provide more value than they are paid and those who either do not work or who are allowed to receive incomes well above the value added they have personally created. There are other features too, but you get the picture. The incentive structure is completely warped so that economic returns are very badly correlated with economic contribution.

And with every turn of the electoral cycle, we move further in a socialist direction. Scott Morrison is hardly a free-market capitalist, but he is well ahead of anyone on the Labor side. Your own PM is a complete economic dunce who will do you in if she is given half a chance. Everyone wants to be Mr, Miss, Ms and Mrs Niceperson. I only wish they had some prior understanding of how economies work before they bought in on it.

There you are. Interesting article, but economists turn out to have no political or philosophical sense whatsoever.

I would be placated to some extent if everyone before they waded in on the need for more regulation and re-distribution first explicitly stated that of course, free market capitalism is the only way to manage an economy so these suggestions are only intended to slightly alter the way we go about things. But no one ever says that. Replacing capitalism with something else is the underlying aim, or so it seems to me. There are so many gadgets around, from computers to widescreen television, that everyone will be easily lulled into disaster as in Venezuela with no way out at the end. And none of it will be mentioned by our media who are more into an apathetic torpor than anyone in Orwell’s time could ever possibly have imagined.

The numbers are scary

Posted on by
Reply

From the English Spectator, this is the title: Muslims aren’t Europe’s new Jews and this is the sub-title: “They’re Europe’s new anti-Semites”. By Daniella Greenbaum Davis.

An ADL study from 2015 highlighted some interesting data regarding anti-Semitism within German society, and in western Europe more broadly. Eleven classically anti-Semitic ideas were posed to respondents. For each of the 11 statements, Muslims living in Germany had a much higher rate of responding “probably true” than did the overall population when asked the same question. Asked whether Jews “have too much power in international finance markets,” 74 percent of German Muslims agreed, compared with 29 percent among the overall population. When asked whether Jews “are responsible for most of the world’s wars,” 33 percent of German Muslims agreed, compared with 9 percent among the overall population. When asked whether Jews “think they are better than other people,” 40 percent of German Muslims living in Germany agreed, as compared to 16 percent for the overall population. And so on and on and on.

Needless to say, the numbers are scary in both directions. It’s horrifyingly that 51 percent of Germans think that “Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.” It’s profoundly disappointing that in Germany, as in the US, charges of anti-Semitism have become a popular way to delegitimize political rivals. The right and the left fling accusations at each other, but both sides are more concerned with scoring ideological points than with the  safety of Jews who are suffering increased attacks both physically and online.

More at the link, all equally depressing but she ends with some useful advice.

Now is also the time for Jews, in Europe and in the US, to recognize where their friends-for-now, or at least their defenders, are on the political spectrum.

You cannot trust a party of the left with the management of an economy

Posted on by
Reply

From New Data Shows Absolute Economic Destruction During Obama Years. And these figures are not from some ratbag bunch of observers. This is where they are from:

The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis just released this single snapshot of economic performance over the Obama years.

And what do the figures show:

Federal debt went through the roof as we added more debt than all other previous periods combined.
We printed lots of money to paper over the monetary effects.
Health costs went way up when we were told they would drop. Obama care was a flop.
Labor force participation went down as unemployment increased and many just dropped out of the workplace altogether.
Inequality went up and up, as the rich got richer and the middle class shrank.
Median income dropped.
Home ownership also fell way down.
Overall, Americans were far worse off than before and we were told there was NO hope.
The country was losing to China and our children and grandchildren would not live as well as their parents and grandparents had.
Jobs would never return.

Venezuela is all that parties of the left know since they know nothing about allowing a market economy to work. Politically totalitarians and economically socialists. Yet they are the almost-governments everywhere and are only stopped because the damage they create causes a backlash before they can go much farther. But eventually they return and carry their projects a little further along.