Author Archives: lawofmarkets

Jordan Peterson discussed in The Australian

Posted on by
Reply

Jordan Peterson attacked in The Australian: Jordan Peterson regurgitates discredited male chauvinism of the 1970s. The article’s last para:

Waking up at 35, desperate to have a child, is not a good realisation, as Peterson says. That reasonable point prompted the young man hosting the video to chip in with a charmless insight — that the anxieties of mid-30s women keen to be mothers are known as “baby rabies’’ among “plenty of communities of young men … in the dating scene’’. There is no lack of work for psychologists. But young women are not the ones who most need help.

And now from the comments, working from the first of the Top Comments and then down.

Ken

This article is akin to Cathy Newman’s interview of Peterson.  It’s taking what Peterson says out of context or is straight-out inaccurate.  One of the refreshing things about Peterson is that he’s telling home truths, and bases many or most of his observations on decades of being a treating psychologist of both men and women.  What an irony that a female journalist chooses to block the concerns and experience of many women in this rant against him.

Neil

Young women entering law, he claims, will find it “very, very demanding, very, very difficult, very, very stressful and very, very competitive. And you’re not going to find the fulfilment of your desire for intimate, close interpersonal relationships’’. How patronising. Isn’t he just telling it like it is and asking of women in particular “is this what you want”?

“In exaggerating the problems that women can expect to face in demanding careers, Peterson casts doubt on their capabilities” He’s neither exaggerating nor casting doubts on capabilities, he is again asking “is this what you want”.

Jordan Petersen has kept his own practice as a clinical psychologist outside his University work and the points he makes are from experience with many women who have come to him in that private practice with problems created by the real-life trials and tribulations he now seeks to point out to those who will listen.

It’s disappointing, but not unexpected, for the article to refer, in a pejorative fashion that the advice of Dr Peterson appeals to “some conservatives” suggesting extreme right-wingers and thus to be ignored. He claims no political position and an interest only in the truth.

Sarah

@Neil I agree with Peterson – I’m a doctor working 60 hours a week – it is hard, very demanding and very stressful.  Having close interpersonal relationships is extremely difficult – luckily my husband is happy to work as a team to raise children and understood the impact my career would have on family life before he married me.

Thomas

 “By the time you’re 40, if you don’t have a family and children you are one lost soul.’’

That’s true, as a generalisation.  Obviously some women do not ever want to have kids and live happily without them, but the vast majority eventually realise children are what they want most of all.  It’s usually around 35 that it dawns on them they’ve wasted their best years sleeping around with worthless men and obsessing over meaningless work.

This doesn’t affect men as much because there is usually no shortage of younger women willing to date older men, and men remain fertile their whole life.  Women, on the other hand, struggle to find a decent partner once they hit 35 and inevitably have to significantly lower their standards.  The result is more miserable women, more broken families, more neglected children and more socialism to pay for it all..  Feminism is self-defeating and unfortunately it’s women who usually end up worse off.

You might say Peterson is patronising; I say he is realistic.

Greg

Why do people with a left jaundiced view find it so hard to actually listen to what Peterson actually said?

Gordon

He seems to get a lot of support from women in their 50s and over so you cant speak for them as a group. This is the type of emotive shallow analysis that drives people to Peterson. The contrast between Newman and Peterson was embarrassing and your contribution is almost as insipid as Newman’s was.

Denzil

One has always to be careful of an article like this…cherry picking without context is dangerous.  I have seen a lot of Petersons work and I have rarely heard him say anything that would upset a well grounded woman. That is why his interview with Cathy Newman was such a car crash (for her) She tried on the feminist rant only to be met with sensible well researched answers that she could not deal with.

Helio

I don’t find Jordan Peterson patronising. He is realistic and respectful – realistic about the differing natures of men and women and able to recognise, as most feminists do not, that difference does not mean unequal in value.

Helio’s wife

Kathleen

Sorry Tessa, but I can’t fault a single word that JP says in this video.

I know from personal experience that pursuing a career is hard work, often unsatisfying, always competitive…and it doesn’t come without many sacrifices.

Young women are fed a whole lot of aspirational and unrealistic claptrap, which is all well and good for some, but for others, it simply leads to regret and disappointment.

JP’s video dispels some of the myths that are fed to young women about what’s important in life.

More power to him.

cecily

I think the writer must have watched a different video to the one I saw? Either that or she has a problem listening and actually responding to what was said rather than responding to what she wanted him to say!

CRISP

Classic false arguments being used here.

“Straw man” : she misrepresents what he said so she can tear it down.

“Red herring”: he’s trying to tell girls not to work but to just marry and have kids.

“Argumentum ad hominen”: he is an old-fashioned chauvinist troglodyte so we should abuse him and not hear what he has to say.

He would demolish Tess in a debate.

Brian

Tess – this is not a fair analysis of what Peterson has actually said. It is a lazy and biased set of unsupported assumptions.

Etc

Do economists understand what’s happening to the American economy?

Posted on by
Reply

The answer is, of course, no, they don’t. A couple of examples from the very highest reaches of economic theory. First this from The Institute of International Monetary Research:

The accompanying video therefore looks at a different topic. In an article in the current issue of The Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Professor Paul Krugman claims that economic theory and analysis have worked well over the last decade. He is a champion of the well-known Keynesian prescription, that an increase in the structural (i.e., cyclically-adjusted) budget deficit boosts aggregate demand and makes above-trend growth (with falling unemployment) more likely. According to Krugman, cheered on by Keynes’ biographer, Lord Skidelsky, in the Project Syndicate blog, these textbook ideas were translated into policy in the USA and went far to check the Great Recession. Krugman and Skidelsky believe that, in this sense, economics worked.

That is, it worked in the sense that the ridiculously exaggerated forecasts of doom never eventuated. But the recovery never occurred either, a recovery that is occurring now based on principles absolutely and completely antithetical to the policies adopted by those who applied a Keynesian stimulus.

And while we’re at it, I might also mention this, Should We Reject the Natural Rate Hypothesis?, from the latest issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. This is the interim conclusion:

To summarize: I read the macroeconomic evidence as suggestive of persistent effects of monetary policy on the natural unemployment rate and potential output. But the evidence is not overwhelming. Moreover, looking just at recessions has its limits: It cannot answer whether there are symmetrical effects of booms and recessions, which is a crucial issue for the design of policy. In this context, a closer look at potential channels of persistence and more microeconomic evidence may help to assess potential nonlinearities or asymmetries between recessions and booms.

And this is the conclusion at the end:

Where does this leave us? . . . The general advice must be that central banks should keep the natural rate hypothesis as their baseline, but keep an open mind and put some weight on the alternatives. For example, given the evidence on labor force participation and on the stickiness of inflation expectations presented earlier, I believe that there is a strong case, although not an overwhelming case, to allow US output to exceed potential for some time, so as to reintegrate some of the workers who left the labor force during the last ten years.

That is, we should keep the theory intact but ignore the theory when it suits us because something else would be preferable. Indeed, if we are looking at the US economy and trying to explain its astonishing reversal over the past year, there is not a theory found in any modern text [except mine] that will help you understand what is going on or why it’s happening.

State of the union? Half of all Americans are anti-American

Posted on by
Reply

There is an enormous difference between the two sides of American politics at the moment, and the gap is so wide that for someone such as myself, it seems impossible that anyone could with honesty take the side of the Democrats. This is the Drudge wrap up:

 

And these are the sidebar links.

 

These are the White House Excerpts of PDT’s State of the Union address. The speech starts about 15 minutes in.

  • Together, we are building a SAFE, STRONG, and PROUD America.
  • We want every American to know the dignity of a hard day’s work; we want every child to be safe in their home at night, and we want every citizen to be proud of this land that we love.
  • Just as I promised the American People from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reform in American history.
  • Our massive tax cuts provide tremendous relief for the Middle Class and small businesses.
  • Since we passed tax cuts, roughly 3 million workers have already gotten tax cut bonuses – many of them thousands of dollars per worker.
  • This is our New American Moment. There has never been a better time to start living the American dream.
  • Tonight, I want to talk about what kind of future we are going to have, and what kind of nation we are going to be. All of us, together, as one team, one people, and one American family.
  • Americans love their country. And they deserve a government that shows them the same love and loyalty in return.
  • For the last year we have sought to restore the bonds of trust between our citizens and their government.
  • In our drive to make Washington accountable, we have eliminated more regulations in our first year than any administration in history.
  • We have ENDED the war on American Energy – and we have ENDED the War on CLEAN COAL. We are now an exporter of energy to the world.
  • America has also finally turned the page on decades of unfair trade deals that sacrificed our prosperity and shipped away our companies, our jobs and our nation’s wealth.
  • America is a nation of builders. We built the Empire State Building in just one year – isn’t it a disgrace that it can now take ten years just to get a permit approved for a simple road?
  • I am asking both parties to come together to give us the safe, fast, reliable, and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve.
  • Struggling communities, especially immigrant communities, will also be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American Workers and American Families.
  • So tonight I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our citizens, of every background, color, and creed.
  • As we rebuild America’s strength and confidence at home, we are also restoring our strength and standing abroad.
  • Last year I pledged that we would work with our allies to extinguish ISIS from the face of the earth. One year later, I’m proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated almost 100 percent of the territory once held by these killers in Iraq and Syria. But there is much more work to be done. We will continue our fight until ISIS is defeated.
  • Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation. I will not repeat the mistakes of the past Administrations that got us into this dangerous position.

Here is the full transcript.

Bringing harm to others is socialism’s primary goal

Posted on by
Reply

A comment on a thread at Powerline on Liberalism is just resentment and envy sanctified where the video showed up as well. After eight years of PDT, even if the astounding success of his first year as President continues for the following seven, you will hear exactly the same. That is what this post is about:

I recall a recent twitter conversation that I engaged in. Basically it was a discussion on the outcome of a social experiment where people were given a choice between two alternative income distribution models.

The first one, choice A, had the highest level of income capped at say 100,000, had a fairly tight distribution across the quartiles, with the lowest being something like 10.

The second one, choice B, allowed for a very small number of individuals to earn 1,000,000 followed by a much wider distribution of quartiles, with the lowest being something like 100.

People were asked to choose which distribution they preferred, and I think they chose option A over option B by more than 2 to 1. This was the case even though it was clear (and perhaps emphasized) that everyone in option B had more money, with the poorest having effectively 10 times the purchasing power over option A.

While that result is astounding in and of itself, the replies on the twitter thread were even more interesting because there were so many people who offered strained and painful rationalizations as to why choice A was better. One I recall insisted that choice B was worse because the purchasing power would be reduced back to A levels since the economy would just reset to the higher levels of wealth due to inflation or something.

My comment ultimately was that all the rationalizations were just thin cover, and that the real reason for the choice was plain old envy of the top. Now I’d have to go back and find the thread to be sure, but I seem to recall the gentleman who started the thread insisting that the authors of the experiment made it clear that the 100 to 10 ratio at the bottom levels really did imply B had 10 times the buying power of A, but that it clearly didn’t matter to the outcome.

I find this result to be a fascinating insight into the irrationality of human economic/moral intuition, and how jealousy and envy play such an outsized role in shaping it.

Socialism has never done anyone any good, other than the handful of leaders who eventually climb to the top of the pyramid. But the envy that drives it will never go away, which is why the socialist impulse will also never go away. For the rest of us, what is crucial to remember is that the motivation behind the rhetoric is in no sense benevolent, but as malevolent as the human heart can be.

“Donald Trump is delivering on economic leadership, that’s for sure”

Posted on by
Reply

It’s from Miranda Devine’s radio show but I picked it up at Breitbart: Aussie PM Applauds Trump Leadership, Says Economic Reforms Benefiting the World.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax cuts combined with reforms in corporate regulation are benefiting the global economy, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.

Mr. Turnbull pointed to the International Monetary Fund’s strong predictions of global economic growth in the wake of the Trump tax cuts as testament to his economic drive.

Speaking during a radio interview, Mr. Turnbull happily declared: “Donald Trump is delivering on economic leadership, that’s for sure” before outlining his own close personal relationship with the president.

“You’ve only got to look at the IMF to see they regard the American tax cuts as being very pro-growth,” he said. “And, of course, because the US is such a big part of the global economy, that has lifted global growth forecasts as well.

He then added something that must have included a bit of personal reflection as well.

“You get plenty of criticism in public life. You’ve got to expect it. I’m sure he expects it,” he said.

Well, at least Malcolm has now come over from the Dark Side or so he says. If only his policies were more like Trump’s it would be even better.

“I’m for everyone”

Posted on by
Reply

For someone who is supposedly inarticulate, he does have a way with words.

DONALD TRUMP: I Wouldn’t Say I’m A Feminist.

“No, I wouldn’t say I’m a feminist. I mean, I think that would be, maybe, going too far,” Trump said in the interview, according to Morgan. “I’m for women, I’m for men, I’m for everyone.”

“I’m for everyone.” A better slogan than “I’m with her.”

Says exactly what needed to be said in as few words as possible.

Via Instapundit

Dealing with anti-social-media monopolies

Posted on by
Reply

Back in August I wrote a post on It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say. Today the Wall Street Journal had an article on What About Social-Media Neutrality?: Facebook’s algorithms have outsize power, both culturally and economically. This is what I wrote then:

Two things should happen. First, these tech providers must be open to being sued for suspending and forcibly closing accounts unless the company can prove in court that what was being said could not be legally said in public. Second, these are now part of modern social infrastructure in the same way as banks and hospitals. They must be compelled by law to accept and maintain on an equal basis anyone who wishes to participate in their services. This is not something the market can or will fix. There can be only one Facebook. It only works if everyone can join. If the proprietors of Facebook don’t want to work within the new rules, then they can sell up to someone else who does.

This is what the the Wall Street Journal said today:

Regardless of whether net neutrality protections continue, regulation of social-media platforms could help even the online playing field and foster innovation, creativity and free speech while guarding against malicious manipulation of content. Without regulation, the internet’s most sprawling content marketplaces will continue to favor deep pockets and endanger free expression.

It’s a big issue and will only get bigger unless something is done.

This is classical economic theory

Posted on by
Reply

No one can really see it yet but classical economic theory is coming back. This post at Instapundit by Mark Tapscott is presented and discussed in exactly the way economics would have been discussed by the great classical economists between 1776 and 1936. The issue is not about demand. It is about the redeployment of actual physical resources – capital goods – from less productive and even non-productive uses into more productive and positively productive uses. You may think you have heard this said before, because you think that is how economic theory and policy should be discussed, but I keep an eye out for it and this is the first time I have come across anything discussed in that way.

I have posted this paper before – Making Sense of Classical Theory – which is a pre-print of a paper that will appear in the April 2018 edition of the Journal of the History of Economic Thought. If you are at all interested in understanding how pre-Keynesian economists thought about the structure of an economy and what made it grow and flourish, you should read that paper. It describes in theoretical terms how Mark Tapscott explains the sudden flourishing of the American economy. This is exactly how classical economists looked at things.

TRUMP’S FIRST-YEAR BOOM IS LARGELY DUE TO DEREGULATION BUT THINK ABOUT THIS: Merely cancelling an expensive federal regulation doesn’t immediately convert the compliance cost into a potentially productive new investment. The capital has to be reallocated and some time is required for the new investment to produce sufficient return to offset the former compliance costs. Huh?

In other words: “It takes time for the economy to recover the costs of excessive regulatory compliance and to redirect capital to productive uses, so the gains seen during Trump’s first year are likely attributable in significant part to the expectations generated by his slashing the red tape. The full impact of the deregulation is still to be felt.”

And remember, the Trump tax cuts aren’t in effect until February. Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates regulatory compliance cost the U.S. economy $1.9 trillion. Trump can’t repeal all federal regulations but what if his tax cuts and the continuing positive impact of deregulation in coming years produces an economic boom that far exceeds the Reagan era? Ponder that one a bit!

The value of tax cuts is in their ability to divert resource use away from consumer goods and governments into the hands of productive business who are then able to invest. Cuts to regulation play their role by reducing wasted efforts within business in complying with government directions and instead use the resources at their disposal to create value. It works like magic, because to a modern macroeconomist it is magic since they have no means of explaining what was once perfectly well understood by everyone.