Just in case you cannot tell, its a joke.
From Small Dead Animals where Robert writes:
Here’s an Internet meme I first learned of in a Free Speech group I belong to. I imagine it was created by a horde of Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) with an especially strong dose of Permanent Victim Syndrome (PVS). One wonders what percentage of Western society reads this chart and thinks it speaks some semblance of truth.
It’s exactly how they think.
People will always disagree over politics since we all have different values and different personal policy agendas. But those who are #NeverTrump and #AntiTrump have no values or agenda items worth even mention. They are nihilist lunatics none of whom has ever been able to make a case for why shouldn’t someone think Donald Trump become President. You don’t have to like everything he does to see that his election as President represents a coherent set of principles that can be supported by reasonable people, whether on foreign, domestic or economic policy. Not that any of them will listen to anyone else with an open mind, but there has always been a pro-Trump case which is getting more obvious by the day. This is Conrad Black on Trump’s Whirlwind Year which should be read from end to end. Here’s a bit just for fun.
This last year, after the year of his nomination and election, has been the second round of Donald Trump’s war to crush and expel the American political establishment. This year he has won over the congressional Republican party, which had almost entirely opposed him, to toil in the enactment of his program. Together they have achieved the greatest tax reform and reduction in over 30 years, largely emasculated Obamacare, put a rod on the backs of those states that elect incompetents like Jerry Brown and the Cuomos and lay the resulting state income taxes off on the whole country, repatriated trillions of dollars of corporate profit, exonerated over half the people from personal income taxes, reduced the return of 80 percent of taxpayers to a postcard, and produced conditions for 4 percent GDP growth next year. The Obama apologetics that a flatlined economy with a shrunken work force and a burgeoning multitude of Medicaid-sedated idleness was the new normal has been debunked; it is the abnormal recent past.
There are so many scandals associated with the Democrats and Barack Obama it is wearying to try to keep up. This is yet another, taken from Instapundit.
THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES AND YOU WON’T GO FAR WRONG: A deafening media silence on the Obama-Hezbollah scandal.
Politico published a jaw-dropping, meticulously sourced investigative piece this week detailing how the Obama administration had secretly undermined US law-enforcement agency efforts to shut down an international drug-trafficking ring run by the terror group Hezbollah. The effort was part of a wider push by the administration to placate Iran and ensure the signing of the nuclear deal.
Now swap out “Trump” for “Obama” and “Russia” for “Iran” and imagine the eruption these revelations would generate. Because, by any conceivable journalistic standard, this scandal should’ve triggered widespread coverage and been plastered on front pages across the country. By any historic standard, the scandal should elicit outrage regarding the corrosion of governing norms from pundits and editorial boards.
Yet, as it turns out, there’s an exceptionally good chance most of your neighbors and colleagues haven’t heard anything about it.
Days after the news broke, in fact, neither NBC News, ABC News nor CBS News — whose shows can boast a collective 20 million viewers — had been able to find the time to relay the story to its sizeable audiences. Other than Fox News, cable news largely ignored the revelations, as well.
Most major newspapers, which have been sanctimoniously patting themselves on the back for the past year, couldn’t shoehorn into their pages a story about potential collusion between the former president and a terror-supporting state.
Democracy dies in darkness.
It is almost as wearying to deal with all the leftists one knows and discusses politics with who have never heard of any of the stories we are all perfectly aware of. This is not that they discount them, but that they have never heard of almost any of them at all.
Having just crossed the road on a couple of occasions in the past week in front of Flinders Street station at Elizabeth it is odd to be thinking of these things and watching events unfold from Sydney where I am at the moment.
This is a new evil for which there is no justification. To say these people have a screw loose is accurate in its own way but there are different manifestations of insanity, with this a very modern version, at least here in the West.
The picture and story come from an overseas source just to get a different perspective: SUV Plows Into Christmas Shoppers in Melbourne, Australia; Over Dozen Injured, Driver and Passenger Arrested. As a latest update:
Australia police are awaiting a psyche evaluation before questioning the suspect, an Australian of Afghani descent with a history of mental issues and a minor criminal background.
No other underlying factors are mentioned so we will have to wait for further investigation to see if we can find a motive for this senseless act of evil and the deliberate infliction of harm.
From Drudge, with these as the sidebars:
One can support the Democrats and oppose Trump only if one believes in voting for a living and not the desire to live freely. It is not tax cuts as such that matter, but that the onus for growth is now being placed on the private sector. Over time, the proportion of the economy directed by government will recede along with the regulations that have slowed and in many places stopped productive activity.
The pressures it will place on others will be through the power of example rather than that the US will grow to anyone else’s detriment so others will be forced to match these policies or see their economies shrivel. Everyone will grow, but some more rapidly than others. This is how it’s done. No matter how much anyone else produces, whatever anyone else add themselves will make their own economy more prosperous.
That is, Keynesian economics is dead, at least for now.
I LOVE THIS PICTURE SO MUCH: A sailor meets his child for the first time following the guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf’s (CG 72) return to homeport.
From Instapundit
As anyone who has read my views over the years would know, Malcolm has never been my cup of tea, but when it came to the election last year, I was all in for the Libs. After the by-election yesterday, he will now lead the Libs into the next election and I am good with that. Surround even a very faulty Prime Minister with the right sort of party and things can work out. In politics, you pick the side you prefer and hope for the best. Perfection in everything is not to be expected. You are lucky to get a 51-49 for most of what is up for grabs, and often enough you are choosing 40-60 in preference to 30-70.
But this time I am coming back to a question I raised yesterday in an oblique sort of way. This is what I ask for an answer to. I know there are #NeverTrumpers and #AntiTrumpers out there but what exactly could they have expected to have occurred instead had Hillary or someone else been elected? To me it remains a mystery. What were they looking for and why is Donald Trump not at least about as good as one could have hoped for in an American president at the present time, with the political and media ebbs and flows being what they are?
ONE OF THE ANSWER FROM THE COMMENTS: This was from Peter which is how I look at things but not how everyone does.
“What were they looking for……….”
To be honest I am sure they do not know themselves. The Left has become seriously detached from reality. Reality is not a part of their design or to out it another way reality is not a part of their personal reality. They are into symbolism, rhetoric, political correctness, ideology and narratives. They wanted Hillary to be President for much the same reason they wanted Obama. He was a black man and that was enough. Therefore he could do no wrong even though clearly he was one of the worst Presidents ever and she is a woman and a symbol and therefore could do no wrong even if she turned out (as I am sure she would) to have been the most corrupt President ever.
Trump on the other hand was old, male and white. That is all they needed to know about him and was enough to condemn him in this time of insanity and hatred of western civilization. One small example. Hillary and Obama set the middle east on fire. Then they fiddled while it burned. Trump came to power, and in his first year in office was responsible for wiping out ISIS. The Left must hate that as nothing better personifies the failure of their ideologies and the hopelessness of Obama and Clinton.
My sentiments almost to the “t”. Truth to tell as far as I can work it out, for the left it’s tribal and all anti-this and anti-that. What they are for, other than fantasy, I am unable to tell. I cannot talk policy with such people since they never tell me the route to what they wish to achieve even when the can find the words to tell me what outcomes they seek. They just want things that are completely contrary to human nature as it has always been and ever will be.
From Drudge:
You don’t get all that much credit for an economic upturn since life is never perfect even if everyone has a job, specially if everyone has to work to earn a living. But it will create wealth since the tax cuts are also coming with spending restraint (of a kind) and the removal of regulations at a rate of 22 gone for every new one introduced.
I know there are #NeverTrumpers out there but what exactly they could have expected to have occurred instead that was better remains a mystery. And speaking of which, here is a rhetorical question that needs no answer: Why Does the Media Not Report That ISIS Was Defeated in Iraq and Its Capital City of Raqqa in Syria Has Been Captured by US-Allied Troops? As he says, I would imagine for much the same reason the media is silent on the economy.
Media relations circa 1990. Most people want to be in the media. Not wanting to be on television gives someone like DJT quite a bit of power relative to those who could not bear losing such exposure.
Once someone gets Say’s Law, the reality of what is going on in an economy becomes so obvious that it is impossible to go back to the pallid and utterly inadquate nonsense that passes for modern theory. The following is a letter I received the other day from someone I have been corresponding with for a while, and after that is my reply to him.
Hope you are well. Yes I read (and watched) all you have given me. [I even read (and bought) your conversation with Gregoire Canlorbe ‘Say’s Law, between Classical, Keynesian and Austrian Interpretations (2016)’ (from De Gruyter)].
I read your ‘200 years of Say’s Law (2003)’. Another thought provoking gem.
Back in the early 2000s I undertook 3 and a half years of bible college. I learnt the importance of hermeneutics and exegesis. Today, I am not surprised Economics scholars also struggle with proper interpretation of another author and can fall into eisegesis. The four scholars, arguing against Say’s Law, could only attack the many straw men (eg. ‘supply creates its own demand’, or Say’s economy is barter-only economy, or Say’s Equality, or change Savings’ definition) and reduce its meaning, or, read something of Say’s Law which wasn’t really there and added their own meaning (eisegesis). Misinterpreting is common, unfortunately, across disciplines as you well know. Let me illustrate my two theological favourites, however. If you can you find anywhere in the bible where it says “Money is the root of all evil” or “The truth will set you free” I will happily give you/anyone $15,000 cash and clean one’s house for a year! The point is: if we omit the few words before these popular phrases then the originator’s point is changed and COMPLETELY lost. Sound familiar?
In the tradition of Hayek’s name calling of some scholars to be ‘quasi-scientific’ (p 20) I thought I could respectively/humbly/comically generally refer to those ‘against’ Say’s Law as:
1. ‘One-side of the ledger Economists’: Aggregate Demand (and full employment) is their God, and ignoring the complexity of the supply side is welcome by their herd. Not sure why some Economists think they can ignore one side of a transaction when professional Accountants get fired for it.
2. ‘Unsustainable-loving Economists’: They are at peace to see government spending on unproductive consumption even if it alters the dynamics of the economy and reduces its viability to stand on its own feet.
3. ‘Second-rate Economists’: It is written “All things are [permissible], but not all things are beneficial” Amplified version. Maybe most complacently see policies in action and gravitate to think that must be the best option. Just because a policy is enacted doesn’t mean it is the most beneficial. Most don’t stand for a strong economic view- so they fall for any.
4. ‘Ignore the opportunity-cost-type of Economists’
5. ‘Short term-ism Economists’
6. ‘I missed school that day they taught ‘the cause-and-effect principle’ Economists’ (or ‘Symptom-is-a-cause Economists’)
7. ‘Blinker Economists’: They focus on only that scope of economic activity which supports their limited explanation.
8. ‘Soft-love loving Economists’… as opposed to hard-love=real love (but you get the idea).I asked my successful business owner brother-in-law how much he has in idle cash (hoard). He answered it was a lot less than 1% because “you try to put all your money to the best use in every way”. I’m sure if I asked my trader friends what makes them buy and sell a specific trade I am sure they would respond “there is always a reason” rather than Littleboy’s reference of Keynes’ “…people, typically investors, spontaneously change their mind…” (p 160). Ask any banker what they do with savings deposits and they definitely do not lay waste any dime above the ratio reserve law. And I remember asking a wealthy person once as to what keeps him going? The context was why he wants to keep making more and more money. I will never forget his response. “Choices! I can choose to work when I want, or not work when I want” was his reply. Not sure why Keen says capitalists build up money for the sake of it. There is always a reason and it eventually comes back to enriching their lifestyle in some way – whether buying larger home, braces on kids’ teeth, buy another business, securing their wealth/freedom more concretely etc. Lifestyle is the end- not money. Finally, I have been working in the financial sector for the last 4 years. Not sure why this sector is the leakage from the expenditure/circular flow model. We are all charging fees and employed and spending our incomes… maybe we can add ‘Different planet Economists’ to the above list.
Recently I threw a simple question at my demand-worshipping colleagues: “Name one thing you can spend money on that hasn’t been produced?”. They could only resort to the usual retorts: “you have weird economic ideas” preceded by “spending will always be the driver of the economy”.
I am now off to read your 3rd edition Free Market Economics. I only read about half of the 2nd edition nearly a year ago preparing for my anti-Keynesian essay. I have read a quarter of Smith’s Wealth of Nations, but, you are right, these can be difficult to read- I need a break.
All the best Steve and thanks for a wonderful discourse. I am still totally addicted to this issue. Chat soon.
Regards
This was my reply.
That is the most original and possibly insightful non-strictly-economic explanation of Say’s Law I have ever come across. Looking at Say’s Law within the framework of the theory of knowledge is something I do not think I have come across before and may never have been previously done. Also not having come across eisegesis before (and neither has my spell check apparently) I can only emphasise that it is a very useful conceptual distinction that really does help get to the heart of the issue. I, of course, share your frustrations in trying to make others even become aware of the problem. When you ask them to name a product they have bought that had not already been produced (which naturally implies a very lengthy structure of production that must go back a considerable distance in both time and space) the only reaction you are likely to get is that even if they don’t know the answer themselves, someone else does because how could it be possible that you have asked something so penetrating that the entire company of modern economists have no answer for. But they don’t have an answer other than to say that buying something will mean that a replacement item will have to be produced to put on the shelf so it will encourage more production. Except that this new order, if there is a new order, can only be filled if the producer had already made the decision to produce this additional replacement item long before you bought what you bought. But for them to go there would mean they had already seen the problem and understood that it is not demand that causes the supply, but that supply is created in anticipation of some future demand. So you will just have to keep teasing them just for your own satisfaction but do not be surprised if the scales fail to fall from their eyes anytime soon (I hope I have not mis-used the metaphor).
I also found your classification system astonishing and accurate. It is also funny but finding it so on the money, its ironical intent seems more serious than anything. The list truly does begin with the implied words, “Look stupid . . .” but where you go from there I do not know. Well actually, where you go is you write this up in some more polished form and try to get it published. There is no Journal of Irony and Economics but I would not want you to mess with the vision you have shown here or try to diminish your satirical intent. You should just expand what you have written and see what follows.
Anyway, we can discuss when you come to visit which you MUST do if you have the time. I will also pass on a copy of my Economics for Infants discussed here on my blog:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/12/02/the-book-no-child-should-be-without/
As I mention, it is the only children’s book that incorporates Say’s Law, which is indeed an actual feature of the text and the fantastic picture that comes with it.
I do look forward to catching up, but as a kind of cautionary note before we meet I will just say that we had a School retreat the other day where at the dinner we were asked to come as our favourite literary character and I came as the much maligned and mis-understood Edward Casaubon.
With kindest best wishes
Law of Markets 