Law of Markets

Dedicated to the economics and politics of the free market

Law of Markets

Category Archives: Philosophical and speculative

Funny business

Posted on by
Reply

Which funny enough was posted on the same day as this which is as humourless and dreary as anything you might find.: Thanks To Comedy, Nobody Has Laughed Since Trump Became President. Here’s a sample:

Ever since Donald Trump became president, I’ve tried to laugh, but it hasn’t worked. My go-to crack-up mechanisms—“Spaceballs,” the “Night Man” episode of “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia,” that video from The Chive of the guy jumping into the frozen swimming pool that they play in a loop at my gym—just don’t land. Nothing makes me smile anymore. It’s never funny in Philadelphia.

And also this, just now from Instapundit:

BUT OF COURSE: Comics, Reporters Rally to Protect Ocasio Cortez.

But there are still things to laugh at, but only for us:

I never get tired of it just like I never get tired of winning.

AND MORE COMEDY PEWTER: And this one with an Australian at the centre: The Not-So-Great Gadsby: How PC Rage Devoured Stand-Up Comedy.

Then along came Hannah Gadsby. Until the other day I had never heard of her. She is a Tasmanian lesbian, she seems to be about forty, and for the last decade or so she’s enjoyed a decent stand-up career in her homeland and at the occasional international comedy festival. But it’s fair to say that she was relatively unknown to non-Aussie audiences until a few weeks ago, when her special Nanette was put up on Netflix. Now she’s a superstar. Vox says that Nanette is “so meta and so thoughtful about the issues inherent to standup comedy as a genre that it seems to break through [the genre’s] boundaries.” The Australian calls it “the hour of stand-up that has taken the world by storm.”

You can now go to the link and judge for yourself.

Economics is a social science not physics

Posted on by
Reply

Economics as physics is the death of economics as a useful empirical science studying how we can best provision ourselves, but it does seem to have some self-preservation qualities as well. Steve Hayward has written on Universities: Euthanasia or Suicide in which he discusses how economics is turning itself into a STEM field rather than an area of the humanities. Nothing will leave economics with less penetration and use than to ship it off to the mathematical side of academic studies. Nothing is more likely to help us find a way to a Venezuelan future, as discussed in my post on Mill and the marginalists. There are numbers in economics, of course, and statistics, but to turn economic theory into highly rigorous models will ensure nothing found in an economics journal will ever provide a solution to an actual problem related to the world. Once economics dealt with problems and thought through to solutions, but economics-as-physics is the Death Star for the subject. In reaching his conclusions, Hayward discusses at the start a lecture he had previously given.

One of the points I made in that lecture is that universities would start to divide into practical subjects like business and economics and STEM sciences, and leave behind the humanities and social sciences:

I think we’re already seeing the beginnings of a de factodivorce of universities, in which the STEM fields and other “practical” disciplines essentially split off from the humanities and social sciences, not to mention the more politicized departments. One early sign—perhaps a canary in the university coal mine—can be seen in the recent announcement of the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point campus that it is shuttering 13 departments in the humanities and social sciences, and laying off tenured faculty, on account of declining enrollment and budget pressures, and reallocating funds to STEM subjects.   Another sign are the economics departments that have begun subdividing themselves into “general economics” and an even more-math centric “quantitative econometrics.” Several economics departments are formally reclassifying themselves as STEM departments (there are federal guidelines for this) for a variety of reasons, but among them has to be wishing to disassociate themselves further from other social sciences.

Lo and behold, more economics departments are deciding to become STEM subjects, supposedly for advantages STEM classification provides (especially in attracting and keeping talented foreign students), but I am sure it is in part to disassociate themselves from the rest of the politicized social science disciplines. If nothing else, economics is the one social science field where degree earners have good job prospects, and which doesn’t need propping up.

The Economist reports:

Economics departments appear to be catching on. Yale and Columbia have both changed the code for their economics major in the past few months; five of the eight Ivy League Universities have now done so. Students at Pennsylvania and Cornell are agitating for a switch.

And the American Institute for Economic Research gives five more reasons why economics is better suited as a STEM subject. If you read through these five reasons carefully, it’s what they don’t say that stands out loudly. See what is implied by this passage, for example:

The objective of STEM programs is to create professionally and socially qualified individuals to overcome 21st-century challenges. For that reason, these courses should make students learn how to apply the scientific method to everyday life and acquire useful skills for real-world applications. Economics promotes and develops both of them.

Due to the prevalence of mathematics and pragmatism in economics, positivism is the dominant research method in the field. Therefore, economists examine real-world problems and evaluate feasible solutions through economic positivism, a scientific method.

Further, this degree encourages students to acquire or improve on relevant skills for today’s life, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, entrepreneurship and innovation, resourcefulness and resilience, teamwork and collaboration, and a sense of civic responsibility.

Here are a few of the commenters who seem to get it:

Don’ t economics departments want to do this to attract more federal dollars for STEM? Not a good sign. About 30 or so years ago, UVA’s economics department kicked out Buchanan and Coase to go more in the econometrics route. (Paul Craig Roberts wrote about this.) The economics department at my undergraduate university came to be dominated by Marxists. In short, the revolution is corrupting econ departments too.

STEM disciplines are evidence-based. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that Marxism does not work. If an econ department has not ejected all of its Marxists, it should not be allowed to work this dodge.

If Econ is a STEM field, does that mean that Econ Profs can’t point to Venezuela as an example of the success of socialism? Unless they can prove it?

Economists almost killed off the history of economic thought and may still do it. For an account of this disastrous venture into suicide, see my Defending the History of Economic Thought. Marxists and socialists generally can do maths as well as anyone. But it is a rare temperament who can do economics, and understanding Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill not only does not require maths and stats, will actually prevent you from understanding anything they have to say.

 

Lunar eclipse tonight starting at 4:24 am, AEST

Posted on by
Reply

I meant to mention it sooner: Longest lunar eclipse of the 21st century to shine bright red in Australia’s early morning sky tonight.

You’ll need to set your alarm clock if you want to see this century’s longest lunar eclipse on Saturday morning.

If you can brave the early morning winter chill, you’ll be rewarded with a spectacular red moon that fades into the western horizon as dawn approaches.

Weather permitting, the eclipse will be visible right across Australia at the same time, starting around 4:24am AEST (and equivalent local times) on July 28.

The purity wing of the political right

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s how it is. The only president on our side of the fence is Donald Trump, just as the only Prime Minister on the Liberal side is Malcolm Turnbull. All present alternatives from other political parties are worse, much worse.

With Donald Trump, thus far he has not tried to do anything I disagree with. He gets it on open borders, public spending, climate change, the Middle East, China, our Nato allies, Brexit and just about everything else. I am not even in the slightest concerned with his personal style, and I love his twitter feed which is a wonderful addition to public discourse. The only reservation I have had was that he was concerned about rising interest rates, but this is a technical thing, and about which in my own view higher rates will stimulate growth since it will reduce the proportion of our savings going towards unproductive projects. On this I am not going to make a fuss, and about everything else I am with him 100%. On tariffs, I am generally in favour of free trade, but only among nations in which cheating on their obligations is not the rule but the exception. I am also pleased to see trade issues being used to achieve foreign policy outcomes, such as the pressure being put on North Korea and its allies to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

About Malcolm I have had my doubts in the past but he is the PM and he leads a party who are generally speaking on my side of things, far more than the people anywhere else. I wish him success, and in that I wish even more success to those members of the party holding their cattle prods to induce the PM to do the right thing. His instincts are generally terrible, but he seems pretty sound on stopping the boats, and seems to be getting the message about population growth. He even seems to be seeing the light about coal-driven power stations. I want him to win the next election, and my preference is not marginal but overwhelming. Lots of things I don’t like about Lib-Nat policies at the moment, but while selling the pass in some areas they are still well in front so far as my own agendas are concerned. I just wish they would become more of a entrepreneurial party – cut down their own spending and reduce business regs much much more than they have, but you can’t always get everything you want.

At Freedomfest I met up with many many people with whom I could agree on things almost totally across the board, a very rare experience but an immense pleasure. But the minute I walked out of the conference venue, there I was in the middle of Las Vegas among people for whom none of that would be true. Not that they wouldn’t necessarily agree with me if they thought about things. But that they never think about these things so don’t agree with my views mostly because CNN got to them first and with better production values.

I am not and never have been a member of the purity wing of the right side of the political divide. I worked in policy far too long to even begin to hope to see things done as I would wish most of the time. Democrats and socialists are a lost cause, same again with the #NeverTrump wing of the so-called right. They are political fools and a danger to us all. On our side there are many points of view, even people who think climate change is a genuine issue that needs urgent attention.

But I do have to say that if you do not see the virtues in the miraculous election of Donald Trump as president, you are a political fool of the highest order. Your opinions are dead to me since as far as I am concerned, you are as big a political dimwit as I can possibly imagine.

The Non-Feminist Declaration

Posted on by
2

Sent to me to sign.

We are living in interesting times. Feminist entrenchment in many sectors is yielding toxic fruit – with the “equal pay” vanguard securing equal salaries for women responsible for less work than men in similar positions, increasing censorship and attacks on personal freedoms (of women as well as men), and the #MeToo/anti-harassment movements claiming innocent scalps and even lives. However, awareness of and opposition to Feminism is undoubtedly growing and, with some nurturing, this diverse non-feminist sector could well become an operable political force.

I have worked with a team on constructing ‘The Non-Feminist Declaration’ (included at the bottom of this email) which we hope can unite our disparate sector around a shared goal and assist in the public awareness and opposition raising process.

Our intention is to send it to The Times, as a letter, on Monday 9th July with a number of signatories. If you would like to be included on our list of signatories, please respond to this email with your name (as you would like it displayed), main country of residence and job title (or other descriptor) by Friday 6th July. We are setting up a website as part of this process with a section for ‘Supporting Statements’ which you are also welcome to contribute to, at any point. Please feel free to forward this email to anybody else you think may want to sign the document.

Warm regards,
Elizabeth Hobson

The Non-Feminist Declaration

Feminists attack liberty, justice, equality and meritocracy. They attack men, women, and children, and relations between the sexes.

All feminist narratives have been shown to be demonstrably one or more of the following – baseless conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions or myths.

In many countries, virtually all institutions have been deeply corrupted by feminists, and by people in positions of power bowing to feminist influence. These include governments, public sectors, media, family courts, education systems, academia, police forces, criminal justice systems, health services, military forces, and business sectors.

Feminists have been responsible for, or have exacerbated, many of the problems facing humanity today. They include disparities in the treatment, opportunities, choices, respect, protections and rights afforded to citizens.

Non-feminist men and women constitute a sizeable majority of the global population. Feminist hegemony therefore has no legitimacy, operating without the consent of the majority of citizens, many of whom suffer egregiously as a result of feminist actions.

Feminists have long cultivated a culture of fear. Non-feminist men and women have been reluctant to publicly challenge feminist narratives and actions. We reject that culture, resolving to speak the truth at all times, and encouraging others to do the same. Individual feminists must be held publicly accountable for their actions.

Recognizing the growth of feminist aggression, we assert our right to exist and thrive without paying any respect to feminists or their ideology. We shall not permit feminists to dictate what we say, how we say it, or how we interact with the world.

Given the extent of feminist entrenchment in institutions, we recognize that we are embarking on a project that may last for decades, but we shall not waver in our determination to roll back feminist influence over state and other institutions.

With this Declaration, we take a public stance in opposition to feminism, and invite others to join us.

The Non-Feminist Revolution starts here.

Regards,
Elizabeth Hobson
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
(and the women who love them)

Her details:
Email: elizabeth@j4mb.org.uk
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mike.buchanan.9066
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MikeBuchanan11
YouTube: https://j4mb.org.uk/youtube/
Skype: facebook:mb1957_1
Justice for Men & Boys
International Conference on Men’s Issues (2018)
International Conference on Men’s Issues (2017)
International Conference on Men’s Issues (2016)
International Conference on Men’s Issues (2014)
Campaign for Merit in Business
Anti-Feminism League
Men Shouldn’t Marry
LPS publishing

Tikkun olam is a form of self-destructive madness

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll start with this as an entry point: Western Self-Loathing: The Disease. Here is the central point:

Pride in the West’s accomplishments was reduced to guilt for the West’s success. And now the guilt has mutated into self-hate. Ceaselessly, we are bombarded with declarations of how evil we are, how our ancestors did terrible wrongs, and how we are responsible for righting the wrongs, for paying a weregild with the death of our own evil civilization. Anything less is a moral evil.

Let me now narrow all this down to one particular syndrome of this same disease, which is basically a mental disorder: Liberal Jews are destroying their own religion. I can see that as one attempt to try to stop others from murdering them, a strategy may well be to try to spread a message and ethic of universal love and tolerance. I can see that as a strategy that might succeed in some circumstances, but can also see that in other circumstances, in most other circumstances, it will not work even in the slightest. The human race as a universal brotherhood is only a message that will work among people who already feel brotherly love for each other. For anyone else, it is a message that is stone cold dead. So let me get back to Liberal Jews and Judaism.

American Judaism is broken because the Jewish left broke it.

A tiresome fixation on “tikkun olam,” which literally means “repair of the world,” has allowed Judaism to fall into disrepair. . . .

The truth is that tikkun olam and its leftist politics have no basis in Judaism. Tikkun olam is not Judaism at all but a distinct religion, whose adherents, it might be said, have culturally appropriated this ancient faith. This religion of tikkun olam commands the allegiance of most non-Orthodox Jews (and some Orthodox ones), who make up the overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community. The dogma of this religion is appealingly simple: Judaism is tikkun olam, which is social justice, which is liberalism. The Jews are called upon to do no less — and no more — than cultivate a liberal paradise in America [in Israel too, and everywhere else as well.].

To believe anything so insane requires you to have tuned out reality almost until it has faded into near invisibility. Because no one who is aware of the hatred of our enemies can be in any doubt about not just the impossibility of the task, but of the suicidal mission involved. Let me refer you to a comment at Powerline from a post on Why she hates Israel. Here is what tikkun olam really means.

The terribly stupid and unsuccessful Gaza invasion of Israel by Hamas is not a “protest,” let alone a “peaceful protest.” It was not even a riot; it was a terribly stupid and unsuccessful attempted invasion of Israel by Hamas. Here below is Hamas Co-Founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar proudly admitting that the Hamas protests in Gaza are not “peaceful”: “when we talk about ‘peaceful resistance’ we are deceiving the public.” Here below also is a video of a captured Gazan who also revealed the “protest” tactics of Hamas which true created, organized, directed, orchestrated and choreographed the “protests.” Here below also are numerous videos of Hamas and Gazans admitting the truth of the Gaza “protests” of Hamas:

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/…/178/nid/34009/Default.aspx

https://www.9news.com.au/…/hamas-says-most-slain-gaza…

http://www.jpost.com/…/VIDEO-Captured-terrorist-exposes…

https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-caught-at-gaza…/

https://vimeo.com/270157077

What is the intent of the alleged “peaceful” Hamas protests? Their intent is the longstanding intent of Hamas. Here is Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stating: “we must behead ALL Jews, and to crush INFANT skulls all day. To be heroic is to target the babies of the Jews. . . a greater friend to us Palestinians is Hitler.”https://youtu.be/-WC-NYA8B6Y

THAT’S RIGHT: THE LEADER OF HAMAS WANTS TO “CRUSH (JEWISH) INFANT SKULLS ALL DAY” AND TO “TARGET THE BABIES OF THE JEWS.”

Here is Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar encouraging the “peaceful” protesters what to do at the protests: “TEAR OUT THEIR (JEWS’) HEARTS FROM THEIR BODIES.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klFbf6VG7uA&feature=youtu.be

Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh states in this video, lest anyone deny that Hamas organizes, directs, orchestrates and choreographs the alleged protests and deny the true intent of the Gazan protests: “Hamas is the canon, and we are the ammunition.” https://youtu.be/y2m_gy-rD_s

Here is the Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al declaring the murder of Americans: “Oh Americans, ALLAH WILL PUNISH YOU. The time has come for ALLAH TO DECLARE WAR ON YOU. . . DEATH TO AMERICA.” Gazans want to murder Americans as well as all Jews. The video also goes on to show Hamas leader Fathi Hammad stating: “killing a single Jew is the same as killing 30 million Jews.” See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW4RMCO5hQk

The desire of the people of Gaza to murder Jews is not limited to Hamas. It also includes the Muslim Clerics of Gaza. In the above video, one Muslim Cleric states: “The annihilation of Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine.”

Because of its murderous Anti-Semitism, YouTube was forced to remove this Hamas-Gaza cleric video to his supportive Gazan audience in which he encourages the Gazan Protests: “the best way to describe the record of the Prophet’s treatment of the Jews is one of violence and force toward the Jews. . . I call upon every Muslim: Do not stand idly by and let those Jews spread corruption upon the land. [You must] carry out glorious deeds against them. One of the greatest duties, and one of the best forms of worship in our day, is to fight those Jews.” https://www.memri.org/…/youtube-censors-memri-removes…

This Hamas-Gaza cleric states to his supportive Gazan audience the true intent of the protests: “we must return to [our land] – above ground, underground, by means of demonstrations, bombs, weapons, explosives, explosive belts.”https://www.memri.org/…/hamas-cleric-abu-funun-we-must…

This Hamas-Gaza cleric states to his supportive Gazan audience the true intent of the protests: “the Great Return March. . . is a form of Jihad. It does not eliminate the need for Jihad by the sword, by missiles, and by rockets. They go hand in hand.” https://www.memri.org/…/gaza-friday-sermon-abu-jleidan…

Until the world manages to heal itself through an evolutionary progression during the next thousand years or so, my preference until then, and not before then, is a compact of mutual self-defence in the company of those we can trust, with a sharp lookout for the murderously aggressive instincts of everyone else.

Western civilisation and Donald Trump

Posted on by
Reply

The ad is PDT’s last before the election in 2016 which was brought to mind by this picked up at Andrew Bolt: SPECCIE OUT NOW. TRUMP THE SAVIOUR.

Mark Latham says Donald Trump is now the hope of Western civilisation:

Trump believes in the supremacy of the individual, in judging people on merit, by their work ethic and creativity, rather than race, gender and sexuality. These are the essential elements of civilisational leadership. Trump stands for the freedom of the citizen in the nation state. That is, the right to free speech, to meritocracy, to national pride and a freestanding national culture. The key political divide is no longer between Left and Right; it’s between civilisational and non-civilisational leaders. Trump is on the right side of history, with domestic ascendancy seemingly assured. He now needs to turn his mind to an even greater challenge, promulgating a Trump doctrine: a new brand of American global leadership based on the defence of Western civilisation.

Every generation must defend itself and its past. That means you, because there is no one else to do it.

First they came for Tommy Robinson

Posted on by
Reply

Great enterprises start small. First they put away just one fellow who is causing trouble and when that works they put away a second. You know the one about first they came for the Jews. In this case, first they came for Tommy Robinson. And then, for all practical purposes, he was never heard from again. And while he may be out of sight, he’s not quite yet out of mind: Tommy Robinson’s lawyer lodges appeal, applies for bail. This will also help you understand why you have heard so little from him directly:

They have lodged an appeal against the sentence. That means: they are challenging the judge’s 13 month prison term. Which of course is excessive and disproportionate. And in my view, it’s more punitive than a 13-month term for any other prisoner, because Tommy is so uniquely endangered in the UK’s prisons, many of which are dominated by Muslim criminal gangs, who have in the past attacked Tommy. Last time he was in prison, Tommy had to ask to be put into solitary confinement just to save his life. Obviously no-one can survive for 13 months that way.

So the first appeal is against the sentence.

The second part of Mr. Carson’s note indicates that he is asking for bail for Tommy, until the appeal is heard.

One of the craziest parts of this whole thing was that Tommy went from being scooped up on the street by seven cops, to prison, in a matter of a few hours. That’s absurd — he didn’t even have time to properly instruct a lawyer of his own choosing. Getting Tommy out on bail will not only allow him to visit his family and friends, but it will allow him to have proper meetings with his lawyers.

And the third point is self-explanatory — they’re looking to have this hearing as soon as possible in the court’s schedule.

And then there’s Paul Manafort in the US. Paul Manafort jailed by US judge over witness tampering charges, pending trial. Long story short:

A US federal judge has sent Paul Manafort to jail pending trial after he was charged with witness tampering in the latest episode in a slow fall from grace for a man who was President Donald Trump’s campaign chairman in 2016. . . .

Legal experts have said Mr Mueller wants to keep applying pressure on Mr Manafort to plead guilty and assist prosecutors with the probe. . . .

“Paul’s counsel are filing an expedited appeal,’ Dowd told Fox News. “This is harsh pretrial punishment and an outrageous violation of Paul’s civil liberties at the hands of an Obama appointee.” . . .

None of the charges against him make reference to alleged Russian interference in the election nor the accusations of collusion between Moscow and Trump’s campaign.

Not only can it happen here, it is happening here.

MEANWHILE: From The Mail Online: Preachers of hate back on Britain’s streets: MI5 terror alert as five jihadi leaders linked to London Bridge attack are set to be let out of jail by the end of the year.

Police and security chiefs fear the high command of an extremist group that inspired a generation of jihadis will soon be free again to preach hate on Britain’s streets.

Five senior figures in Al-Muhajiroun, whose former members include London Bridge attacker Khuram Butt and Michael Adebolajo, one of Fusilier Lee Rigby’s killers, are expected to be released from prison by the end of the year.

Among them is Anjem Choudary, who is due for release in October having served less than half of a five-and-half-year sentence for inviting support for IS.

Public choice theory and the American president

Posted on by
Reply

These are from the comments on an Instapundit post on public choice. Brings to mind the ridiculous notion that PDT may be the first politician in who knows how long to have nothing personal to gain from holding office nor does he owe anyone anything for getting him there. A once in a lifetime opportunity. Anyway, from the comments.

Public choice theory explains how government bureaucrats are captured by their constituent private sector companies the bureaucrats are supposedly regulating.

Leftists think that regulatory capture results in the regulators not regulating enough.

People such as you and I might have understood from even a young age about regulatory capture, but most academics didn’t, and in fact, many still don’t. How do we know that they don’t? Because goddamn academics are always proposing Yet Another Bureaucracy to regulate this, that or some other thing, and they’re invariably surprised (genuinely – ie, we’re talking the true nature of the Intellectual Yet Idiot class here) when they get results nothing like what they thought would happen, and often the exact opposite of what they thought would happen. eg, Obamacare and insurance rates. eg2: Obamacare and hospital wait times. eg3: Investment banks and the SEC. I could go on, and I’m sure you could name fifty examples yourself. The origin of Public Choice Theory came out of the time in the UK when the unions, the bureaucracy and academia were pushing the UK off a cliff into a permanent swamp of self-serving stupidity. Thatcher came along and reversed a great deal of that, and PCT played a part in that – Thatcher didn’t just make war on the unions, she also went after the bureaucracy and the academic/bureaucracy axis of government.

Without belaboring the issue with economic cant, it comes down to this. Bureaucrats and bureaucracies never will allow politicians to reduce the scope, size and cost of government, because the bureaucracy is enriching themselves (on a personal basis) by preventing actual cuts in budgets and staffs. The way that bureaucracies prevent cuts is to make lots of busywork, which masks their do-nothing results, but they use their constituent private sector companies and business sectors to help support their own existence. The nut of PCT is this: Bureaucracies are staffed with people who have discovered that by pulling the correct levers in regulations, obscure policy proposals and arcane budgetary rules, that they can become quite well off without having to do anything that resembles actual work as we in the private sector recognize it. The question you should always ask whenever you see a bureaucrat or his organization make a rule change or an enforcement action is “cui bono?” and you should look first and most directly at the bureaucrats advocating the rule change or enforcement action. For example: The SEC doesn’t rock the boat too hard on rule enforcement, because most of the people employed by the SEC are looking for future jobs with the investment banks they’re pretending to regulate.

The reason why government gets bigger is that it is in the personal, direct, financial interests of bureaucrats at an individual level to make it bigger. In other words, the bureaucracy wills it to happen – at every choice, in every action they take.