She is being interviewed by William F. Buckley Jr. so we have two of the great defenders of freedom and the free market at one and the same time.
She is being interviewed by William F. Buckley Jr. so we have two of the great defenders of freedom and the free market at one and the same time.
A review of the first edition of Free Market Economics, which is even more so than this now that it is in its second edition. This is how it starts:
Not since 1924 has there been a comprehensive yet readable book on economics aimed at the ordinary but intelligent citizen that defends and incorporates the field’s foundational principle, Say’s Law (named after Jean-Baptiste Say, 1767–1832) and its main corollaries: the primacy of production, the entrepreneur as prime mover, and prices as the commercial language that coordinates economies and their subsectors. Now we have such a book: Free Market Economics: An Introduction for the General Reader by Australian business economist Steven Kates. His prior books examined the prevalence of Say’s Law among top economists during the pro-capitalist 19th century and its abandonment by most economists in the anti-capitalist 20th century.
The handful of texts on economic principles since the 1920s that recognize the superiority of a free economy have been too technical, narrowly devoted to refuting economic fallacies, or tainted by dubious philosophy. This book avoids such flaws. Kates accomplishes what was last achieved by Oxford professor Henry Clay (1883–1945) in Economics: An Introduction for the General Reader (1924). Better still, Kates’s book offers a modern, more sophisticated, more pro-capitalist treatment than did Clay’s book, and it provides the ideas people need to grasp and refute the disastrous dogmas and policies of Keynesianism.
I am posting this before I have watched it, but it she is as sensible in conversation as she is in her written work, this will be near two hours of deep interest and insight. The transcript is here.
We’ve been to see Interstellar whose villain is Dr Mann. No first name, just Dr Mann, although the coincidence of the last name with the absence of a stated first name gives a strong presumption that we are parodying a particular Dr Mann. Which brings me to How the Science Got Settled, the latest posting by Mark Steyn on the fifth anniversary of the release of the “climategate” emails. Here I’ll just repeat the quotes from the various climate scientists quoted by Steyn but do go to the article to see the context and the commentary.
“The two MMs [McKitrick and McIntyre, the latter the dogged retired Ontarian who runs the Climate Audit website] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
“Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions of growing season temperatures. Uses ‘corrected’ MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently – I have no memory of this at all – we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?”
“OH F**K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
It’s a scandal but the biggest scandal is that just about no one seems to be scandalised.
And let me also just note this from Watt’s Up with That:
The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.
There are many forms of unfairness in life and this is just one. This is the title Socioeconomic status and the growth of intelligence from infancy through adolescence and here is the abstract:
Low socioeconomic status (SES) children perform on average worse on intelligence tests than children from higher SES backgrounds, but the developmental relationship between intelligence and SES has not been adequately investigated. Here, we use latent growth curve (LGC) models to assess associations between SES and individual differences in the intelligence starting point (intercept) and in the rate and direction of change in scores (slope and quadratic term) from infancy through adolescence in 14,853 children from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), assessed 9 times on IQ between the ages of 2 and 16 years. SES was significantly associated with intelligence growth factors: higher SES was related both to a higher starting point in infancy and to greater gains in intelligence over time. Specifically, children from low SES families scored on average 6 IQ points lower at age 2 than children from high SES backgrounds; by age 16, this difference had almost tripled. Although these key results did not vary across girls and boys, we observed gender differences in the development of intelligence in early childhood. Overall, SES was shown to be associated with individual differences in intercepts as well as slopes of intelligence. However, this finding does not warrant causal interpretations of the relationship between SES and the development of intelligence.
This is the news report to help you understand the point: Does poverty impact intelligence? Deprived children are 6 IQ points worse off than wealthy peers – and the gap widens with age.
Poverty affects the intelligence of children as young as two, a study has found – and its impact increases as the child ages.
Deprived young children were found to have IQ scores six points lower, on average, than children from wealthier families.
And the gap got wider throughout childhood, with the early difference tripling by the time the children reached adolescence. . . .
The results, published in the journal Intelligence, revealed that children from wealthier backgrounds with more opportunities scored higher in IQ tests at the age of two, and experienced greater IQ gains over time.
Dr Sophie von Stumm, from Goldsmiths, University of London, who led the study, said: ‘We’ve known for some time that children from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds perform on average worse on intelligence tests than children from higher SES backgrounds, but the developmental relationship between intelligence and SES had not been previously shown.
‘Our research establishes that relationship, highlighting the link between SES and IQ.
‘We hope that our findings will drive future research into the specific mechanisms and factors that underpin the link between SES and IQ and thus, contribute to widening the IQ gap.’
Conservatives really are a guileless lot. The tactics of the left have been in print for half a century, they are before our eyes at every turn and no one seems to take them as an exact representation of what the left does. There are a few memes on the left – equality, social justice etc – that are there to cover up its hatred of the market economy and in many ways for freedom in general. There is no actual program; most of what you find are slogans wrapped around an opportunistic agenda whose only genuine end in mind is political power. There is literally nothing in a left agenda that could be used to organise a self-sustaining economically-viable society. Socialism in the West presupposes the existence of a capitalist order. The left agenda without free institutions and a market economy leads only to the gulag, political oppression and mass poverty.
The rhetoric of the left is tactical at every stage. I am therefore astonished at this late stage that it still seems to escape the attention of all too many on the right that the attacks on Rupert Murdoch are merely part of the way the left goes about its business. Rupert Murdoch is simply a useful construct to build its coalition of the stupid (see Gruber). Here is the last of the rules but in many ways the most important:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
So let us look at Rule 12 in light of the attacks on Murdoch and the Murdoch Press.
Target: Rupert Murdoch
Freeze it: Put the spotlight continuously on the evil genius and enemy of the people, a meme that is reinforced at every opportunity. Murdoch, Murdoch, Murdoch 666 with no let up. Never fear, the three-minute hate will be taken up by all on the left who, lacking any clear ability to think coherently for themselves, are grateful for a cause in which they can at least pretend to be knowledgable.
Personalise it: No abstractions. Just make the name “Murdoch” the metaphor for the capitalist press. You don’t need to explain anything to anyone. Once you have made the “Murdoch Press” the very definition of an anti-worker, anti-progressive media, there is no need to present a single argument. Remember, the left assumes its supporters are rusted on and generally stupid. Evidence matters not at all. All the counter arguments in the world will not avail you a thing.
Polarise it: Murdoch is made an issue on which everyone must take sides. You either agree that Murdoch manipulates governments to suit his own anti-progressive agenda or you don’t. It is then easy to identify the comrades and to heap disdain on those others who cannot see the truth. The Gnostic inner circle of insight and knowledge is bestowed on those who can see what is wrong with the Murdoch Press. The rest are just, in their eyes, fools and dupes, when it is precisely they who are manipulated and unable to think any serious thoughts for themselves.
Below are all of Alinsky’s rules for radicals. They really are the means by which the left projects its agenda. It is literally the case that every single strategist on the left consciously adopts these and are no doubt amazed how their enemies fall for it every time. And truth to tell, it is amazing that we never do seem to learn.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals – The Glenn Beck Edition
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
This is exactly how I am but until now never appreciated the logic of it.
Every day I think of what needs urgently to be done and then do something else, like a mouse confronted by a cat. This is not quite as foolish or inefficient as it sounds, for eventually the urgent thing becomes so urgent that it concentrates my mind wonderfully (like hanging in a fortnight, according to Doctor Johnson), and then I work at maximal speed and brainpower.
I just used to call it by my own name of “inappropriate behaviour”. I see the difference in different people. When I give an assignment there are always at the moment the instructions are in their hands some who feel they are already a month behind. Others wait till the last minute – the emails I get trying to make sense of what needs to be done five days before the due date on an assignment worth a quarter of the semester are always astonishing. But for everyone there’s a different lead-time that is within their zone of anxiety and it is different for everyone. But without that pressure of being right against the wall, I often can’t do anything.
We went to see the film, The Green Prince, last night at the Jewish International Film Festival. I have never been so stunned in my life. It was a Hamas propaganda piece tailored for Jews which became evident within the first sixty seconds and never let up for a moment. But what was the truly stunning part was the way in which the audience in general and the people we sat for coffee with afterwards, were so easily taken in by what ought to have been obvious beyond argument, that this was a film that in no way was friendly to the continuation of the state of Israel.
You don’t have to know much spycraft to understand the nature of double agents. To have the son of the leader of Hamas as one of your agents is quite a coup, but how do you know whether he is or isn’t, even when he does give you low grade information of some value? That is Espionage 101. You decide, which is more likely? That the son of the Hamas leader has a genuine desire to help Israel against his family, his nation and his religion, or that he found some gullible Israeli agent who swallowed his story whole. To help you think about it, you might find this article of some help: ‘Son of Hamas’ Denounced as a Phony: Pro-Israeli former terrorist Walid Shoebat accuses Mosab Hassan Yousef of duping the West. In the article, we find translations of what our Green Prince was saying to audiences in his own language:
Speaking on Al-Arabiya, Mosab said: “During my tours in universities and even churches, [I found] the real support for Israel stems from the church in the West. … We need to understand the difference between “revenge” and “resistance” and once the Palestinians do, we will have our victory against Israel. Israel is the problem and as an occupation it needs to end. … There are many ways to do this besides the cowardly explosive operations.”
He adds that he “suffered under all the problems of murder and the criminal operations that were carried out by the Israeli occupation against my people, my family, myself, and against humanity.”
When Mosab was being interviewed on Christian-Arabic television station Al Hayat, the presenter asked a caller what he would do if he were in Mosab’s position and could prevent dozens of school children from being killed by turning in a Hamas man to Israel. When the caller vacillated, Mosab spoke:
If I was in your shoes, you should not report it to Israel. I do not encourage anyone to give information to Israel or collaborate with Israel. If anyone hears me right now and they are in relation to Israeli security I advise them to work for the interest of their own people — number one — and do not work with the [Israeli] enemy against the interest of our people. They should collaborate with the Palestinian Authority only.
It really does make me furious how naive some people are. It is just as Shoebat says:
“Mosab is now touring churches to end Israel’s lifeline. Many Jews and Christians in the West are unable to determine friend from foe in the Mideast; they are not able to read what is said in Arabic. They must seek translations, and must be aware of double agents like Mosab.”
You would think they would at least have been a little jaundiced, not so easily taken in. But if a crude piece of propaganda is so invisible to most people – which I suppose why even now Obama is given the benefit of the doubt by so many who should fear him like the plague – the dangers for potential catastrophe merely multiply. My darkest suspicion, however, is that most people most of the time sympathise with their ideological enemies more than they know and can no longer even hear what is being said to them because they have actually joined the other side but do not know it themselves.
I came across a book the other day with the title, A Short History of Stupid by Bernard Keane and Helen Razer. Not knowing who either of these people were, before committing my $29.95 I thought I would suss out their views by going to the index and seeing what they had to say on global warming, the most certain indicator to me of stupid. Alas, no index but there was, at the back, a series of lists of which there were strangely two with the same heading, “Top Ten Enemies of Stupid”, one beginning on page 299 and the other on page 314. Since I don’t know any more about the book than the title, the names of the unknown-to-me authors, the absence of an index and these lists, everything I now say must be taken cum salis grano, as they say. Might well be a wonderful book, filled with insight and knowledge. But then there were these two lists, and one in each, as the grand enemies of stupid amongst the twenty top ten, there were:
Karl Marx and
John Maynard Keynes.
I take it that to embrace the views of Marx and Keynes is, according to these authors, part of the way one defeats the forces of stupidity. Now my own near certainty, having read widely in both, is the high likelihood that they have never read much of either, assuming they have read any at all. And if they have read what M&K wrote, and still think of them as part of the smart set, they are, I must tell you, not very good judges of what is and what is not stupid, at least so far as the practical effects of following their advice. But at least there is this one piece of good that these lists have done, which was to save me $29.95.
What is more remarkable, however, is their very bad timing in having such a book published just at this moment when we have had definitive recognition where stupidity in politics is most prevalently found. This, of course, has come courtesy of Jonathan Gruber, Obamacare’s multi-million dollar man, who explained how Democrat voters are too stupid to know what’s good for them so had to be deceived to allow their betters to fulfil their agenda.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Mr. Gruber said. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”
Well, to get it to pass they had to depend on getting stupid people to support the change – that is, they had to depend on supporters of the political left to be just as stupid as they were assumed to be. Dangling in front of these voters was the promise of cheaper health care costs run through the government. And if they believed that they really were stupid, just the kinds of people to take policy advice from J.M. Keynes and Karl Marx.
How prophetic this really does look. From Aldous Huxley in 1946:
“Nor does the sexual promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years, no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.”
Via Stacy McCain