Which is why no one in the media or among our elites wants to hear a word about it.
Don’t know what to make of this: Trump’s Only Real Weakness Is His Style. Without his abrasive style, unwilling to let any criticism and insult go unanswered, where would he be. I actually like the punch-back-twice-as-hard style of politics, especially when the other side is filled with such moronic but highly dangerous fools.
I said in 2016 all the way through the election that he could win, in spite of the odds. Now I say that in 2020 that he could lose, in spite of how extraordinary he has been.
Nearly everyone takes everything for granted. And for most people, even if things change, they will usually only change slowly. But they do change, and often for the worse. I cannot believe how many there are out there who would like nothing better than to see PDT lose in 2020. I have zero regard for their political sense, even though some of them are amongst our best friends and close family.
That’s what she calls herself.
Every member of the Ku Klux Klan was a Democrat, with only the very occasional exception, as may be seen from this list. And as offensive as I find the text below, which is taken from the list taken from Wikipedia. The efforts by the Democrats to ignore their own history is understandable, but is nevertheless built on a series of lies.
Robert C. Byrd, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd, wrote a letter in 1946 to the group’s Imperial Wizard stating “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd attempted to explain or defend his former membership in the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old. Byrd, a Democrat, eventually became his party leader in the Senate. Byrd later said joining the Klan was his “greatest mistake.”
That’s from Chris, at the comments on Told Ya So. It’s the kind of pricing that seems, to me, aimed at discouraging anyone from buying a copy. On the other hand, it is a copy of the first edition which is no longer being published so perhaps it has now become a classic and the price reflects its scarcity. It is also the hardback. The third edition is only $254.17, but that too is the hardback. However…
And then from the Elgar website.
Free Market Economics, Third Edition
An Introduction for the General Reader
So before I go on, let me quote Samuel Johnson:
“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.
I have published around a dozen books but I doubt I have ever made more than a pittance on the lot of them. But whatever I have made on the books, it is more than I have made from this blogging. There is just the pleasure of it.
So let me give you the opening from the Preface to the second edition which will help explain the purpose of the book.
I wrote my Free Market Economics: An Introduction for the General Reader in early 2009, just as the various stimulus programmes were being put into place across the world to deal with the economic consequences of the Global Financial Crisis; it was written in white heat between February and May as the text for the course I was teaching in Economic Analysis for Business. What drove the book to completion was my dismay at the return of Keynesian theory and policy as the guide to recovery. My assumption at the time was that my book would be one of many such texts written in response to the devastation that would inevitably be brought on by the stimulus. What is to me quite astonishing is that this book, even in this second edition, remains the only book of its kind. I fear that, given the years of teaching nothing other than Keynesian theory, most economists can no longer see what the problem with modern macroeconomics is and why a Keynesian demand-side stimulus could not possibly have worked.
What makes this book different is that the macroeconomics is not just pre-Keynesian and not just un-Keynesian but actively anti-Keynesian. The book also explains Keynesian theory, of course, since it is impossible to teach economics without discussing modern macroeconomics as it is currently taught. Nevertheless, anyone interested in understanding the classical pre-Keynesian theory of the cycle, which focused on a very different explanation for recessions and an equally different path to return an economy to rapid rates of growth and low unemployment, will find no other introductory book to guide them in what I think is the right direction. Let me merely note that free market does not mean laissez-faire.
I wrote the book in twelve weeks during the first semester in 2009 because I was so disgusted at the return of Keynesian economics to front and centre following the GFC. It remains, so far as I know, the only anti-Keynesian economics text in the world. It is therefore, in my view, as Art Laffer wrote, the only economics text in the world that will explain how an economy actually works.
Here’s the front page story in The Oz today: Aussies no better off since GFC: household incomes stagnant for past decade. From which:
“Over the eight-year period from 2009 to 2017, average household income grew by only $3156, or 3.5 per cent, while the median in 2017 was $542 lower than 2009,” the report, which has tracked the circumstances of more than 17,500 Australians since 2001, finds.
The share of households in relative poverty — living on less than half the median income — rose to 10.4 per cent, according to analysis released today by the Melbourne Institute that will add to the controversy about the adequacy of Newstart, the government’s jobless payment.
All as obvious as the morning sun, if you can do away with modern macroeconomic trash and return to pre-Keynesian theory. From my tenth anniversary warning on the stimulus published in Quadrant:
Just as the causes of this downturn cannot be charted through a Keynesian demand deficiency model, neither can the solution. The world’s economies are not suffering from a lack of demand and the right policy response is not a demand stimulus. Increased public sector spending will only add to the market confusions that already exist.
What is potentially catastrophic would be to try to spend our way to recovery. The recession that will follow will be deep, prolonged and potentially take years to overcome.
— Steven Kates, Quadrant, March 2009
Why have the IMF, the OECD, the ILO, the treasuries of every advanced economy, the Treasury in Australia, the business economists around the world, why have they got it so wrong and yet you in your ivory tower at RMIT have got it so right?
— Question to Steven Kates from Senator Doug Cameron,
Senate Economic References Committee, September 21, 2009
I caught on to classical economic theory in 1980 and have spent the years since watching in every circumstance how accurate the economics of John Stuart Mill actually is, from the failure of every single “stimulus” put in place to stimulate through to watching the recovery that followed the massive cuts to public spending brought on by Peter Costello’s budget in 1996 and the return, not just to balanced budgets but zero debt. Modern Keynesian economics is junk science and has never worked on a single occasion during the entire period since The General Theory was published in 1936.
Read my text if you are interested: Free Market Economics, now in its third edition. And here is the endorsement from Art Laffer, the genius behind the Reagan recovery and now also complicit in the recovery in the United States:
‘This book presents the very embodiment of supply-side economics. At its very core is the entrepreneur trying to work out what to do in a world of deep uncertainty in which the future cannot be known. Crucially, the book is entirely un-Keynesian, restoring Say’s Law to the centre of economic theory, with its focus on value-adding production as the source of demand. If you would like to understand how an economy actually works, this is one of the few places I know of where you can find out.’
PDT is extraordinary in so many ways, not least of which is his political judgement. This is from, Trump Compares Ocasio-Cortez To Nazi Sympathizer, AOC Takes It As A Compliment.
The book, “American Carnage,” states that Trump saw Ocasio-Cortez on a cable news show and said: “I called her Eva Perón. I said, ‘That’s Eva Perón. That’s Evita.”
Trump reportedly told his team to contact then-Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) — who Ocasio-Cortez upset in the Democratic primary — to tell him that “he better get off his fat ass and start campaigning.”
No one else saw it then but Trump did. And he saw her danger as well. Nancy Pelosi and other Dems are seeing it as well, and who knows how electable she will be when she finally turns 35. Political madness is a contagion and as mad as AOC is, she is far from a discredited entity among her own constituency. In her own political judgement she may be the same kind of phenomenon as PDT.
From The HET Website. A typical revolution from below, led by the young who knew nothing but wished to make the presence felt. A conceptual disaster, along the lines of Aristotle’s arguments on the charging of interest.
The response to the publication of John Maynard Keynes‘s General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) was immediate and controversial – and a cleavage between young economists and their older counterparts was immediately carved.
From Cambridge, Keynes’s students rushed to publication to further explain his ideas: Joan Robinson (1937) and James E. Meade (1936, 1937), two of the members of Keynes’s “Circus”, produced particularly able “restatements” of the General Theory. The exposition of a third member of the Circus, Austin Robinson (1936, The Economist), reached a wider audience. Two of Keynes’s tutorial students also rushed to publish reviews: W.B. Reddaway (1936, Economic Record) and D.G. Champernowne (1936, RES), with the latter being slightly more critical.
However, among the Cambridge professors, the consequences were grievously divisive (for an account, see Kahn, 1984; Skidelsky, 1992). J.M. Keynes almost completely ruptured his relationships with his old Cantabrigian colleagues – Arthur C. Pigou, Hubert D. Henderson, Dennis H. Robertson and Ralph G. Hawtrey. Although the strife was confined largely to personal exchanges within the Cambridge halls, some anger found its way into the printing presses. A.C. Pigou (1936, Economica), portrayed as the “villain” by the General Theory, tried to go immediately on the counterattack but his counterblast was feeble. H.D. Henderson (1936, Spectator) fired off an even more personally vindictive fusillade. In contrast, Dennis Robertson‘s (1936, QJE) reply had a bit more of substance and engendered a short journal debate with Keynes.
The generational differences in reception were also evident outside of Cambridge. Elsewhere in Britain, the youthful Abba Lerner (1936, Int Lab Rev), John Hicks (1936, EJ) and Roy Harrod (1937, Econometrica) produced quite sympathetic reviews.
Surprisingly, neither of Keynes’s old rivals at the London School of Economics, Friedrich A. von Hayek and Lionel Robbins, reviewed or even responded to Keynes’s new book. But the damage was permanent: the enthusiasm for the General Theory by their most promising students – particularly Lerner, Hicks and, eventually, Kaldor – was the beginning of the end of the L.S.E.’s attempt to steal the crown of English economics from Cambridge.
From America, the initial response was cold: the main reviews by Jacob Viner (1936, QJE), Alvin Hansen (1936, JPE), Joseph Schumpeter (1936, JASA), Frank Taussig (1936, QJE), Wassily Leontief (1936, QJE), C.O. Hardy (1936, AER) and Frank Knight (1937, Canadian JE) were almost uniformly negative. Of all his reviewers, Keynes only deigned to respond to Viner’s in his now-famous article, “The General Theory of Employment” (Keynes, 1937, QJE).
With the unfortunate exception of Nazi Germany (where a translation was published “on paper rather better than usual and the price not much higher than usual”, as Keynes put it), Keynes’s General Theory was largely ignored on the European continent. The few reviews that emerged from there, particularly those by Gustav Cassel (1937, Int Lab Rev) from Sweden and Gottfried Haberler (1936, ZfN) from Austria, were quite hostile. In France, the professional (and personal) hostility of influential conservative economists such as Jacques Rueff guaranteed that the book would not even be translated until 1948.
It’s now official. There was never any collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign. But everyone knew that, and has always known that. This was just a device to undo the election result. The most interesting outcome at this stage is to appreciate just how well PDT has played this out. He could have brought it to an end at any time, fired Mueller and taken the heat, but let it work itself through to the end.
The media and the left have shown that the media is the left. The Democrats have demonstrated their utter lack of morality. But for all that,there are still immense forces at work that might yet pull the US down, that would make it an ungovernable mess.