Skip to content

Malcolm is too dumb to understand what Newman is saying

I am going to provide my own title for the story rather than use the headline from the subbie at The Oz who seems to have tried to obscure the point: Government projects chosen by dull-witted politicians like Malcolm Turnbull make us worse off. And I will quote a bit more than usual to help those who cannot link. And in my view Newman lets these incompetent bozos off the hook for their massive economic ignorance. We already understand how incompetent they are in political calculation, so the question remains what are they actually good at?

Political conceit, ineptitude and reckless indifference to proper process now leave Australians with an inflexible, hugely expensive communications system, little better than the one it replaced. So much for bringing our communications into the 21st century.

But not even this first-hand experience nor his publicly expressed mega-project misgivings, have dampened the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm. Indeed, with $75bn over 10 years and a new Infrastructure and Project Financing Agency to be established within his portfolio, it’s full speed ahead. Take the “Snowy 2.0” pumped hydro storage facility. There are no costings but a rough estimate puts the capital cost at about $2bn. However, when necessary upgrades to poles and wires are included, the cost rises to at least $4bn. The ultimate bill to consumers is unknown, but experts say pumped storage hydro consumes about 20 per cent more energy than is returned to the system and would take almost 15 per cent of NSW baseload production in the process.

Whatever the merits of pumped hydro storage, with five to six years to completion this project will do nothing to alleviate Australia’s immediate energy crisis and seems guided more by green politics than economics.

Another budget infrastructure decision with an eye to politics is the $8.4bn equity investment in a high-capacity inland freight link between Melbourne and Brisbane. Even though there is private sector interest in majority funding an alternative proposal, the government seems intent on discouraging, if not ignoring, it. . . .

Of course, the country needs to build and maintain vital infrastructure. But the process is flawed and invariably opaque. There are no business cases. Voters are sweet-talked into believing any infrastructure debt is “good debt”.

Is there a conclusion? There is. Give Malcolm the flick while there’s still time and bring Tony Abbott back.

The Battle for Modernity

Is there any group more absurd than the modern anti-enlightenment that passes for wisdom in the parties of collectivist thought? Filled with self-importance and the ridiculous belief in their own virtue and insight, they may be members of the dullest, least informed, least insightful generation who may have ever lived. In a world that should have and could have created the greatest flood of prosperity and human freedom in history, they are demanding a return to mass poverty and political serfdom. These are people for whom the social and economic structures needed to provide the flow of worldly goods is largely unknown. Ignorant to a fantastic degree about how wealth is created, they nevertheless are driving the world over the precipice into a new dark age.

The article at the link is about an episode at Evergreen University where the lunatics have largely taken over the asylum other than for a single professor who had decided to stand apart. The article discusses Evergreen State and the Battle for Modernity” where “progressive biology professor Bret Weinstein attracted the ire of a student lynch mob for refusing to leave campus due to being white”. He refused to play along with racial-identity day where all whites were asked to stay away for 24 hours. By refusing, “vigilante groups are roaming the campus with bats, seeking out Weinstein supporters”. And after this intro, this is where the article heads and this is its point.

We are faced with a three-part distinction between postmodern/modern/traditional. Let’s take a look at each of these in turn, and discuss why they are particularly important today. Starting with the most right-leaning, the traditionalists [represented by the #NeverTrumpers]. These folks do not like the direction in which modernity is headed, and so are looking to go back to an earlier time when they believe society was better. . . . Even though there is much furor in the media about the threat that [traditionalist] groups represent, I would argue that they have largely been pushed to the fringes in terms of their social influence. . .

It is between the modernists and postmodernists where the future of society is being fought. Modernists are those who believe in human progress within a classical Western tradition. They believe that the world can continuously be improved through science, technology, and rationality. Unlike traditionalists, they seek progress rather than reversal, but what they share in common is an interest in preserving the basic structures of Western society. Most modernists could be classified as centrists (either left or right-leaning), classical liberals and libertarians.

Postmodernists, on the other hand, eschew any notion of objectivity, perceiving knowledge as a construct of power differentials rather than anything that could possibly be mutually agreed upon. Informed by such thinkers as Foucault and Derrida, science therefore becomes an instrument of Western oppression; indeed, all discourse is a power struggle between oppressors and oppressed. In this scheme, there is no Western civilization to preserve—as the more powerful force in the world, it automatically takes on the role of oppressor and therefore any form of equity must consequently then involve the overthrow of Western “hegemony.” These folks form the current Far Left, including those who would be described as communists, socialists, anarchists, Antifa, as well as social justice warriors (SJWs). These are all very different groups, but they all share a postmodernist ethos.

That is, they find debate irrelevant and power by any means their only aim with the core policy the destruction of the civilisation of the West. Which brings me to a second article with a similar perspective although more optimistic outlook: The left’s own politics by shorthand is now being turned against it. This is where it starts:

Once asked by an aide to respond to a letter to the editor from one of his critics, Vladimir Lenin refused, saying: “Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There’s no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything.”

That has been the modus operandi of the left for decades. It doesn’t respond to arguments with arguments but with stigmatizing names designed to end debate. As the communications arm of the left, the media conforms perfectly to Lenin’s method. Instead of rebutting the arguments of conservatives, it has found it easier to brand them as “enemies” of science, women, minorities, the poor, and so on.

Trump may be beating them at their own game as the article says, but he is the one of the few who understands it and the only one who is able to return fire. Without others to come to his aid, the postmodernist-Islamic alliance will eventually overwhelm us all.

“When we go out we risk our lives”

The picture is from this article: TV film on migrant Muslims’ hate of Europe’s Jews axed. This is part of what is found in the article and from the program that was never shown.

It shows Jewish teenagers in a Paris suburb complaining they would have to join the exodus of French Jews leaving for Israel under pressure from Muslim neighbours.

“This is a Jewish quarter surrounded by banlieues. We’re trapped here — when we go out we risk our lives,” says a Jewish schoolboy from Sarcelles, a Paris district that saw violent attacks on Jews during pro-Palestinian riots in 2014.

The teenagers described frequent beatings.

“Everybody here wants to move,” says one. “Almost everyone from Sarcelles has moved to Netanya [in Israel]. If you go there it’s like Paris — there are only French [people] around.”

Europe is a lost continent and we are the generation that lost it.

Each and every one of these economic propositions is WRONG

I am doing a presentation in Los Angeles at the end of the week which I have titled “A Beginner’s Guide to Say’s Law”. At the centre of this presentation there is a slide that reads as shown below. And the point I am making, and will then set out to prove, is that not only was not one of these propositions accepted by John Stuart Mill nor by any of his mainstream classical contemporaries, but demonstrating that the classical economists were right is far easier than you might think. This is the slide:

Economics is filled with nonsense no economist before the marginal revolution [1870], never mind the Keynesian Revolution [1936], would have believed:

A national economy is driven from the demand side

Classical economists had no theory to explain involuntary unemployment

Recessions can be caused by demand deficiency

Thinking of national saving as a flow of money makes sense

Unproductive public spending can make an economy grow

Profits are maximised where Marginal Revenue equals Marginal Cost

Supply and demand explains what businesses do and how markets work

You can discuss the operation of an economy without discussing the role of the entrepreneur in detail

Nor is it that our modern ways of thinking had never occurred in classical times. Every one of these propositions had their fringe-dwelling supporters but not only were none of these accepted by the classical mainstream but each and every one was also actively opposed. Today, of course, every one of these is mainstream. So what makes you actually believe in progress when economic theory was far more sound and acute 150 years ago than it is today?

Hey Michelle, lets talk some more about being killed by a falling fridge

And from the notes to the video.

Excerpted from an Intelligence Squared event:
“Don’t give them what they want: Terrorists should be starved of the oxygen of publicity”
February 22, 2017 at The Royal Institution

Never mind worrying about giving them what they want, let’s give them what they don’t want. Make a list and do as many as we can. Incredible to hear an Islamist taking this line and others listening. We shouldn’t be taking his advice on anything. Same for us listening to the head of the Cultural Marxist ABC.

“Hello everybody, there is no global warming”

Devastating and from one who knows.

They understand our democratic system better than we do

The British election result shows these radical Islamists understand our political system better than we do. The attacks in London were designed to affect the election away from the Conservatives which it seems to have done to a remarkable extent. Why would people vote for a party less likely to defend them from from terrorists? Many reasons, starting with Stockholm Syndrome through to the vile stupidity of the virulent anti-Christian cultural-Marxist left.