I have been at an economics conference today which brings the following to mind. I tend to hang out among economists who want to see the end of the basic “neo-classical synthesis” approach to the way we teach economics, which is something I dearly wish for myself. But unlike the others, I find the combination of Keynesian macro and marginal micro so poisonous to clear economic thought that my aim is to see economics move back towards the theoretical approach of the great classical economists who you can find from the publication of John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy in 1848 through to Henry Clay’s Economics in 1916.
But for those I’ve been dealing with, today’s mainstream isn’t radically left wing enough and are continuously looking to replace what we have with some kind of far-left monstrosity.
I have therefore begun to ask the question, what is there in the way you would teach economics that would assist the government of Venezuela to understand what has gone wrong in their economy? You know, they have no answer. They don’t even try to explain what great insights they have or would offer. We are in dangerous times in so many ways, and this loss of economic understanding about what makes an economy work is not anywhere near the bottom of our list of problems.
The fact is that Malcolm in the election just past ran against Tony Abbott. Had he been as hard and angry dealing with Bill Shorten and Labor it would have been a different story. But it was all anti-Abbott and hardly much of an anti-ALP.
My doubts about whether Tony will come back were increased by Peta Credlin’s answer to Andrew Bolt about whether he would try for another go as PM. She said, “Why would he?” Why would he when there were so many ungrateful and politically stupid fools that remain inside the party room. And perhaps outside as well. In this story, 2016 Federal Election: Australia faces another ‘week’ without government, we find this:
The latest Morgan poll of 3587 electors, conducted yesterday following the weekend election, shows 51 per cent regard Mr Turnbull as better prime minister, just ahead of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten on 47 per cent.
That’s a decrease of six percentage points in a month for Mr Turnbull and a 23 point increase for Mr Shorten in the same period. But Mr Turnbull is clearly preferred as Liberal leader over Tony Abbott by 71 per cent to 25 per cent.
But when only those who identify as Coalition voters are asked who they would prefer as party leader, the result becomes closer — 60 per cent for Mr Turnbull and 38 per cent for Mr Abbott.
Well, if that’s what they think, they got what they deserved. But the notion that there is a more conservative Liberal Party just waiting to be formed from the ashes of the present mob is just fantasy.
VIDEO UPDATE: The video has been added as an update. Quite, quite extraordinary, specially since Comey makes it clear that anyone else doing the same would be prosecuted.
The reality is that every email sent and received by Hillary was illegally kept on a private server which also meant, firstly, that every email she sent and received was monitored by every foreign agency across the world and secondly, that much of what she wrote is unavailable for others within the American political system to review, should they actually wish to. Naturally Donald Trump has criticised. I imagine most others will say hardly a word. Whatever else, the story has already blown over even before it became a story.
Meanwhile, on Instapundit, The IRS Scandal, Day 1153. The US political system is corrupt to its very core, but the complicity between the Democrats and the media will ensure no issue is ever allowed to blow up about anything that harms its party of choice. Again from Instapundit, the media are Democrat Operatives with Bylines.
BTW the story at Instapundit is titled, The fix was in all along which is, of course, true but hardly pictures the gravity of the story. From the comments:
1) The most mendacious paragraph of the whole statement: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
She set up the server explicitly in a premeditated attempt to obstruct justice, in order to at a minimum, deny Freedom of Information requests. I would say this outcome is unbelievable, but I have realized since November 2012 there is no organization of government not utterly corrupted by this President and his cabal. USA RIP
2) This goes beyond, far beyond, Prosecutorial Discretion……We’re deep into “Parador” country here.
We no longer have a Criminal Justice System, buy a System of Justice of Criminals!
3) The worst national security breach in the history of the US doesn’t warrant anything more than a shoulder shrug from the DOJ.
Disgusting. If she were a Republican they’d be literally calling for her head on a pike.
Not much heat in the response, only resignation about that is how things are.
Call it conspiracy theory, coincidence or just bad luck, but any time someone is in a position to bring down Hillary Clinton by testifying they wind up dead. In fact, there’s a long history of Clinton-related body counts, with scores of people dying under mysterious circumstances.
I do not think any of it is true, but I do find it interesting that it is being said and repeated outside the National Enquirer.
FURTHER VIDEO UPDATE: This is Donald Trump in his own more direct version of the contrast between what Comey said and what Hillary said. Trump’s video, which can be seen at this link, has already had more than five million hits. Below is the same taken from Youtube.
A statue in Uganda of Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Jonathan, who was killed in the Entebbe raid
For me, the anniversary is on the sixth of July 1976 which is the day the news of the raid at Entebbe reached us here in Australia. Today is the fortieth anniversary of that moment. To show how the world does change, the commemorative service, addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – whose brother led the raid and was killed by the terrorists – spoke at Entebbe on the anniversary.
Monday’s ceremony at the scene of the raid was attended by some of the rescued hostages and Israeli special forces who carried out the operation.
Mr Netanyahu said: “Exactly 40 years ago Israeli soldiers carried out the historic mission in Entebbe. Forty years ago they landed in the dead of night in a country led by a brutal dictator who gave refuge to terrorists. Today we landed in broad daylight to be welcomed by a president who fights terrorism.”
His elder brother, Jonathan, was shot dead as he led the operation to free hostages, who had been taken captive on an Air France flight by Palestinian and German militants.
For those who do not know of this moment, the story is told as the story of Yoni Netanyahu, the Prime Minister’s brother, who led the raid on an exhilarating day I have never forgotten.
These are the same people who think Global Warming is a problem. And after you have watched it through, then you can read how a generation lost its common culture wherein will be found:
Our students’ ignorance is not a failing of the educational system – it is its crowning achievement. Efforts by several generations of philosophers and reformers and public policy experts — whom our students (and most of us) know nothing about — have combined to produce a generation of know-nothings. The pervasive ignorance of our students is not a mere accident or unfortunate but correctible outcome, if only we hire better teachers or tweak the reading lists in high school. It is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide. The end of history for our students signals the End of History for the West.
1999 Seattle WTO protests, sometimes referred to as the Battle of Seattle or the Battle in Seattle, were a series of protests surrounding the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, when members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington on November 30, 1999. The Conference was to be the launch of a new millennial round of trade negotiations.
The negotiations were quickly overshadowed by massive and controversial street protests outside the hotels and the Washington State Convention and Trade Center, in what became the second phase of the antiglobalization movement in the United States. . . . The large scale of the demonstrations, estimated at no less than 40,000 protesters, dwarfed any previous demonstration in the United States against a world meeting of any of the organizations generally associated with economic globalization (such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank).
I haven’t read the fine print, but I can only assume that globalisation no longer has any serious relationship to the spread of capitalism and free trade.
Malcolm Turnbull has opened talks with the new kingmakers in federal parliament to save his government after a savage swing against him in a federal election that has fuelled dissent over his leadership and thrown the nation into political turmoil.
The Prime Minister insisted he was “quietly confident” of holding power as he pledged to work with the independents who could decide his fate, clearing the way for days of talks while Australians wait to learn the outcome of an election that remains too close to call.
Bill Shorten vowed to seek a “consensus” in the new parliament and dismissed the idea of going back to the polls, but stopped short of outlining a plan to form a minority Labor government. . . .
The Australian learned last night that Mr Turnbull had spoken yesterday to three crucial crossbenchers, Nick Xenophon, Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan, and is hoping to talk to other influential players in coming days to shore up support without striking a formal alliance.
“I have spoken to a number of the crossbenchers and what I’ve said to them is what I say to you now — that we will be able to form a majority government,” Mr Turnbull said yesterday. “And in those circumstances, and indeed in any circumstances, we always seek to work constructively with all the members of the parliament, as we have done in the past.”
The fact is that each of the minor parties comes with a shopping list a mile long. A genuine party of restraint which was the party John Howard and Tony Abbott led, would not go near any such thing. Malcolm, on the other hand, cares only about Malcolm, with his own political survival all he has in mind. What won’t he agree to? What will he agree to? We shall soon see.
And there is a second article worth a look at The Oz as well: ‘Liberals pay price for ousting Abbott’. Nothing in the article you won’t find mentioned here on Catallaxy, but the comments thread is a lesson and a half. A sample:
Abbott is the most underestimated politician in Australia’s history.He is Australian working class and middle class combined ,humble and unique but most of all his has no fear and confronts issues with a strong desire to fix them whatever the cost to his own popularity.I disagree with him on some issues but have never doubted his courage.A brave heart.
It would be petty to gloat at Malcolm’s failure. Let me be the first to do so.
Turnbull believes in nothing and the voting public know it. He purports to be an economic genius and inspirational leader but has shown he is clueless and indifferent. He thought that the Conservative base had to vote Liberal because they had nowhere else to go – WRONG! He has to resign and the new PM must call a fresh election.
Forget that excuse about similarities to 1998. Bill Shorten is no Kim Beasley, Turnbull is no John Howard. Mr Howard was attempting to implement a huge reform package while Turnbull was attempting a trickle down micro- reform package. Howard had a united party, Turnbull does not. Howard was conservative, Turnbull is not. Howard earned his right to be the leader, Turnbull did not. Howard believed the right mattered so he he spoke to all conservative journalists, Turnbull did not. Finally, Howard showed humility and respect.
Turnbull promised everything and delivered nothing. He must resign!
MARK STEYN ADDITION: Mark has taken time off from his summer of research to discuss The Blunder Down Under. Naturally you must read it all, but here is the relevant bit so far as this post is concerned.
The Oz Liberal Party is liberal in the classical-liberal sense – ie, it’s the right-of-center party. Last year’s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, a conservative, was toppled by Malcolm Turnbull, who isn’t in the least bit conservative but rather a modish technocrat know-it-all of consuming personal ambition. I rank him higher than an outright poseur such as David Cameron on the grounds that, when it comes to, say, climate change, Turnbull is a genuine believer whereas Cameron is just going with the flow. At any rate, here’s what I said about Turnbull on the ABC’s Q&A back in February:
TONY JONES: Mark Steyn, what do you think? How does this look from a distance? I know you were, as a conservative, you were quite a – well, you were a supporter of Tony Abbott.
MARK STEYN: Yeah, yeah. Tony was more congenial to me than his usurper but Lenore, I thought, put it very well. You know, he came to power because of the bad polls – because there had been, like, 137 lousy polls for Tony Abbott. So he staged his coup. If the polls head south for Malcolm Turnbull, that destroys the rationale for his prime ministership… The deal was that nothing would change except his face where Tony Abbott’s face used to be and I think he’s caught in a trap of his own making there. If the poll numbers reach Tony Abbott levels, what was the point of the switch? You’re in Kevin-and-Julia territory then.
The ultimate poll – Saturday’s election – proved to be far worse. But it did, as I said on the telly that night, utterly destroy the rationale for Turnbull’s coup.
My preference on pure policy to take over as PM remains Tony Abbott, but my reservations do exist and are not small. His greatest weakness when PM and leader was an inability to take a hard line with others. Sentimentality in the role of a leader is not an asset but a fatal debility. This, on the day after the election, irritates me endlessly: Turnbull ‘gave it everything’. Abbott doesn’t have to say what I say, that Malcolm is a far-left incompetent and if we are going to have a hung Parliament he should be the one to be hung first. On the other hand, Abbott doesn’t have to say this either:
Tony Abbott has urged his Coalition colleagues to “take stock” and reflect on what’s occurred over the past several months, calling on them to “carefully, calmly consider what’s best” going forward, Jared Owens writes.
“(Malcolm Turnbull) gave it everything and good on him for giving it everything,” Mr Abbott said. “I guess there are a lot of people who have got a lot to reflect upon as a result of what’s happened over the last little while.
“Rather than rush out and pontificate on a whole lot of different subjects, I think we need to carefully, calmly consider what’s best. All I think we can do today is take stock, to think, to reflect, rather than just come out with snap judgments.”
Asked about the impact of his own removal as leader last September, Mr Abbott told reporters: “I’m just not going to go back and dwell on events of nine months or so back.
“The important thing is good people who tried hard, who did what they thought was the best for our country … are no longer in the parliament and it’s sad for them and it’s sad for the rest of them that remain.”
I suppose if you are running to be leader again, you don’t want to alienate anyone, specially fools who are fireproofed in their individual seats to such an extent that they could withstand this latest disaster. Nevertheless, Abbott is only worth putting in as leader if he has truly learned the necessity of a high degree of ruthlessness in the pursuit of the ends he wants pursued. Machiavelli was seen as immoral for saying in print nothing more than what has been perennially standard practice for anyone who has succeeded in politics. Instead of saying that others were doing what they thought best and they should be congratulated for trying to achieve their ends, more to the point would be something like, these people are so far off the planet that it is hard to believe they actually thought this was the way forward.
Law of Markets 