I heard this in Bill Clinton’s interview with Jon Stewart 20 Sept 2012 talking about finding solutions for economic challenges.
‘The problem with any ideology is it gives you the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mould the evidence to get the answer that you’ve already decided you got to have. It doesn’t work that way …’
— Bill Clinton
True.
– P
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” [Lord Keynes]
Rgds,
*p*
That is a humdinger of a quote from Keynes. Thanks!
I remember when I was working at Parliament and doing my politics degree part-time (late 1980s-early 1990s) the most popular classes — so in demand that the lectures were split into theatres for students A-M and N-Z — were Economics papers.
The whole Chicago School/Rogernomics/Ruthnomics/market-is-always-right thing was the zeitgeist.
Running to or from a lecture, I ran into Ruth Dyson, who was President of the Labour Party at the time, queuing to get into an ECON class … she recognized me from the press gallery … and discussed it with her briefly.
Ruth said something along the lines of she needed to understand the terms and language her political opponents (Labour colleagues, I presumed she meant) were using so that she could argue with them better.
– P
Great quotes, Peter and poormastery. Thanks.
When discussing slaves of some defunct economist, Ruth Dyson fits the bill perfectly. She seemed to parrot the “race to the bottom” theories of Marx in a particularly inarticulate manner.
On Marxism, we can quote Lord Keynes again:
“Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion — how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history.”
Of course, militant lefty’s are no longer much of an issue, having been completely and utterly discredited in the 20th Century.
The greatest mass murder of the 20th Century? For my money, it might not be Mao, Stalin or Hitler – at least in terms of results.
Bono’s murderous policies of welfare for the world probably led directly to more deaths than any of these nefarious characters (and this leaves aside his crimes against music).
The world’s most evil man, Bono, legendarily launched a sickly liberal assault on the worlds poor. Bono is partially responsible for the spread of dependence and defeatism around the Third World, which has ultimately cost millions of lives.”
The fact that Bono was supposedly trying to help doesn’t really excuse the fact that his muddled thinking cost the lives of tens or even hundreds of millions of innocent people.
The racism of the “Feed the World” Nuremburg style rallies also arguably challenged that of the Nazis. Whilst the Jews were considered by the National Socialists to be the most dangerous enemy, the sickly liberals led by Bono simply regarded black Africans as subhumans – completely useless and incapable of even feeding themselves. They didn’t even allow black musicians to play at their condescending rally.
Africa fed the Roman Empire for one thousand years. The Carthaginians were the most advanced agricultural society of their age. Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa and a huge exporter to other Continents. The idea that Africa was incapable of producing food was a nonsense.
The response of Bono et al was to show a starving child, and announce in a sombre voiceover “Those were the lucky ones.” Only a sickly liberal could muster such high-handedness. Why is a starving child lucky?
Destroying African production with free imports of food really was putting the final boot in.
Sickly liberal celebrities – click you fingers every three seconds to make poverty history! Wear a ridiculous wristband! It’s childish stuff, and has proved to be counter productive economically.
Does this bad sickly liberal thinking matter?
Yes, I think this woolly minded nonsense ended up proving murderous on a truly industrial scale.
I read somewhere that just 30 years ago, average incomes in Sub-Saharan Africa were twice those of China.
Now, the GDP per capita figures make dismal reading for Africa in comparison to China.
What happened during these 30 years? Where did it all go so wrong for Africa?
For China, the economy began to change with the death of Mao in 1976.
Between 1979 and 1997, the growth rate of China’s GDP was 9.8% annually, about three times greater than the world average.
The little man Deng had taken charge of China after Mao. Deng then arguably facilitated dragging more people out of poverty than anyone else in history.
Deng’s reforms were encapsulated by his simple five word aphorism:
“To get rich is glorious.”
Africa meanwhile went in a different direction.
The twin terrorists Sir Bob Geldof and Bono 30 years ago preached a different message, which intriguingly he also summed up in five memorable words:
“Give us your f****** money!”
The economic experiments in China versus Africa have therefore pitted personal responsibility against welfare dependency respectively.
The economic experiments in China versus Africa have pitted capitalism against sickly liberalism respectively.
The economic experiments in China versus Africa have pitted trade against aid respectively.
The results the Maoist economic policies had in China, and Bono-ism economic policies in Africa, are almost identical.
Alas, there is no stopping the murderous bandwagon of the economic vandalism of the left and their collaborators. The political correct thought police have launched an insidious wave of propaganda that intimidates any dissenting individuals into silence.
The cult of global welfare dependency is like a runaway train. Stand in the way of this train at your peril.
Sickly liberalism is now potentially the most dangerous ideology of our age, because it can combine earnestness and reasonableness of rhetoric, with complete irrationality and a refusal to compromise.
Rgds,
*p*
Gee, you’re fun! Thanks for your comments.
I respectfully disagree with a great deal of what you say in your reply, but I enjoyed reading it all. No doubt you’ve used exaggeration to make a point, but even so … a few responses…
I personally like Ruth Dyson and I think she’s a NZer who has made a contribution to her country. None of us is perfect. (I don’t say that to avoid criticism. It’s just an observation.)
I said earlier I don’t have a Marxist bone in my body, nevertheless, I agree with John Key that most NZers have a wide ‘socialist streak’ — which I think of as a collectivism and sense of community. (We’ve discussed your view that Margaret Thatcher has been hard done by with misquotes of her ‘There is no such thing as community’ comments.)
Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman and now TV ‘news’ show host, laid into Mitt Romney over his 47% comments … saying conservative politicians in touch with their roots like Reagan and Thatcher would ‘never have said’ what Romney did.
video here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/meet-the-press-panel-conservatives-in-shouting-match-over-impact-of-romneys-47-remark/
—
One of the things I appreciate about your writing is your deft use of metaphor. So I cast your comments about Bono and Geldoff as ‘terrorists’ in that light. I actually don’t have any difficulty at all with the “Give us your f****** money!” approach to fund-raising. We are, homo sapiens, notoriously apathetic. It’s not like he had a gun.
(Reminds me of one of Olly Newland’s jokes… ‘I made my fortune using three simple words: ‘Stick ’em up!’)
Same with this idea of a ‘cult of global welfare dependency’. Yeah right.
I agree that there’s an orthodoxy in politics and economics, and like any dogma, it needs a good bottle-brushing now and then.
Some of Roger Douglas’s success can be attributed to the equivalent of ‘deferred maintenance’ in NZ economic theory due to atrophy under Albanian-esque Robert Mugabe Muldoon’s controlled economy.
Some argue the ‘Quiet Revolution’ (as Colin James dubbed it) was in part a reaction to the stultified economic environment that Muldoon (the socialist? Well, yes) oversaw.
—
“murderous bandwagon of the economic vandalism of the left and their collaborators”
I think a higher degree of ‘economic vandalism’ has been shown to be a characteristic of the Wall St/London/Zurich banking crowd with their junk derivatives and other ‘synthetic’ markets. The uber-greedies have also deftly demonstrated they’re in favour of capitalism when they’re ‘making money’ (ahem) but are fine with socialism when it’s time for a bailout of the ‘too big to fail’ banks etc.
Still, you’ll have a better perspective on such things given your own position and standpoint. I’m interested to hear it.
—
“Sickly liberalism is now potentially the most dangerous ideology of our age, because it can combine earnestness and reasonableness of rhetoric, with complete irrationality and a refusal to compromise.”
Yeah, sorry *pm* that’s just
bullshitrhetoric about the ‘refusal to compromise’ and ‘most dangerous ideology’. Perhaps you’re thinking of the extreme-right Tea Party? Or the neocons who pushed the US to invade Iraq using any dishonest or fabricated excuse they could deploy?Dangerous to whom?
– P
I’m sorry Peter but Your obviously politically compromised towards Labour.
“I personally like Ruth Dyson and I think she’s a NZer who has made a contribution to her country. None of us is perfect. (I don’t say that to avoid criticism. It’s just an observation.)”
I don’t say that to avoid criticism.
I call Bullshit. its exactly why you said it.
“I’m sorry Peter but Your obviously politically compromised towards Labour.”
Why? Because I said I personally like Ruth Dyson? Are you mad? (Or just naive?)
Don’t be sorry. I’ve personally liked plenty of Nats, the latest being Jami-Lee Ross (whether I agree with all his politics or not).
I have declared before here that I admire and respect Sir Douglas Graham. Yes, still. Very much so.
I personally liked* Winston Peters back when he was a Nat & I’ve liked plenty of Nats since: Wyatt Creech, Tau Henare, Simon Power, …
Personally liking someone doesn’t mean I’m their political supporter — nor opponent.
I know you regard me as in Labour’s camp. You’re incorrect. And a partisan, it seems to me.
– P
* but didn’t always trust … http://www.thepaepae.com/how-to-have-a-fair-argument/226/
Interested in your comments, poormastery. You have any estimated death toll for Bono’s ‘murderous policies’? Mao’s was 43,000,000 of starvation in one instance alone (1958-62) plus 2-3 million executed for ‘disobedience’ as he exported Chin’s food to fund his nuclear programme.
Hi Peter,
“I think a higher degree of ‘economic vandalism’ has been shown to be a characteristic of the Wall St/London/Zurich banking crowd with their junk derivatives and other ‘synthetic’ markets.”
In a market economy, banks allocate resources (under Communism the Politburo or Stalin / Mao etc perform this role).
Obviously, banks have mispriced risk, and as such made an exceptionally poor job of this resource allocation role of late. Equally obviously, even this admittedly dire performance could be seen as rather better than Stalin / Mao et al managed in their capacity. Capitalism allocates resources better than the government?
The financial crisis is really far more about bog standard European government bonds (government debt) than it is about “junk derivatives and other ‘synthetic’ markets”, although obviously the financial crisis started with the subprime crisis.
“Yeah, sorry *pm* that’s just bullshit rhetoric about the ‘refusal to compromise’ and ‘most dangerous ideology’. Perhaps you’re thinking of the extreme-right Tea Party? Or the neocons who pushed the US to invade Iraq using any dishonest or fabricated excuse they could deploy?”
Actually, what I had in my mind when I wrote the above statement was the EU Politburo.
These totalitarian tyrants employ the rhetoric of the sickly liberal, with their socialist emphasis on “soladarity” et al, but there is no compromise or even negotiation whatsoever with the people.
These lefty sickly liberals types, with their totalitarian tendancies, are now busily bankrupting a Continent of people.
The EU Politburo with their evil Kommissars are far more dangerous than say the Tea Party, in my view. How could it be argued otherwise?
Hi Graeme,
I have always been fascinated by Mao – I have read a huge number of books about him and the period.
I don’t actually know how many people have starved in Africa, and the deaths as a consequence of “The Great Leap Forward” would be difficult to beat (not that anyone would want to). Perhaps I will post my views on these events one day…
By the way, Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on famines. He showed that no famine had ever occured in a functioning democracy.
Perhaps if Bono had concentrated on improving governance in Africa, rather than simply trying to bankrupt Africa’s farmers, some good could have been done?
Just a thought…
Rgds,
*p*
Oh dear. That seems a very us and them take on things, if you don’t mind me saying. (Perhaps I’m guilty of the same thing myself at times.)
But “totalitarian tendencies”? Really?
I’m sure you have reasons for judging them (the EU) as such. Do you mind if I ask what they are?
What are you saying here?: “Capitalism allocates resources better than the government?” Do you believe this statement of faith-based ideology? Do you believe in trickle down and tax cuts for the rich will benefit the poor (‘a rising tide lifts all boats’)?
“Perhaps if Bono had concentrated on improving governance in Africa,…”
Kind of like Che Guevara? Or like the CIA did with Allende? Or Iran-Contra. Or George W Bush building democracy through ‘regime change’ in Iraq?
Your targets, conscience-stricken fat cat Westerners like Bono and Geldof and Oxfam and World Vision and nameless others are, it seems to me, doing the best with the light they have.
– P
Peter, you ask regarding sickly liberalism:
“Dangerous to whom?”
An easy mistake to make.
When you looked at the Waffen SS, with their Hugo Boss black uniforms, death’s head insignia and jackboots, you could tell that they were dangerous.
When you look at a typical sickly liberal stormtrooper, it could be easy to underestimate the menace they represent. They appear to be a harmless people, perhaps to be ridiculed for their illogical views, and quickly dismissed from thought. After all, a middle aged man wearing a ridiculous beard, woolen cardigan, roman sandals (or some other type of sensible shoes) and trousers that don’t aren’t long enough to cover their ankles certainly doesn’t create a menacing appearance.
Yet Bono-ism has been disasterous for Africa, killing indiscriminantly. The sickly liberal Politburo in Europe is contributing to the economic destruction of Europe. Arguably, worst of all, the sickly liberal environ-mentalists want to send the world back to primitive cave man times, with everybody ekking out an existence by tilling the ground with their bare hands.
Bad thinking is indeed dangerous.
Rgds,
*p*