The Gnomes of Canterbury put sophism to the sword

The Gnomes of Canterbury are back, putting economic sophism to the sword.

Brad Taylor,from the University of Canterbury, explains that Alan Bollard Doesn’t Understand Economics.  Some of us, of course, have always suspected that.  But Taylor has him cold:

    “Speaking on TVNZ’s Q+A programme yesterday, Alan Bollard said Australia had been ‘blessed by God sprinkling minerals’ and had handled its economy well. He said New Zealand would do better to make the most of the ‘crumbs that come off the Australian table.’

Responds Taylor to this patronising nonsense:

    Bollard seems to be stuck in a materialist mindset when it comes to economic performance. While resource endowments do matter, assuming that New Zealand’s relative lack of minerals destines those living here to a permanently lower level of income than Australians is absurd. As the Taksforce points out, many high performing countries such as Taiwan and Ireland are extremely resource-poor. Many extremely poor African countries are also very rich in minerals. People become richer when the institutional environment allows them to cooperate for mutual advantage, not when there are lots of shiny things to take out of the ground.
    “New Zealand’s economic stagnation has nothing to do with resource endowments or commodity prices and everything to do with poor institutions.”

Round One to the Gnomes.

And you’ll remember that Paul Walker, also from the University of Canterbury, was last week taking on the Standardistas over their absurd claims that minimum wage laws have no effect on unemployment. In the comments thickets of the Sub-Standard’s posts, Paul explains clearly that they do—that setting labour rates above the market rate will quite obviously leave labour markets unable to clear, which is what the evidence clearly shows.  (Meanwhile his interlocutors do their very best to keep claiming black is white.)

That was Round Two.

And finally, in a series of articles Eric Crampton (also from the University of Canterbury) lays waste to the related and equally ludicrous claims of the Standardistas and other fellow travellers that putting an end to Youth Rates did nothing to affect youth unemployment. For a severe reality check on this absurdity, read Eric on:

• Youth rates
• Youth rates revisited
• Youth rates re-revisited

And check out this graph, which tells most of his story:

I’ll let you guess for yourself when youth rates were abolished.

Looks like three rounds to the New Gnomes of Canterbury. Must be some goddamn strong stuff they put in the water down there!

And by the way, if you find it odd that the likes of Matt McCarten, Laila Harre and John Minto campaigned so hard to put young people out of work, which is what we can see they were doing, then I suggest you check your premises.  The reason they took on Youth Rates as a project once the voters kicked their Alliance party out of Parliament was that they wanted to radicalise a new generation of youngsters—and this was their best way in. The welfare of young people was never on their agenda—if it was they would reverse their campaign now the evidence is in.

But they won’t.  Of course they won’t. They would rather have one-quarter of young people unemployed and blaming capitalism for their plight than see them working productively and getting themselves on a career ladder.

Which tells you precisely what sort of “benefactors of humanity” they really are.

Thank goodness, then, that there are still folk about like the New Gnomes of Canterbury, whose mission it is to puncture the sophisms of the statists.  All power to their arms.