"Economic theory has identified four sources of economic progress"

In January Javier Milei explained to a room of Davos delegates to the WEF forum how the world works, and how economic progress and prosperity happens. This is an excerpt. [Milei's speech was originally in Spanish, and the English version at the WEF website has been transcribed by AI. I have edited slightly it for smoothness and clarity. Emphases mine]

As early as 380 BC, Xenophon pointed out that economics is a form of knowledge that enables men to increase their wealth while arguing that private property is the most beneficial vehicle for the life of individuals.

Xenophon ... [first] highlight[ed] the benefit of private property by stating that the owner's eye fattens his cattle. [Or as the English saying has it: "It's the master's eye that makes the mill go"]... Xenophon then delves into the dynamic realm, noting that efficiency also entails increasing wealth: that is, increasing the available quantity of goods through entrepreneurial creativity, namely through trade, innovation, and recognising opportunity. ...

"[T]he institution of private property deserves a separate chapter. By focussing on it, the Austrian School of Economics from Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner and Hoppe to Huerta de Soto has demonstrated the impossibility of socialism, thereby dismantling the illusory idea of John Stuart Mill that postulated independence between production and distribution; a form of academic deafness that led to socialism, and cost the world the lives of 150 million human beings -- while those who managed to survive the terror, did so in absurd poverty.

In line with [those writers'] previous remarks, and consistent with Xenophon's second [point], economic theory has identified four sources of economic progress.

First, there's the division of labour, which was illustrated by Adam Smith through the pin factory example. At its core, this is a mechanism that generates productivity gains, manifested as increasing returns. Although its limit is determined by market size, the size of the market is positively affected by this process. However, it is also worth noting that this virtuous process is not infinite and that its ultimate limit lies in the endowment of initial resources.

Second, there is the accumulation of capital, both physical and human. With regard to physical capital, the interaction between saving and investment is crucial, highlighting the fundamental role of capital markets and of the financial system in carrying out such intermediation. On the human capital side, the focus should not be limited to education alone, but should also include the development of cognitive capacities from birth, as well as nutrition and health, basic elements for gaining access to education and the labour market.

Third, there is technological progress, which consists in being able to produce a greater quantity of goods with the same amount of resources, or to produce the same output using a smaller quantity of inputs.

Finally, there is entrepreneurial spirit, or rather the entrepreneurial function, which, according to Professor Huerta De Soto constitutes the main driver of the economic growth process. Because, although the three factors mentioned are important, without entrepreneurs, there can be no production, and living standards would be extremely precarious.

In fact, the entrepreneurial function is not so much focused on short-term efficiency, but rather on increasing the quality of goods and services, which, in turn, leads to higher standards of living. On this basis, what truly matters is to expand the frontier of production possibilities to the maximum extent possible.

Thus, dynamic efficiency can be understood as an economy's capacity to foster entrepreneurial creativity and coordination.

In turn, the criterion of dynamic efficiency is inseparably linked to the concept of the entrepreneurial function, which is that typically human capacity to perceive profit opportunities that arise in the environment and to act accordingly to take advantage of them. This makes the task of discovering and creating new ends and means fundamental, driving spontaneous coordination to resolve market imbalances.

Moreover, this definition of dynamic efficiency proposed by Huerta de Soto coherently and appropriately combines Schumpeter’s idea of creative destruction with North's concept of adaptive efficiency.

Naturally, given the role of the entrepreneurial function, the institutions under which it develops are of vital importance. In this regard, both Douglass North and Jesús Huerta de Soto consider one of the key functions of institutions to be that of reducing uncertainty.

So, while North presents them as a set of humanly devised constraints that structure social interaction in a repetitive manner, Huerta de Soto considers that these institutions, conceived by human beings, emerge spontaneously from a process of social interaction without being designed by any single individual, and that they reduce uncertainty in the market process.

As Roy Cordato points out, the appropriate institutional framework is one that favours entrepreneurial discovery and coordination. Accordingly, within this framework, economic policy should aim to identify and remove all artificial barriers that hinder the entrepreneurial process and voluntary exchanges.

Given the decisive influence of institutions on economic progress, this directs our attention to the importance of ethics, as societies that adhere to stronger moral values and ethical principles in support of institutions will be dynamically more efficient and will therefore enjoy greater prosperity.

Accordingly, the fundamental ethical problem is a search for the best way to foster entrepreneurial coordination and creation.

Therefore, in the field of social ethics, we conclude that conceiving human beings as creative and coordinating actors entails accepting axiomatically the principle that every human being has the right to appropriate the results of their entrepreneurial creativity.

So the private appropriation of the fruits of what entrepreneurs create and discover is a principle of natural law because if an author were unable to appropriate what they create or discover, their capacity to detect profit opportunities would be blocked, and the incentive to carry out their actions would disappear. Ultimately, the ethical principle just stated is the fundamental ethical foundation of the entire market economy.

So, what we've just demonstrated is that free enterprise capitalism is not only just but also efficient and also that it is the one that maximises growth.

[Full speech here]

RELATED: Here's Per Bylund at the latest Ludwig Von Mises conference explaining that it's entrepreneurs, not politicians, who change the world for the better.

"One long filibuster to keep poor people out of her area"

This is an amusing account below of an important public meeting. Important in the context of making Auckland an affordable city.

Here's some quick context: Auckland's town planners have strangled the city in red tape for years. In recent times however, many planners and councillors (and mayor Wayne Brown) have come around to the realisation that the fewer houses built, the higher the prices for those houses: that, just maybe, people might be allowed to do a bit more on their land, to maybe build a little more densely. 

Opposing this, of course, are the councillors and politicians of the leafier suburbs like Christine Fletcher -- and of course David Seymour, who's dropped his party's alleged principles about property rights to wring his hands instead about there being 'no density without infrastructure.' 

There's no greater hand wringer than Christopher Luxon however, who decided over summer that Auckland Council must 'downzone' their proposed plan change that would allow greater density.

So this meeting Wednesday night was to confirm where the push for greater density would be maintained in the upcoming Plan (where would be upzoned), and where that push would be relaxed a little (where would be downzoned). 

And with that introduction, here's Hayden Donnell ...

When the government’s efforts to intensify Auckland were debated at council back in August last year, critics took turns wringing their hands about the strain it would place on infrastructure. Plan Change 120 [which will allow greater density] could end up putting apartments in places that weren’t set up to handle them, they fretted. “Ultimately you can’t do all this upzoning without making the commitment to provide the infrastructure that will support it,” warned Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa ward councillor Christine Fletcher ...

Yesterday the worriers got their wish. Thanks to a government backdown wrangled over chardonnays and summer barbecues, councillors are allowed to reduce the capacity in the new plan from two million to 1.6 million houses. Council’s policy and planning committee was meeting to decide where to make those cuts, and its chair Richard Hills started out explaining the staff recommendations to prioritise places 10km or more from the city centre. Asked why those areas should get first dibs on downzoning, council planner John Duguid was clear: it was because the land within 10km of the city centre had the best access to public transport, employment opportunities, regional amenities like parks and pools and three waters capacity, as measured by Watercare:

Three waters capacity in the central areas is set to improve even more when the Central Interceptor comes online soon. (Image: Watercare)

It should have been a celebration. But what would you know, most of the people who were once so concerned about ensuring housing is near infrastructure weren’t happy. Instead they were stewing over the revelation that the places with the best infrastructure were in their well-to-do wards. North Shore councillor John Gillon had looked at the maps and found that a 10km radius from the city centre would include the entire area he represents. He moved an amendment, seconded by Fletcher, to delete the 10km clause, saying he was “concerned” about the figure.

Waitākere councillor Shane Henderson was having none of it. He pointed out that west and south Auckland had accepted the vast bulk of the new houses in Auckland since the Unitary Plan passed in 2016. As for strain on infrastructure, those areas have limited pipe capacity and less access to public transport, and we see the effects of that outside-in planning in rush-hour congestion, parking shortages and sewage overflows, he said. Henderson argued Fletcher and Gillon were engaged in “a poorly dressed up move to take away intensification from the best-equipped parts of the city”. “The intention is simple: to downzone wealthy suburbs. There is no sensible reason for excluding central isthmus communities – again –  from doing their part.”

The mayor was, if anything, more blunt. He said Gillon’s motion was aimed at putting housing in Pukekohe rather than areas close to “all the infrastructure”. “I don’t want to see endless sprawl just so nimbys in Parnell and politicians can get re-elected,” he said, in what appeared to be a shot at his political nemesis, Act leader David Seymour. “That’s disgraceful, I can’t vote for it.” ...

As Brown saw it, his colleagues’ first purpose was elitism. But if they had a second priority, it was delay. Gillon and Fletcher also put forward an amendment proposing to ask the government for more time to enact Plan Change 120. ...

The demand was familiar. Fletcher has asked for more consultation in just about every planning meeting for years, and the mayor was incensed. “I want to get out of this without further delay and dithering,” he said. “God almighty, it would be great to do something this three-year period.” ...

“For fuck’s sake, get on with it,” he said, as Fletcher spoke for the final time. ...

Afterward, Brown expanded on his frustration with Fletcher, saying the meeting was “one long filibuster to stop poor people living in her area.” 

Read the whole thing here. It's an entertaining lunchtime read.

[Pics from Spinoff]

"I want to help the poor"

Cartoonist unknown

"All of a sudden mass media is interested in the civilian casualties of the war in Iran!"

The media is slowly waking up to the reaction inside Iran to US-Israeli bombing, beginning to report on the perspective of Iranians living inside there who look forward to a regime change.

It's an unusual moment. People being bombed who are welcoming the bombing.

The New York Times spoke to an engineer in Tehran who said many in the city were comfortable with U.S. bombings and that “they are upset if there is a night without bombing, and fear the war might end while the regime remains. You can see this clearly":

The experience of being bombed is even more terrifying because the government is sharing little information and sending few alerts, said Ali, an engineer in Tehran. Ordinary Iranians are cut off from the internet, and Ali said people had resorted to calling friends and relatives in areas where they saw fighter jets headed.

The ferocity of the attacks has divided sentiment among opponents of the government after a brutal crackdown on nationwide protests by security forces last January. Thousands were killed.

"Some people are comfortable with the bombings - I know that may sound strange," said Ali. "They are upset if there is a night without bombing, and fear the war might end while the regime remains. You can see this clearly. People say we have already paid enough of a price and the Islamic republic must go."

Ali said he was sympathetic to that view. "Our lives have no value for the Islamic republic," he said. "We are the government's human shields."

[PS: Click through for the videos and posts.]

'Politicians’ words'

"Whether in politics or in the media, words are increasingly used, not to convey facts or even allegations of facts, but simply to arouse emotions.
    "Undefined words are a big handicap in logic, but they are a big plus in politics, where the goal is not clarity but victory -- and the votes of gullible people count just as much as the votes of people who have common sense."

~ Thomas Sowell from his 2015 column 'Politicians’ words'

What if robots take all the jobs? Hint: They can't.

"People have it all wrong" about AI and robots, says philosopher Harry Binswanger. 

Robots are going to take your job? No doubt.

What if robots take all the jobs?  Hint: They can't.

You may not keep this job. But your next one will pay so much more.  How can we know that?  Because, he argues, "We’re all going to get richer. The more that AI and robots can do for us, the richer we will get."

How so? Because AI and robots makes everyone’s labour far more productive -- and the result will be more goods produced, and hence "more wealth in the whole economy."

More wealth means more savings. More savings means more investment. And "more investment means more goods produced, which means a drop in the cost of living, which means a rise in the standard of living."

But how can he be so sure that if your job is replaced you'll be able to find a new one and "take part in this bonanza?"

The temptation is to answer by finding things robots won’t ever be able to do. “Robots will never be great chefs.” “Robots will never be venture capitalists.” “Robots will never write a first-rate symphony.”

That’s irrelevant. The point is that even if AI and robots could do everything better than any human being, that would enhance, not undermine, the value of human labour.

Why? The explanation comes from applying here an important truth discovered two centuries ago. In 1817, the great English economist David Ricardo identified “The Law of Comparative Advantage.”

Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage explains that no matter how poor you country may be at producing stuff, if both you and others specialise in what they each do best then, at the end of the day, we are all better off. It's best, for example, if Scotland trades whisky with France for claret and burgundy, rather than the other way around. ("It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family,"explained Adam Smith, "never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.")

Equally, the best way for New Zealanders to get cars and electronics is not to try making cars and electronics ourselves, but to process grass into milk powder, meat and wool so that New Zealanders can trade for those fancy devices. And when we do, we're all better off. ( If you're struggling with the concept, because it is remarkably subtle, PJ O 'Rourke's short explanation is one of the funniest on record, and undoubtedly the only one using Courtney Love to help explain things.)

Recognising that self-same principle of Comparative Advantage applies between people as it does to countries, economist Ludwig Von Mises expanded Ricardo's Law to make it "one of the most beautiful laws of the universe." Calling it the Law of Association he showed that specialisation allows even the less productive to benefit from working with the more productive -- or what his student George Reisman characterises as 'what the productive cleaner gains from the genius inventor.'

Even if the inventor can clean faster than a given cleaner, it still pays him to hire that cleaner because off-loading the cleaning work saves him time. He can then use that saved time in the area of his comparative advantage: inventing and selling more stuff.

Likewise, even if there comes a time when the robots can do everything better and faster than human beings, [even] more wealth will be produced if robots and humans each specialise in what they do best. Super-robots would produce more for us if we save them from having to do things that are less productive [for them].

(Of course we won’t be trading with robots: robots own nothing. Robots are owned by people, and those people will be paid for selling robots or for renting them out, just as you can rent power tools from Home Depot today.)

The Law of Comparative Advantage means humans will never run out of productive work to do. There will always be tasks that you don’t want to waste your rented or owned robots’ time in doing.

If you’ve got a robot building you a swimming pool, you don’t want him to stop to cook you dinner.

A chainsaw is a lot more efficient than a knife at cutting. But you don’t use a chainsaw to slice a loaf of bread. Particularly not if that chainsaw is being used by a robot to clear a place for a tennis court in your backyard.

So, rather than panic over “the rise of the machines,” let’s bear in mind the Law of Comparative Advantage ....

And let's recognise that "even with science-fictional super-robots, there will still be money changing hands and a price-system, just as now. You will still be paid for working in the field of your own comparative advantage.

New kinds of jobs will appear, as they always have when technology advances. Ironically, most of the jobs people are afraid of losing -- such as programming jobs or truck-driving jobs -- were themselves created by technological advances. There used to be an American saying: “Adapt or die.” Having the same kind of job as your father and grandfather did is not the American dream.

What new types of job will be created? I can no more project that than a man in 1956 could have projected that today there would be jobs in something called “social media”; or that money can be made by driving for Uber and by renting out living space through AirBnB.

The robots will make work much easier, more interesting, and much better paid.

Prepare to be enriched.

Thank you Adam Smith

It's a busy week. This week also marks the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, the first in-depth exploration and explanation of (in PJ O'Rourke's words) why some nations are prosperous and wealthy and other places just suck.In honour of the anniversary, here are several of Adam Smith’s most insightful observations:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter II]

It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter I]

Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. [Lecture in 1755, quoted in Dugald Stewart, Account Of The Life And Writings Of Adam Smith LLD, Section IV, 25]

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV Chapter I]

By means of glasses, hotbeds, and hotwalls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine too can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of claret and burgundy in Scotland? [The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II]

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV Chapter VIII]

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV Chapter VIII]

To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution... It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter XI]

It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book II, Chapter III]

There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book V Chapter II Part II] 

Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
    Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II]

What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. [The Wealth Of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII]

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. [From his 1759 work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments]

The man of system…is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it… He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. [The Theory Of Moral Sentiments, Part VI, Section II, Chapter II]

Roderick Mulgan: The Medical Council Has Gone Too Far -" We're Saying No!"

This email from the Free Speech Union seeks your support:

Hi Peter, The Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) has proposed that treating patients well is no longer enough.   Your doctor must also hold the correct views. This is a substantial change – and as a GP with nearly 40 years’ experience in medicine – let me tell you, Peter, it sends shivers down my spine. Doctors are being told they must now accept that colonisation - present tense, ongoing - is why Māori can't access healthcare, and that it is their professional duty to challenge the "systemic bias within the system”. If they don't? Their practising certificate could be on the line. I'm Dr Roderick Mulgan - GP, barrister, and International Director of the Free Speech Union. I've read these draft standards with both hats on. As a doctor, I know what good patient care looks like. As a barrister, I know what the law requires. These standards go beyond both. The consultation closes 24 March. The Medical Council needs to hear from you. Make a submission to MCNZ today It takes minutes. We've made it easy. More on that below. What doctors must now believe The draft standards on "cultural competence, cultural safety, and hauora Māori" read less like a regulatory document and more like a postgraduate ideology course. Doctors must accept that: the health system is built on oppressive "settler traditions"; colonisation is the reason Māori can't access health resources; patients are entitled to equitable outcomes across identity groups (somehow); doctors must use their professional influence to actively "dismantle unfair systems;" that doctors should challenge colleagues who do not embrace this approach. Which are all funny things to put in a medical standards document. You might agree with some of this. You might agree with all of it. That's beside the point. The question is whether a medical regulator can turn highly contested political opinions into compulsory professional doctrine - backed by the threat of deregistration. What the law actually says - and what happens in a consultation room As a barrister: the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act requires doctors to demonstrate cultural competence, including respectful interaction with Māori. That's it. No ideological extremism. No activist roles. No dismantling.  This is yet another clear-cut case of a regulator trying to impose powers beyond what the legislation allows them. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects not only the right to speak freely, but the right not to be compelled to say things you don't believe. What the Council is proposing is compelled belief, dressed up as professional development. As a doctor what matters when a patient walks through my door is whether: I'm listening carefully, examining competently, diagnosing accurately, treating effectively. Whether I hold the Council's approved position on colonisation has precisely nothing to do with any of that. On Friday, I was on The Platform talking about the MCNZ.   The chilling effect nobody's talking about Free Speech Union Council Member Ani O'Brien made a sharp observation earlier in the week: once disagreement with a framework is treated as evidence of the very problem it describes, recertification stops being about clinical skill. It becomes a test of whether you've learned to say the right things. The real danger isn't dramatic purges. It's quieter. Doctors will learn the language. They'll stop saying what they actually think - not because they've been persuaded, but because they have mortgages and families. A culture of inquiry becomes a culture of compliance. Good medicine depends on doctors who think critically, question assumptions, and follow the evidence. These standards would replace that with ideological conformity. What you can do The Free Speech Union is conducting a full legal analysis and will submit before the deadline. But this consultation is open to everyone - and the Council needs to hear from more than just the institutions already nodding along. If you think doctors should be judged on the quality of their care - not the orthodoxy of their politics - make a submission. Make a submission to MCNZ today Consultation documents are available here.  The deadline is 24 March. That's soon. The Medical Council's job is to ensure clinical competence and patient safety. Not to run a political education programme for the medical profession. Let's remind them of that. Best wishes,

International Women's Day in Iran

It was International Women's Day earlier this week.

An appropriate time to be reminded that Iran executed approximately 64 women in 2025. 

Reasons for execution do include murder, but also such outrages as: 

• not wearing the Islamic veil ;
• not wanting to marry their relatives;
• not accepting beatings from their husband;
• having different political beliefs.

"Fortunately," being stoned to death for "crimes" such as adultery has not happened since 2000. Too late for 20-year-old Zoleykhah Kadkhoda, sentenced to be stoned to death in August 1997 after being convicted of "sexual relations outside marriage." But she was one of the "lucky" ones. After a botched execution, Zoleykhah was found alive in a morgue. (And following international pressure, her death sentence was lifted, and Iranian authorities informed Amnesty International she was released on November 26, 1997.)

Reasons for threatened executions today include not singing the regimes' National Anthem in the women's Asian Cup soccer tournament in Australia, following which the whole team of non-vocalisers were branded as “wartime traitors” and threatened with execution -- with their families being held hostage against their return.

Given these multiple and still ongoing horrors, an Iranian-born expat feminist "want[s] to clarify a few things for people in the West about the current war."

1. We don't expect you to be pro-war. There are many reasons to oppose it, and we can discuss them. ... But don't use Iranians' lives and wellbeing as a reason to oppose the war. Inclusion 101: listen to our voices (and amplify them if you truly care). Don't assume you know our lived experiences better than we do. 

2. The general sentiment among Iranians, both inside and outside Iran, is still positive as of now. Of course there’s nuance and many different views on specific aspects. But that doesn't make us "pro-war." 

3. We’ve been calling for humanitarian military intervention because every other method has simply failed over decades, leaving far more casualties than some wars. It’s not an easy choice. We believe it’s the only one left. 

4. We don't blindly or naively support these operations. We support them only to the extent that we believe they serve as the humanitarian intervention we've been calling for. (Sure, some naive people exist, but don't cherry-pick them to paint all of us.) 

5. Iranians generally understand what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria far better than most in the West. They’re our neighbours. Think about whether you may come off as condescending when you “whitesplain” these things to us. 

6. If you oppose the war, you must do so without supporting the Islamic Regime. It may feel easy to just oppose everything, but if you offer no real, effective way to end the oppression, your opposition effectively supports the regime. 

7. If you doubt Iranians support intervention against the Islamic Regime, remember: the regime’s very first response to the war was to shut down the internet. Their propaganda machine still has full access, while only a small fraction of Iranians have unstable, unreliable ways to get online.

PS: Masih Alinejad reports [confirmed by AFP]: 

This is the first reaction from inside Iran to the news that Mojtaba Khamenei has replaced his father as 'Supreme Leader.'
People are standing on their balconies chanting: 'Death to Mojtaba.' A nation is telling the world: we will not accept another inherited dictatorship.

It's still true: "The best anti-poverty programme ever invented wasn’t a benefit, it was a job."

"With the help of all ... we can build a new life for the poor, a life of hope, a life of opportunity. And we can do it by remembering that the best anti-poverty programme is a job."

~ Ronald Reagan in his 1986 Radio Address to the Nation on Welfare Reform

"The best measure of our success is not how many people are on welfare, it’s how many people we help to get off of welfare and into a job. Because the best anti-poverty programme is a job."

~ Barack Obama from his 2014 State of the Union Address

"The best anti-poverty programme ever invented wasn’t a benefit, it was a job. Policies should make work easier to access than welfare — not the other way around."

~ Taxpayers Union 2026

New blog: Brash + Mitchell

There's a 'new' blog in town, and it's called Brash + Mitchell.

It's not entirely new, of course. With the thankful departure of Michael Bassett and Rodney Hide, their old blog of Bassett, Brash + Hide has become Brash + Mitchell -- that's Don Brash and Lindsay Mitchell to you.

I have no idea why Bassett and Hide departed, but I'm glad they've gone. 

Without them we might expect the blog to be both more principled, less self-congratulatory -- and certainly less wet. 

And since Lindsay Mitchell's solo blog is so criminally under-read, here's hoping her writing will attract a much wider audience.

I commend it to your attention:

"The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free men who know no other master but their reason"

"The time will therefore come when the sun will shine only on free men who know no other master but their reason; when tyrants and slaves, priests and their stupid or hypocritical instruments will exist only in works of history and on the stage; and when we shall think of them only to pity their victims and their dupes; to maintain ourselves in a state of vigilance by thinking of their excesses; and to learn how to recognise and so to destroy, by force of reason, the first seeds of tyranny and superstition, should they ever dare to reappear amongst us."

~ French philosopher & mathematician Marquis de Condorcet, from his 1794 book Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind [hat tip Matthew H]

Focus

“If we look at history, it always will speed up. So that’s why I think the skill of focus, being able to know how to focus when it's necessary, I think is a very, very valuable skill to have nowadays.”

~ Oscar de Bos, co-author of a new book Focus On-Off

"He came up behind him like a librarian": Vale Dennis Cometti (1949-2026)

In the front rank of sporting commentators anywhere was West Australia's Dennis Cometti, who passed away this week.

These were some of his best commentary moments ...

State of the Nation address on behalf of the Honesty Party

"My fellow New Zealanders, whether citizens, residents or those just passing through en route to Australian pastures, it gives me little pleasure to deliver this State of the Nation address on behalf of the Honesty Party because the State of the Nation is, to use a variety of technical terms, knackered, stuffed, buggered.

"While I am sure many of you use far more less technical terms, we can all agree, in the spirit of total honesty that this great party proudly stands for and embraces, that the country is not what it was nor indeed what it claims to be – and hasn’t been for decades.

"The Honesty Party recognises that our problems and issues as a country predate Rogernomics and Ruthenasia. Muldoonism was a failed experiment in populist authoritarianism and economics that failed to adjust to a rapidly changing world. What was once the (if briefly) wealthiest country in the world had already begun its decline and fall. The long snooze of the Holyoake years had set the tone of a ‘steady as she goes’ mentality, one that too often has meant the ship of state has steadily gone aground on the rocks of despair and desperation.

"The basis of our economy is one that no other first world nation has decided upon. A primary-production exporting economy to which we have added tourism, an overinflated housing market and high levels of immigration sets us apart, for a reason. New Zealand used to be the social laboratory of the word; today in all honesty we could say New Zealand is the economic laboratory in how to over promise and under deliver."

~ Mike Grimshaw from his post 'State of the Nation Address: The Honesty Party (An exercise in political honesty)'

One member of every couple works just to pay the tax bill.

There was a time not that long ago when only one member of a family needed to go out to work. 

But that was several moons and many tax increases ago.

Now, one member of every couple goes out to work just to pay the tax bill.

Yet we still have the Sole Parent Support (SPS) benefit, known for decades as the DPB, aka the Domestic Purposes Benefit -- introduced in November 1973 for "sole parents, carers of the sick, and people living alone." 

In 1971, there were about 19,000 sole parent households with children under 15[1]. By the middle of 1974, 12,000 of them were receiving the DPB. There were 110,000 when it was replaced in 2013 with a suite of new benefits. (Politicians love to change a name instead of the reality; and a name-change always makes a thing easier to hide.) 

In today's world the DPB is, says Lindsay Mitchell, "an anachronism. It has lost context in modern society."

Why?

Because most mothers work. 

They take paid parental leave, which has a maximum entitlement of 6 months, and return to their jobs. Whether they want to would vary, but most would say they have to. Mortgages or rent need to be paid, power, groceries, childcare, etc....

22 percent of the mothers were supported by a benefit. For the vast majority, that would be Sole Parent Support. ... So the mothers returning to work - like it or not - will be paying taxes to enable other mothers to stay reliant for most of their newborn's childhood.

Fair?

...

Currently 234,000 children rely on welfare, with over two thirds on SPS.

If those children had a parent on a Jobseeker benefit, the expectation and effort to get their parent into employment would be far greater.

That's not just hot air. The reason Bennett got rid of the Sickness Benefit (in favour of Jobseeker/Health or Disability Condition) was to make sure 'expectation and effort' also went into getting temporarily unemployed unwell people back to work.

Societal expectations matter. And benefits should reflect them.

Get rid of the sole parent benefit. Lift aspirations for those mothers, and better outcomes for their children will follow.

Even better: get rid of all the costs from government that make it necessary for one partner to seek full-time employment just to pay the government's bills!

Famously, mobster Al Capone was not laid low by other gangsters nor by criminal law -- but by the tax code.

He was strangled by bureaucratese. 

Tom Hunter suggests a Japanese-inspired idea to do the same for our local gangsters. And it starts with a humble McDonald's burger, for which a low-level thug wouldn't pay. Turns out something dramatic happened when McDonalds sued the Yakuza gang to which the thug belonged.

'That idea is captured in the dry phrase “employer liability.” In a normal company, if an employee injures someone while doing their job, the victim can often sue not only the individual, but the company and its representative director. The logic is simple: those who profit from dangerous activity should bear the risk of it. Japanese lawyers and police began asking: why should a crime syndicate be any different?'

Death by bureaucracy! Brilliant. What this meant was that all you had to prove was that the guy who had stolen, beaten or murdered someone worked for a Yakuza ..., which is exactly what McDonalds did with the thug.

Simple.

It started with a cheap burger. And is now at the point where the "boss of the Kobe Yamaguchi-gumi gang is losing his house (in a flash Tokyo district) because he lost a 270 million yen lawsuit against a firm that was damaged by one of his 'employees'.'

And here's Tom's thought:

Why couldn’t New Zealand copy these Japanese laws, or at least the conceptual principle of them, and apply them to the likes of the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Head Hunters, and the rest?

Makes sense?

"As for leaders..."

"As for leaders,

"The worst, the people hate,

"The next best, the people fear,

"The next best the people honour and praise.

"But for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence.

"When the best leader's work is done the people say, 'We did it ourselves!'"

~ Laotzu [hat tip the late Paul Callaghan & Colinxy]

"The real battle of our time is a cultural one, is a philosophical one, is a moral one."

"There are moments in history when a civilisation must choose its future.

"We have been told that the State is our protector; that bureaucrats are our saviour, and that politicians know more than the free man. That we must obey, that we must depend. 

"But the truth is different. 

"The world only has two types of people: those who live off what others produce, and those who produce everything that makes modern life possible. 

"The former draft regulations, the latter create wealth. The former promise [to equalise everyone], the latter generate prosperity. The former spread poverty, the latter multiply abundance. 

"The real battle of our time is a cultural one, is a philosophical one, is a moral one. 

"That's why we chose the system that lifted millions out of extreme poverty: free-market capitalism. 

"Because you don’t negotiate freedom, you defend freedom." 

~ Argentine President Javier Milei from his inauguration speech 'Moral Values as State Policy'

Not so sunny solar

I've been reading an 

RNZ investigation [that] has found that [Luxon's] ministers were presented with clear evidence [sic] that rooftop solar is now among the cheapest sources of electricity households can access; that upfront cost is the primary barrier to uptake; and that Australia's rapid expansion was driven by more than $11 billion in state subsidies. But [that] the coalition government [here] chose not to follow the same path. ...  

[The investigation says that] one in three Australian homes now ... [have solar panels installed] saving those families an average 40 percent on their electricity bills each year ...

As part of their work, officials prepared detailed material comparing New Zealand's approach with overseas subsidy regimes, particularly Australia's small-scale solar and battery incentives.

[Documents released to RNZ under the Official Information Act ] noted Australia's "solar revolution" was aided by $11.5 billion AUD in government grants, which reduced upfront costs by 30% and allowed the industry to achieve massive economies of scale.

Total cost to Australians then, if subsidy covers only 30% of the cost of installing rooftop solar, is $38.3B billion AUD (a subsidy to wealthy home-owning Australians of almost $1000 per Australian taxpater).  Which the "investigation" says has reduced prices for those 1 in 3 subsidised Australian families by an average of 40%. Not a great return for all those billions, I would have said. 

Note that Australia's entire peak demand is roughly 35,000 MW. So at a typical capital cost of ~$1.5–2M per MW, if one were to spend that $38.3B on, say, a system of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants, then Australians could theoretically have built enough extra gas capacity to supply the whole country!

Or, maybe, spent those billions on something else. (For that money, going to those already wealthy enough to afford the cost of installation, you could have around 300 new schools, or 30 new hospitals, or one hell of a tax cut ... )

Meanwhile, in New South Wales, this morning, here is where power is coming from ...

What does this mean? It means that to have reliable power, Australians need to build duplicate capacity anyway for when the sun is not delivering. That's the main problem with unreliables.

So much for that "clear evidence."

"Death to America" is now a categorical imperative, apparently

 

According to The New York Times, Ali Larijani has effectively 

been running Iran since January 2026. He was in “charge of

 crushing, with lethal force, the recent protests demanding the 

end of Islamic rule.” He is now the key power broker in Iran’s transition.

Larijani is a Ph.D. in Western Philosophy and a specialist

on Immanuel Kant. He wrote his dissertation on Kant and 

three published books [on the German Philosopher].

"Religious fanaticism and radical subjectivism are two sides of the same false coin. One enables another: 

    "Radical subjectivism annihilates metaphysics.
    "The religious fanatic fills his 'void of reality' with his arbitrary assertions (God, miracles, angels, devils, afterlife, etc)."

~ Paulius Lebedevic [hat tip Stephen Hicks, Quote-Unquote Marrk-Goldblatt]

"Ideas have consequences - and in today's volatile world (March 2026), with US-Israel strikes escalating against Iran, regime continuity under power broker Ali Larijani, Russia's enduring war footing in Ukraine, and multipolar fractures everywhere, the intellectual foundations rejecting liberal democracy in favour of "higher duty" and civilisational destiny stand out starkly.
    "In Russia, Alexander Dugin supplies the metaphysical fireworks: a heady mix of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and traditionalism remixed into Eurasianism and his "Fourth Political Theory." ... Duty isn't optional-it's ontological, an existential imperative justifying sacrifice, expansion, and absolute obedience to the state as civilisational guardian. ...
    "[And so] with Iran, where Ali Larijani -- the current top power broker effectively steering the regime ... -- is a genuine Kant scholar .... 

    "Operating within Shia theocratic-revolutionary Islamism, Larijani's Kantian toolkit emphasises deontology: i.e., absolute duty over personal happiness or utility, and reason's limits that 'make room for faith.' This lends philosophical rigour to prioritising collective obligation to the Islamic Republic-categorical imperatives of regime preservation, anti-hegemonic destiny, and order -- over Lockean individual liberties or empirical critique. 

    "Lethal force against dissent or external threats? Not mere power grab, but duty-bound necessity to sustain the higher moral-political order.
    "The parallel is striking: Both reject the British Enlightenment path (Locke, Smith, Mill) that grounds secular democracy in individual rights, free markets, and a limited state that serves citizens. 

    Dugin does it with apocalyptic, anti-modern mysticism and civilisational clash. Larijani does it with measured, pragmatic deontological reasoning adapted to clerical-authoritarian stability.
    "Russia gets the wild-eyed prophetic theorist; Iran gets the calculating insider philosopher. Yet both scaffold regimes where the individual is subordinated to a transcendent collective fate - whether empire or revolutionary faith—precisely when global power shifts demand such justifications.
    "Philosophical coincidence? Or a deeper pattern in how anti-liberal thought sustains authority amid crisis?"

~ Paul Steeper from his comment 'In Our Current Geopolitical Moment - A Contrast of Anti-Liberal Scaffolds: Dugin's Eurasian Destiny in Russia vs. Larijani's Kantian Duty in Iran' [hat tip Stephen Hicks]