"Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society."

"When the line between public and private is erased," explains Reason magazine's Eric Roehm, "then politics is all about special favours."

If you want to understand the silly little scene that played out between Apple CEO Tim Cook and President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday," he says, "you might start by remembering something that Vice President J.D. Vance said two years ago."

While attending a conference for nationalist conservatives, Vance offered an astonishing view of politics. The 'idea that there is this extremely strong division between the public sector and the private sector' was flawed, Vance argued. In reality, he went on to say, 'there is no meaningful distinction between the public and the private sector in the American regime. It is all fused together.'

    That's a useful framework for understanding much of what has happened since Trump (with Vance at his side) returned to the White House in January. That includes various trade policies and tariffs, of course, but also the "golden share" in U.S. Steel that Trump secured for himself, and how the administration leveraged its regulatory authority to force Paramount to pay a huge settlement. In each case, the Trump administration has tried to erase (or has ignored) the distinction between the public and the private sectors ...

Trump takes a further step. To him, not only is the private public, but the public is also very personal. ... He will decide what deals are in everyone's best interest, no matter what consenting individuals engaged in peaceful, private commerce might want to do. If he's unhappy about something in Brazil, it will be your problem. And if he's pleased with gifts and tributes, then all is well.
    Do you run a foreign company trying to make a huge investment in American steel manufacturing? You'd better be prepared to cut Trump a piece of the action. Are you unhappy about Medicaid cuts that reduce the reimbursements your company receives from the government? That's nothing a $5 million donation and dinner at Mar-a-Lagocan't fix. There's a good reason why lobbying firms with direct access to the White House are reportedly keeping very, very busy these days.
    And that's why Cook found himself in the Oval Office this week, presenting Trump with a special gift from Apple: A gold and glass token of the company's appreciation for Trump's special attention."

    Shortly afterwards, Trump responded in kind. Apple is now exempt from the 100 percent tariff that Trump is imposing on high-end computer chips made in other countries. Officially, that exemption is because Apple is investing $100 billion in U.S. manufacturing. Unofficially, it sure looks like Cook's gift paid off.

This is how business is now being done in the United Police States. Make sure you give a cut of your business to the boss.

You want to secure an "export license" for chips to China, as Nvidia and AMD needed, then as they discovered too, you'd better pay your 15% bribe. That will apparently fix all security "issues. It's not about security, of course. It's just tribute to the government.

The Students of Liberty twitter feed explains the game.

Ludwig von Mises warned us 80 years ago: when governments start making individual 'deals' with private companies, we're witnessing the transformation from capitalism to something far more dangerous. The news about Nvidia and AMD giving the U.S. government 15% of chip sales to China? Mises saw this exact pattern coming. 

In his 1944 book Omnipotent Government, Mises identified a dangerous transformation he called "etatism." Think of it this way: You still "own" your business on paper, but the government tells you what to make, who to hire, what prices to charge, and who you can sell to. You're a manager, not an owner.

Mises wrote: "The entrepreneur in a capitalist society depends upon the market and upon the consumers. Every entrepreneur must daily justify his social function through subservience to the wants of the consumers." But when business success requires political deals, everything changes.

The pattern is accelerating across recent months: — Apple announced $600B U.S. investment after iPhone tariff threats — Intel's CEO visiting the White House after public criticism — Nvidia/AMD now paying 15% revenue cuts for China market access This isn't capitalism. It's what Mises called "etatism."

Mises warned that under etatism, "the government, not the consumers, directs production." When companies must seek political permission rather than consumer approval, we've crossed a dangerous line. Success becomes about relationships with power, not service to people.

So what's the big deal about these corporate negotiations? Mises saw where this leads. When Nvidia pays 15% to access China markets, they're not responding to consumer demand. They're buying political permission. This fundamentally changes how businesses operate.

Instead of competing on price, quality, and innovation, companies now compete on political connections. Resources shift from R&D and customer service to lobbying and government relations. The best politically connected firms win, not the most efficient ones.

Here's the terrifying part: even if current leaders have good intentions, they're building the infrastructure of control. Once government has the power to grant or deny market access through individual deals, that power doesn't disappear when leadership changes.

Future authoritarians won't need to seize control—they'll inherit a system where economic power already flows through political channels. Small businesses can't negotiate these deals. They face full regulations while big corporations get special arrangements. Perfect tools for political control.

Mises understood this doesn't happen in one election cycle. It's a slow infection of ideas that spreads across decades until everyone accepts that companies should negotiate with whoever holds power. Eventually, people forget that businesses once served consumers, not politicians.

Mises understood that ideas have consequences. Bad economic ideas don't just create poverty—they destroy the institutional foundations of free society.

"If there’s one thing in scandalously short supply in local government—shorter even than pothole repair crews—it’s thinking."

"Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the Selwyn District Council—or any local council, really—sits down for its annual budget meeting. Around the table: spreadsheets, solemn faces, and that quietly menacing phrase, “We have no money.” Ordinarily, this is the cue for the whole exercise to shift gears into a grim little theatre where the actors, trained over decades in the art of bureaucratic despair, start explaining why the only answer is to raise rates yet again. But Ernest Rutherford, New Zealand’s own Nobel Prize–winning atom-splitter, had a rather different view. 'We have no money,' he once said, 'therefore we have to think.' ...
    "Rutherford’s logic flips the frame. No money? Good. Now you’re forced to think. And if there’s one thing in scandalously short supply in local government—shorter even than pothole repair crews—it’s thinking."

~ Zoran Rakovic from his post 'Councils' addiction to addition. Or "we have no money, therefore we will have to think"'

'A Note on "Trump Derangement Syndrome"'

"'Hysterical.' 'Alarmist.' 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' 'He’ll be constrained by institutions.' 'There are adults in the room.' 'You’re overreacting.' 'The generals won’t let him.' 'Stop being so dramatic.'
     "Every single person who said we were being hysterical about Trump being an existential threat should be forced to explain how the President seizing control of the capital’s police force and deploying military units to forcibly relocate citizens represents normal democratic governance.
    "They called us hysterical when we said he’d use the military against civilians. He’s literally doing it right now."

~ Mike Brock from his post 'A Note on "Trump Derangement Syndrome"'

"There has been Twitter speculation that all of this is about age-gating social media."

"On my drive in to work [earlier this week], RNZ's Corin Dann challenged the Prime Minister about one part of his meeting with Australian PM Albanese. They had apparently promised to work toward some kind of joint ID and driver license system. [AUDIO, 04:15]...

"The PM's talk had this as all being about mutual recognition of driver licences. Which is obviously a weird justification. We already recognise each other's licences. And if Oz and NZ makes it tough for bars to recognise each other's licenses as ID, that's far more easily solved by just letting bars use the other country's driver's licence. The rest of it isn't needed for that problem. ...

"There has been Twitter speculation that all of this is about age-gating social media. It looks like this push started well before anyone was talking about that. ... Australia is running trials on ID/age verification setups for social media age gating; it looks like a report is soon due. ...

"[So] - both countries are working toward digital IDs, both countries five years ago agreed that they'd recognise each other's digital IDs, and this seems just to be reaffirming that prior agreement. I'd love there to be more assurance around privacy being important in the design of any of these in NZ. Because there are very bad versions that should not be supported. ...

"When the first a lot of us would have heard about a government digital ID is in context of a trans-Tasman agreement for mutual recognition, in context of Australia wanting to age-gate social media, and nobody particularly trusting that the age-gate system isn't intended to result in the kind of censorship being seen in Australia - not so hot."

~ Eric Crampton from his post 'To what policy problem is this the solution?'

"This case is of exceptional importance, addressing the legality of using copyrighted works for generative AI"

"A single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic's AI 'training' now threatens to 'financially ruin' the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement. ... [That's] 'up to seven million potential claimants, whose works span a century of publishing history,' each possibly triggering a $150,000 fine.

"Confronted with such extreme potential damages, Anthropic may lose its rights to raise valid defenses of its AI training, deciding it would be more prudent to settle, the company argued. And that could set an alarming precedent, considering all the other lawsuits generative AI (GenAI) companies face over training on copyrighted materials ..."

~ Ashley Belanger from her article 'AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified' [hat tip Artists Against Generative AI]

15 YEARS AGO: Here's how Key helped fuel the gravy-train

One advantage of having blogged so long is having written about so many things.

One disadvantage of having blogged so long is watching things you've warned about being ignored.  Here's from 2010, with Eric Crampton's warning in particular now looking especially prescient....

AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED, the Government you voted for has signed you up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—something Helen Clark herself was opposed to, citing fears it would create “two classes of citizenship and … give indigenous people veto rights over laws made by Parliament.” 

But we already have two legal classes of  citizen, don’t we—something confirmed by Doug Graham when, as Minister in Charge of Treaty Capitulations, he told taxpayers, “The sooner we realise there are laws for one and laws for another, the better." 

So one law for all is officially dead. Pita Sharples grand-standing announcement merely throws another shovelful of dirt on that particular colour-blind aspiration. 

Instead, we now have another aspiration. One endorsed by your government without any conditions whatsoever, despite John Key’s insistence that the Declaration itself is “aspirational and non-binding.” 

Now naturally, Hone Harawira and co have a different view.  Hone has already been on radio insisting the Declaration will be used to support a gravy train of claims for other people’s property, and for truckloads of taxpayers’ money—and one suspects he speaks for many others when he says that, including those who will sit in judgement on such claims. 

And Mai Chen, eager to get in on the gravy, insists the declaration will “have an impact.”

   "‘Declarations … are international obligations and they do form part of the backdrop, the context within which courts do interpret, but it's not just courts its the Waitangi Tribunal and its also direct negotiations… [T]he entire country would appear to fall within the scope of the article, and [the text of the Declaration] generally takes no account of the fact that the land might be occupied or owned legitimately by others.’ 
    “Ms Chen said the Declaration would 'shape Maori expectations in negotiations.”

And the Declaration itself begins by affirming its “good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter.” 

So one suspects that this government signing up to the Declaration is going to involve more than just a little “aspirational” window-dressing. 

SO WHAT DOES IT CONTAIN,THIS DECLARATION? It should be no surprise to find that a UN Declaration with “rights” in the title contains a welter of manufactured “rights” that trample over genuine rights.  And if it were simply an enumeration of genuine rights—rights to life, liberty, free speech, the pursuit of property and happiness—it would hardly need the modifier “rights of indigenous people” added to it, as if by virtue of their indigeneity some individuals are more endowed with rights than others. 

As if to confirm that, The Declaration’s preamble talks about being “the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States”—affirming as clearly as one could that “there are laws for one & laws for another.” 

It speaks of affirming to “peoples their right to self-determination”—ignoring that such a right pertains only to individuals, not to a collective. 

And the Declaration itself outlines specific “rights” which it says shall be upheld by “the States” which have affirmed it: 

• “the right [of indigenous people] to freely determine their political status”

Which “right” is a recipe for separatism.

• “the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs”

Which “right” is a guarantee that separatism will be upheld by “the State.”

• “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture… States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for [this]”

Which “right” requires the State to subsidise for ever whatever parts of indigenous culture claimants will assert are being destroyed.

• “the right to belong to an indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions and customs of the community or nation concerned”

The “right” to subsidised separatism, in whatever form of tribalism that will manifest itself.

• “the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.”

A “right” to the subsidised education of tribalism and mysticism, and to the re-naming of New Zealand.

• “States shall … take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children… to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.”

The “right” to kohanga reo for ever.

• “the right to establish their own media in their own languages”

The “right” to Maori TV for ever.

• “the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.”
  
• “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

The explicit creation of two classes of citizenship, and the “right” to veto that Helen Clark was so concerned about.

• “the right … to the improvement of their economic and social conditions, including, inter alia, in the areas of education, employment, vocational training and retraining, housing, sanitation, health and social security. 
  States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions…”

The “right” to special racist welfare. 

• “the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources”

The “right” to dream up a new basis of land claim for any part of New Zealand whatsoever.

• the right "to own use, develop or control lands and territories they have traditionally owned, occupied or used"

As New Zealand's former permanent representative to the UN, diplomat Rosemary Banks, says “the entire country was potentially caught within the scope of that article. ‘The article appears to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous ... Furthermore, this article implies indigenous peoples have rights that others do not.’"

• “the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.”

Providing the basis for a whole new cycle of claimants to ride a new gravy train. 

I COULD GO ON, BUT I suspect you already get the point. 

This is simply a whole litany of bogus “rights” with which the Hone Harawiras and Tame Itis of this country will have a field day.  For them and their lawyers, this is like Christmas in April. 

The affirmation of these bogus rights is John Key writing a blank cheque on taxpayers to buy the Maori Party for a generation. And just in case you think this isn’t the sound of someone putting their hand in your pocket, take a look at Article 39…

    “Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.”

The Declaration is nothing less than a manifesto for subsidised separatism. 

As Ayn Rand said of a similar list of entitlements “rights”: 

    “A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense?     “[These so-called rights] do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?     “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.     “Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.”

Take note here that “The State” itself has no money of its own—every dollar must first be taken from others. The bogus “rights” affirmed here, to which New Zealand is now a signatory, require of taxpayers that they provide a cradle-to-grave ATM machine for whatever tribalists want, including the property of taxpayers, creating “two classes of citizenship and … giving indigenous people veto rights over laws made by Parliament,” just as Helen Clark feared it would. 

One law for all is officially dead. 

And parliament’s One-Law-For-All party?  The party propping up a government giving tribalists more even than Helen Clark was prepared to? What about them? Fear not, punters, for fearless leader Rodney Hide says the Declaration and the secrecy with which it was announced “is not a deal-breaker." 

Given what ACT supporters have already swallowed, one wonders if anything ever would be.

NB: Eric Crampton sees informative parallels “between New Zealand signing on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and Canada's constitutional wranglings over Quebec as a'"Distinct Society'." 

    “In the Canadian case, folks inside Quebec had the impression that being granted ‘distinct society’ would give them everything they ever hoped for (at least during the Meech negotiations) while folks outside Quebec were told it ‘means dick.’ Here, Key says signing the Declaration is meaningless; Hone says it's powerful.     “If this starts working its way into judicial and regulatory decisions, Parliament would have to come in and explicitly state that it was the intention of Parliament that the Declaration is a legal nullity; Parliament would be unlikely to do that as it would be a pretty big slap to Maori…”

Art should ask questions

Film-maker (and Monthy Python alumni) Terry Gilliam makes an important point about art in drawing an important distinction between Kubrick and Spielberg — "and it’s rooted in filmmaking philosophy as much as style." Gilliam described Spielberg as “excellent as a fairy‑tale storyteller." Kubrick's movies however provoke endless questions rather than tidy answers.

Spielberg and the success of most films in Hollywood these days, I think, is down to the fact they're comforting — even if the answers are stupid, they're answers. So you can go home and you don't have to worry about it. The Kubricks of this world, and the great filmmakers, make you go home and think about it.  

There's a wonderful quote in in the book that Frederic Raphael wrote about the making of 'Eyes Wide Shut' (called 'Eyes Wide Open') and he's talking to Kubrick about 'Schindler's List,' and the Holocaust. And he says, the thing is that 'Schindler's List' is about success; the Holocaust was about failure. And that's Kubrick, and that's just spot on. It was about the complete failure of civilisation, to allow six million people to die. 

And so I know which side I'd rather be on.

"Spielberg offers cinematic comfort, Kubrick offers cinematic conversation."

Whatever happened to the adverb?

We're busy losing the adverb. I blame sporting commentators.

"Get it in quick," they say.

Quick is an adjective, for goodness sake. It doesn't describe "get."

The word you're looking for is QUICKLY! An adverb. That is: a word used to describe the verb. Often ending in -ly. 

"How should we get the ball in?" "We should get it in QUICKLY."

When should I correct my speech impediments? Immediately!

And while we're bitching about parts of speech, about nouns becoming verbs, and vice versa....

An invitation is not an "invite" — if I intend to invite you [verb] then I will send you an invitation [noun].

And if you want to invite me, then send me a noun too. A thing. Not a bloody verb. Sending a verb makes no bloody sense.

I don't care what your bullshit bit of software wants to call it: it's an invi-bloody-tation.

Can we get that sorted, please?

Ta.

And by the way, "disconnect" is a verb.

The noun you're looking for is DISCONNECTION!

"We have a disconnection between forwards and backs." 

"We have a disconnection between politicians and citizens." 

"We have a disconnection between parts of speech and people who know how to bloody use them."

Sort yourself out.

And what about "kids."

A child is a child. The plural is children. Kids? Kids are baby goats. 

Sure, you can use the English verb “kid”with the meaning “to treat as a child.”

But the noun, kid, is a baby goat.

Show some respect. These little people are children, for Galt's sake!

And here's another one: "momentarily."

"Momentarily" doesn't mean in a moment. It means for a moment. There's a difference. "He paused by her door for a moment" —which means he paused momentarily, and then "in a moment he would knock" – which means he would knock very soon. See the difference? He wouldn't knock momentarily, 'cos that would mean he'd only knock for a moment. 

You know, it's really not difficult.

We could also talk about misnomers, like so-called" reality TV," which is nothing like real life; or so-called artificial intelligence, which is clearly not intelligent (a triumph or marketing that); or a Bitcoin not being an actual coin (another triumph of marketing over reality). But it's not the time, is it.

So: Any other language crimes you abhor?

"Is art produced by non-humans actually art?"

Question for the Day, from Mark Silva:

"Is art produced by non-humans actually art?  

"I think not. 

"I know it's often said that AI is just another tool, but it's more than that, it makes decisions..."

"Yet Another Misleading Report on 'Low-Cost' Wind and Solar"

"In a just-released report, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) claims that renewable energy is the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation worldwide, The report further claims that '91% of new renewable power projects commissioned last year were more cost-effective than any new fossil fuel alternative” ...

"If those claims sound too good to be true, it’s because they are. IRENA’s boasts ignore a fundamental reality: the intermittent electricity generated from wind and solar is fundamentally different than electricity generated by traditional generating resources that are not subject to the whims of the weather. ...

"The inherent intermittency of wind and solar reduces the physical and economic value of their capacity relative to traditional generating resources, since sufficient reserves or storage must be maintained to meet demand when they are unavailable. Merely reporting total wind and solar capacity misleads because it does not account for the adequacy of the electrical energy generated to meet demand, and the actual costs to do so. ...

"Promoting misleading claims about wind and solar power distorts policymaking and will only exacerbate the growing inadequacy of electric supplies to meet increased demand .... It will lead to more frequent electricity rationing ...

"That may appeal to hairshirt environmentalists, but it won’t appeal to the broader populace ..."

~ Jonathan Lesser from his report 'The U.S. Energy Information Administration Needs to Fix How It Reports Renewable Power Capacity' (hat tip Watts Up With That?)

John Key is still a fucking moron

Cartoon by Richard McGrail from The Free Radical

I've been reminded this morning about what a clueless fucking moron we had as a Prime Minister for two-and-a-half terms. Back a few years ago when we were "rock stars." Remember that?

Anyway, here's John Fucking Key last month giving his considered analysis of what's wrong with New Zealand's economy now:

"The guts of what’s wrong is that the housing market is going down, not up,' he said.
    “When house prices go up, everybody tells the pollsters, ‘Oh that’s terrible, my son or daughter can’t buy a house. I feel really bad.’ The technical term for that is ‘bullshit’.
    “What they really do, is they say to their wife – or the wife says to her husband – ‘God, we paid $1 million for this house and it’s worth $1.7 million now.’ Quietly they go, ‘Oh, we feel rich’.
    “And then they go and borrow a bit from the ANZ and they go on holiday and they upgrade their kitchen, they feel good about life. So when you have a negative wealth effect, they feel bad.”

And I bet the roomful of home owners and property "investors" and National Party political advisors — no to mention all his former colleagues on the ANZ board —had a smug little chuckle into their at their man's shrewd witticisms. It's hard to know where to begin at his economic acumen however, 'cos apparently it's never begun.

Let's make it simple, since that's the best description of Key's grasp of things. Trump's been called a fucking moron for not understanding the economic destruction of tariffs. And rightly so. But Trump doesn't pretend to be in any way clued up about economics. Key does. And yet the fucking moron apparently knows nothing about a simple enough concept: capital consumption. It's a process of converting someone else’s wealth into your income.

And this is his one simple trick to fix the fucking economy.

You wouldn't believe it.

Here's what the fucking moron either doesn't know, or doesn't care to know.

That fucking "wealth effect" the moron talks about is paid for by one thing: it's paid for by eating the fucking seed corn. The seed corn is the part of your harvest you put aside to plant again next year. Without that seed corn, you have nothing to plant, and nothing further to harvest. What Key wants to "fix" the economy, the simple guts of it, is for is to eat the fucking seed corn. That's his recipe for success. 

Any fucking moron could get a "wealth effect" (and a poll bump) by consuming the seed corn.  But ultimately the farmer will pay a price; he'll no longer have anything to farm.

Fellow on the right enjoys Key's "wealth effect." Not so much farmers on the left.

But the difference in what Key proposes is even worse: he wants home owners to consumer other people's seed corn. Hayek used to call this "forced saving." Savers have to save more, or else, because the "seed corn" being consumed is theirs. 

Here's the thing: When mum and dad borrow a bit from the ANZ and go on holiday and upgrade their kitchen and put in another fucking ensuite, that's paid for by what was, or would have been, accumulated capital. The accumulated capital of those other savers. It's called "forced saving" because what pays for John Key's fucking borrowing is new counterfeit capital: i.e., new money that's been borrowed into existence to pay for the holiday, the new kitchen, the fucking ensuite. That counterfeit capital means savers are forced to save more just to keep up.

That's because this new borrowing is new money "injected into the economic system at a specific point" that advantages those consuming the counterfeit capital while disadvantaging those trying to save.

If the money or credit were evenly distributed among all economic agents, no “expansionary” effect would appear, except the decrease in the purchasing power of the monetary unit in proportion to the rise in the quantity of money. 

However if the new money enters the market at certain specific points, as always occurs, then in reality a relatively small number of economic agents initially receive the new loans. Thus these economic agents temporarily enjoy greater purchasing power, given that they possess a larger number of monetary units with which to buy goods and services at market prices that still have not felt the full impact of the inflation and therefore have not yet risen.

The purchasing power of these home-owners is paid for by the losses of savers. 

Hence the process gives rise to a redistribution of income in favour of those who first receive the new injections or doses of monetary units, to the detriment of the rest of society, who find that with the same monetary income, the prices of goods and services begin to go up. “Forced saving” affects this second group of economic agents (the majority), since their monetary income grows at a slower rate than prices, and they are therefore obliged to reduce their consumption, other things being equal.

In a nutshell Key's quick-fix for poll-driven success, and economic growth, is to grant home-owners purchasing power by quietly, secretly and unobserved, stealing from savers. ("By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." ~ John Maynard Keynes)

Recall that he said something similar when the problem erupted of paying to repair leaky homes. He said quite bluntly, not to worry,  inflation would fix that. Remember that when housing unaffordability was bad before he took office, and he promised to fix it. He didn't, of course. Instead, he did everything he could to put rocket fucking fuel under house prices. It would, he claimed, 'fix" the problem of paying for the problem. 

This prick has form.

He's either a calculating Machiavellian.

Or he's pig ignorant.

My money's on the latter.

RELATED:

• Key on housing affordability and elsewhere - NOT PC, 2007
• Counterfeit capital - NOT PC, 2008
• Mr Key’s dirty little secret - NOT PC, 2009
• We’re rock stars! - NOT PC, 2014
• How Do People Destroy Capital? - Keith Weiner, SNBCHF, 2015
• Housing bubble is consuming our capital - NOT PC, 2015
• The Reserve Bank’s war on capital - NOT PC, 2016
• Key admits to ‘crisis theatre’ and talks up house-price inflation - NOT PC, 2016
• John Key has had an unbelievable solution for affordable housing - NOT PC, 2017

Laughter

 

"Laughter is a reflex, but unique in that it serves no apparent biological purpose; one might call it a luxury reflex. Its only function seems to be to provide relief from tension.
    "The[re] ... is a striking discrepancy between the nature of the stimulus and that of the response in humorous transactions.
    "When a blow beneath the kneecap causes an automatic upward kick, both 'stimulus' and 'response' function on the same primitive physiological level, without requiring the intervention of the higher mental functions. But that such a complex mental activity as reading a page of Thurber should cause a specific reflex contraction of the facial muscles is a lopsided phenomenon that has puzzled philosophers since Plato. ...
    "Humour is the only form of communication in which a stimulus on a high level of complexity produces a stereotyped, predictable response on the physiological reflex level. Thus the response can be used as an indicator for the presence of the elusive quality that is called humour—as the click of the Geiger counter is used to indicate the presence of radioactivity.
    "Such a procedure is not possible in any other form of art; and, since the step from the sublime to the ridiculous is reversible, the study of humour provides clues for the study of creativity in general."

~ Arthur Koestler, composite quote from his book Act of Creation and his entry on 'Humour' in Encyclopaedia Britannica —using "dense academia-speak" to say that humour has psychological benefits [Cartoons by Thurber. Hat tip Gordon McLauchlan's Acid Test]

Neurotic v psychotic

"A psychotic is an out-and-out loon. He may think his father is poisoning his yoghurt, that his wife is planning to strangle him with noodles, or that the US Government should flood Las Vegas with soda water.

    "A neurotic on the other hand is a determined sufferer, afflicted by things like depressed cuticles, a fear of pistachio nuts or underarm humidity. 

    "To put it most simply, a psychotic thinks two plus two equals seven ... A neurotic knows that two plus two equals four — but he just can't stand it."

~ Leo Rosten from his novel Dear Herm [hat tip Gordon McLauchlan's Acid Test]

Trump's tariff belief "the equivalent of a belief in witches or a belief that the earth is a flat disc balanced atop a tower of turtles."

"I realise that Trump true believers are unpersuadable; this outcome is assured by their blind faith in Trump. But for those of you who still listen to reason and facts, all you need do is to reflect on the fact that Trump believes that U.S. trade deficits in goods with individual countries - such as the U.S. trade deficit with Switzerland - is an economically meaningful concept that reveals that we Americans are 'losing' in our trade with Switzerland. This belief is the equivalent of a belief in witches or a belief that the earth is a flat disc balanced atop a tower of turtles."

~ economist Don Boudreaux

"The doomsday mindset is causing widespread anxiety in young people

"Human beings have the unique ability to innovate their way out of problems, creating technological solutions that benefit both people and the planet. Unfortunately, children today are often bombarded with messages of an impending apocalypse that can only be warded off by lowering living standards and embracing 'degrowth.' ...

"Even popular culture sometimes promotes this apocalyptic degrowth mindset to children. ...

"Not only is the embrace of degrowth misguided, but research suggests that this doomsday mindset is causing widespread anxiety in young people. ... [T]hat anxiety is international: A study from 2021, surveying 10,000 children and young people aged 16–25 in 10 countries, found that 59 percent of respondents were very or extremely worried about climate change, and more than 45 percent of respondents said those feelings negatively affected daily life and basic functioning.

Human beings have the unique ability to innovate their way out of problems, creating technological solutions that benefit both people and the planet. Unfortunately, children today are often bombarded with messages of an impending apocalypse that can only be warded off by lowering living standards and embracing 'degrowth'...

"Instead of rushing to solutions that require lowering living standards via coercive government mandates or expensive taxpayer-funded subsidies, we should focus on the freedom to make technological advances that raise our standard of living while also mitigating environmental harm. An advantage of that approach is that it may also improve the mental health of young people..."

~ Chelsea Follett from her post 'The Kids Need Optimism, Not Doom and Degrowth'

Montessori for entrepreneurs

Hmmm. Interesting. The international head of Association Montessori Internationale (AMI) is considering developing "a fully-fledged Montessori course for business Montessori." I'd rephrase that to simply: Montessori for entrepreneurs.

Lynn Lawrence, based in Amsterdam, thinks they may have too much on the boil already, but discussions around the idea have already led "to some interesting background reading and some insights into the way Montessori principles have already found their way into the business world." For example:

• Ambiga Dhiraj, the head of talent management at Mu Sigma, a decision science and analytics service firm, wrote for the Harvard Business Review on their business modelling its employee development on Montessori schools.  ... He suggested that “an emphasis on independence, freedom within limits, and respect for a child’s natural psychological development” were basic tenets from the Montessori classroom equally applicable to the workforce. ... The ultimate payoff for the business was that it translated into better service for clients and “keeping the right people for the right reasons”. The latter is a particular advantage in a world where the best talent can be hard to find and even harder to keep.
• Justin Wasserman, a Managing Director with Kotter International, (the strategy execution firm founded by world renowned Harvard Business School professor, Dr. John Kotter) considered the “corporate kindergarten” and “how a Montessori mindset can transform your business”.  He reflected on the uniqueness of Montessori classrooms, the benefits of mixed-ages, self-directed learning, children gravitating to what interests them and teachers as “coaches and facilitators rather than puppet-masters or dictators.” ... Wasserman noted that most in corporate America grew up “confined by the rigid structures of our conventional education system” and tend to wait for directives on high to determine their actions.  He contrasts that with Montessori children full of new ideas, confident that failure is acceptable and that mistakes are best seen as learning opportunities.  He argues that businesses need to create a “corporate kindergarten culture where Montessori mindsets are cultivated and rewarded.”

In his comments about the “conventional education system,” Lawrence notes that this makes "very much the same case as Angeline Lillard in her marvellous and fiercely argued piece “Why the time is right for an education revolution.” She concludes: 

Bringing the principles of Montessori education into the workplace is one way of building a new and more productive approach to business but it seems to me that it would be so much better for society if the work began in school.  The thought of a continuum where Montessori is embedded in every part of an individual’s education from pre-school, throughout their career and into the support they receive as elders is an attractive proposition. ...

Commentators as diverse as Joe Rogan and Ezra Klein question the ability of existing mainstream education to satisfy the needs of a modern, knowledge economy.  The gap is seen in research from the UK suggesting that hiring managers rank problem-solving (63%), communications (63%) and creativity (53%) as three highly sought after skills.  In the US similar research suggests employers are looking for practical problem solving, team working, and global mindset but that new graduates do not feel they have received these skills in their education. ...

Montessori education can undoubtedly provide the grounding that will help people excel in their careers and make significant contributions to business success.  This was an underlying theme of the BBC article, “Montessori. The world’s most influential school?” and has been amplified by FasterCapital, a global venture builder and online incubator for innovative start-ups.  It is also central to Andrew McAfee’s book The Geek Way: The Radical Mindset that Drives Extraordinary Resultswhich he discusses in the Harvard Business Review. ...

There are powerful lessons for leaders in the way that Montessori principles can develop teams that are both happy and high performing.  Generational changes have increasingly meant that command and control structures considered the height of good management in past decades are being soundly rejected by younger people.  Self-managing and self-motivated groups that embrace diversity, aspiration and novelty are part of a Montessori culture.

Our advocacy is always for education and leadership that enables every human to create themselves and become fulfilled, which does not necessarily mean they will choose to work in an organisation or pursue a career.  However, we also believe that workplaces which introduce Montessori ideals that nurture and cherish the potential of each and every individual will excel.   

Te reo: 'it's not revival — it’s resuscitation.'

"Te reo isn’t 'thriving.' It’s being artificially kept alive with millions of taxpayer dollars. That’s not revival — that’s resuscitation."

~ John Robertson from his post 'New Zealand is being culturally hijacked...'

" The real delusion is the belief that advanced societies can live off spreadsheets while their physical base erodes."

"You see the retreat of industry in rich economies as a benign, inevitable drift toward services. On the ground it looks rather less idyllic. The real delusion is the belief that advanced societies can live off spreadsheets while their physical base erodes. Service innovation is welcome, but someone still has to pour the concrete and draw the wire. Better to recognise that reality now than relearn it in a hot war or a cold winter. ...

"De-industrial economies are not more efficient. They are merely importing other people's efficiency and exporting their own purchasing power.

"The lesson is not to seal borders behind tariff walls—Donald Trump's metals duties in 2018 proved how self-harming that can be—but to run an active, open industrial strategy. Permit planning that allows large plants to be built in years, not decades; use public co-investment where spill-overs are obvious ...; use trade among allies so that capacity is pooled rather than duplicated."

~ Wladimir Kraus from his letter to The Economist

"Our politics does not produce deep ideological thinkers"

"Our politics does not produce deep ideological thinkers, here in New Zealand. We produce people who do things and then write about them.

"'A Different Kind of Power' is in this tradition ...

"Ardern’s book is a series of events told in an accessible style; she takes us through what occurred, and what she did in reaction. ...But there are no ideas. And when she writes about political decisions of seismic impact there is a bland telling of what occurred. ...

"Things happened. She reacted. She resigned.

"What, I would ask those who are passionate either way when it comes to her Prime Ministership, did she achieve that was different if Winston Peters had elected to reinstall Bill English in office? ...

"The angst and adoration that she inspires is unwarranted in either direction; and all we have left is Kindness. But kindness is not an ideology, a school of thought or framework for governance.

"It is branding."

~ Damien Grant from his column 'July has become Ardern Reflection Month'

"It’s not really about te reo, tikanga, or even Māori. It’s about power."

 

"It’s not really about the words.

"That so many Kiwis care about [the wording on a passport] shows this is a symptom of a much bigger problem. ... a microcosm of the slow-burning cultural tension that has been building in New Zealand for years. ...

"What began as a well-meaning effort to honour Māori language and culture has, in the hands of our cultural elites, become a tool for ideological conformity and social stratification.

"It’s not really about te reo, tikanga, or even Māori. It’s about power. ... They get to be the priest class. They can sneer at the plumber in Palmerston North who doesn’t want his kids doing karakia at school, and tell themselves they’re not just smarter, but better. ... 

"Today, we’re swimming in a sea of te ao Māori frameworks, mandatory karakia in secular spaces, and public servants scrambling to prove their cultural credentials rather than deliver basic services. The line between recognising Māori as tangata whenua and enforcing a cultural ideology across every aspect of national life has become increasingly blurry and people have noticed.

"I am wound up that we’ve arrived at a place where people can’t distinguish between cultural recognition and cultural imposition. Where using Māori names is no longer about embracing heritage, it’s about enforcing allegiance."

~ Ani O'Brien from her post 'It's just a passport cover... except it's not'