Utopia, you are standing in it!

The article containing that quote, Great Myths of The Great Depression has been around since 1998, but it’s always good to put it in front of people repeatedly because there myths don’t die easily.

For example, Old Leftists like Chris Trotter will always bring up the First Labor Government in NZ and FDR’s New Deal in the USA for how they dealt to the Great Depression. What they don’t mention is that Great Britain and Australia had centre-right governments – even with Labour Party involvement occasionally – that did not go for all the industrial nationalisation, new types of welfare support, and most importantly, Keynesian spending. And yet they emerged from the Slump at the same speed as we or the USA did in terms of GDP recovery, dropping unemployment (both Britain and Australia) and so forth.

What’s also not mentioned is that in the USA, after all of…

George III (June 4, 1738 – January 29, 1820) was King of Great Britain and of Ireland from October 25, 1760 until his death in 1820. The two kingdoms were in a personal union under him until the Acts of Union 1800 merged them on January 1, 1801. He then became King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. He was concurrently Duke and Prince-Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg (“Hanover”) in the Holy Roman Empire before becoming King of Hanover on October 12, 1814. He was a monarch of the House of Hanover who, unlike his two predecessors, was born in Great Britain, spoke English as his first language, and never visited Hanover.

George was born on June 4, 1738 at Norfolk House in St James’s Square, London. He was a grandson of King George II of Great Britain and the eldest son of Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, and…

 Steven Levitt, famous for his Freakanomics, shows that being an economist is not just mouthing supply and demand.

• Brian Easton writes –

Anyone can call themselves an ‘economist’. Many do, despite having no qualifications in economics and hardly any formal training; they often make elementary errors. That is the result of a conscious decision of the economics profession which resists barriers to exit and entry. In contrast other professions have restrictions, often for good reasons; I am glad my medical advisers are not only qualified but also registered. However, claiming to be expert on economics to contribute to the public commentary without any expertise, is confusing to those with more humble understandings.

On the other hand there are those who have a high reputation in the economics profession but who don’t seem to be really economists. Consider Steven Levitt, who has written of himself, ‘I am having trouble…

A summary at The Telegraph of David Frost’s recent lecture, in italics with my bolds.

Some of the worst policies ever pursued in this country have been those which nearly all politicians supported at the time. Keeping Britain on the gold standard. Running down our Armed Forces in the 1930s. Demolishing our historic cities and replacing them with concrete. Joining the EU’s Exchange Rate Mechanism. Only a handful of free thinkers questioned these at the time. But when the disastrous results became clear, suddenly few people wanted to defend them.

Now, of course, consensuses can be correct, too. Most people agree that free trade is a good thing. But no one could say that that policy has been unchallenged. Indeed, although it is repeatedly attacked, both intellectual argument and real life keep proving it right.

That is why challenge and argument are so important. When everyone agrees on a…

Zero Carbon zealots attacking ExxonMobil, here seen without their shareholder disguises.

WSJ reports with a sad tone what is actually good news that investors are pushing back against ESG political correctness. Their article is: ESG Blowback: Exxon, Chevron Investors Reject Climate Measures  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

An investor-driven climate change push at some of the
world’s largest oil companies has stalled out.

On Wednesday, Exxon Mobil and Chevron’s shareholders struck down a raft of proposals urging the companies to cut greenhouse-gas emissions derived from fuel consumption, put out new reports on climate benchmarks and disclose certain oil-spill risks, among other initiatives.

The votes were abysmal for climate activists. All but two of the 20 shareholder proposals for the two companies garnered less than 25% of investors’ vote, according to preliminary results, with some performing much worse than similar proposals put forward last year.

Among the most…