#YesPrimeMinister on abolishing government departments
01 Aug 2016 Leave a comment
in economics, economics of education, television Tags: Yes Prime Minister
Yes Prime Minister on a minister of manufacturing @jamespeshaw @julieannegenter
21 Jul 2016 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, economics, economics of bureaucracy, economics of media and culture, industrial organisation, international economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking, survivor principle, television Tags: corporate welfare, industry policy, New Zealand Greens, picking losers, picking winners, Yes Prime Minister
Who reads the papers? – Yes, Prime Minister
13 Jul 2016 Leave a comment
in economics, television Tags: Yes Prime Minister
The Civil Service on Helping Foreign Nations
13 Jan 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, Public Choice, television Tags: Yes Prime Minister
Yes Prime Minister on every support short of help
15 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, television Tags: Yes Prime Minister
A clear conscience – Yes Prime Minister
10 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, economics of bureaucracy, Public Choice, TV shows Tags: Yes Prime Minister
Officially official meeting minutes – Yes Prime Minister
06 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy Tags: Yes Prime Minister
If the right people don’t have power – Yes Prime Minister
03 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, economics of bureaucracy, Public Choice, TV shows Tags: devolution, federalism, Yes Prime Minister
Yes Prime Minister – The Department of Education and Science
03 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, economics of education, economics of media and culture, TV shows Tags: Yes Prime Minister
Mendicant NZ artist denounces neoliberalism and tall poppy syndrome in same breath
28 Jan 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, politics - New Zealand, rentseeking Tags: corporate welfare, green hypocrisy, Left-wing hypocrisy, neoliberalism, rent seeking, starving artists, tall poppy syndrome, Yes Prime Minister
Man Booker Prize author Eleanor Catton from New Zealand managed in the same interview in India to denounce the neoliberalism of New Zealand’s current government and then denounce the tall poppy syndrome that cuts down artistic elites such as herself down to size when they become successful.
At the moment, New Zealand, like Australia and Canada, (is dominated by) these neo-liberal, profit-obsessed, very shallow, very money-hungry politicians who do not care about culture
This is tremendous a hypocrisy: to denounce a neoliberal philosophy that supposedly favours the elite over the working class and then complain about members of the elite such as herself are not supported sufficiently from the taxpayers’ tough:
We have this strange cultural phenomenon called “tall poppy syndrome”; if you stand out, you will be cut down…
If you get success overseas then very often the local population can suddenly be very hard on you. Or the other problem is that the local population can take ownership of that success in a way that is strangely proprietal.
Catton manages to denounce neoliberalism and the capitalist competition that entails but then gets quite annoyed over the fact the successful people aren’t rewarded and recognised by the country.
What hypocrisy. She denounces neoliberalism and then complains about been cut down because of her success. If you’re an opponent of neoliberalism, there is some obligation on you to argue for a levelling of income and wealth, including your own.
It betrays an attitude towards individual achievement which is very, uncomfortable. It has to belong to everybody or the country really doesn’t want to know about it…
I’ve really struggled with my identity as a New Zealand writer. I feel uncomfortable being an ambassador for my country when my country is not doing as much as it could, especially for the intellectual world.
Catton is particularly upset over the fact that New Zealand is expected to share her fame with them some way. Obviously, Catton believes in private profits, private fame at social losses and public subsidies for the arts. Having to share what she earns is not part of her opposition to neoliberalism.
From each in accordance with their ability, to each in according to their need is the heart of the anti-neoliberal philosophy, or is it Robert Nozick’s capitalistic acts between consenting adults where it is from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen, especially if you’re a successful artist.
Such is the price neoliberalism is Eleanor Catton, like every other able-bodied adult, is expected to earn a living for themselves by producing something that someone wants a profitable global for them rather than expect a hand-out from the government simply because of the desire of the recipients to receive the money. In her case, her claim for government hand-outs is because she happens to be artistic.
Jim Hacker: “So they insult me and then expect me to give them more money?”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes, I must say it’s a rather undignified posture. But it is what artists always do: crawling towards the government on their knees, shaking their fists.”
Jim Hacker: “Beating me over the head with their begging bowls.”
Bernard Woolley: “Oh, I am sorry to be pedantic, Prime Minister, but they can’t beat you over the head if they’re on their knees. Unless of course they’ve got very long arms.”
Jim Hacker explains the London newspaper readership
19 Dec 2014 1 Comment
in economics of media and culture, Public Choice Tags: Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister
The Jonathan Gruber revelations, Obamacare and the honesty of politics
13 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: Jonathan Gruber, Machiavelli, Obamacare, public choice, Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister
The costs of global warming and other government statistics – Updated
11 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming Tags: Bjørn Lomborg, global warming, Richard Tol, Yes Prime Minister
Figure 1. The 14 estimates of the global economic impact of climate change, expressed as the welfare-equivalent income loss, as a functions of the increase in global mean temperature relative to today
Source: Richard Tol
The recent IPCC report found that the temperature rise that we are expected to see sometime around 2055-2080 will create a net cost of 0.2-2% of GDP. The UK, Japan, and the US wanted this rewritten or stricken.
The IPCC report showed that strong climate policies would be more expensive than claimed as well – costing upwards of 4% of GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050, and 11% by 2100.
Politicians tried to delete or change references to these high costs. British officials said they wanted such cost estimates cut because they “would give a boost to those who doubt action is needed.”
Sir Humphrey: No, no… Blurring issues is one of the basic Ministerial skills.
Jim: Oh, what are the others?
Sir Humphrey: Delaying decisions, dodging questions, juggling figures, bending facts and concealing errors.
and more from Yes Minister:
Seven ways of explaining away the fact that North-West region has saved £32 million while your department overspent:
a. They have changed their accounting system in the North-West.
b. Redrawn the boundaries, so that this year’s figures are not comparable.
c. The money was compensation for special extra expenditure of £16 million a year over the last two years, which has now stopped.
d. It is only a paper bag saving, so it will have to be spent next year.
e. A major expenditure is late in completion and therefore the region will be correspondingly over budget next year. (Known technically as phasing – Ed)
f. There has been an unforeseen but important shift in personnel and industries to other regions whose expenditure rose accordingly.
g. Some large projects were cancelled for reasons of economy early in the accounting period with the result that the expenditure was not incurred but the budget had already been allocated.
HT: Bjørn Lomborg and wattsupwiththat
Addendum
http://www.reddit.com/user/pnewell was good enough on the climate sceptics subreddit to point out that there is an updated version of the graph I posted at the top that includes corrections for gremlins in Richard Tol’s original paper.
His response reminds me of another passage from Yes Minister where prime ministerial candidate Jim Hacker is arguing with a European commission official about butter mountains.
Hacker said in one room a European commission official was subsidising people to produce milk, while in the next room another official is subsidising people to destroy it.
The response of this European union official was to say that was not true. Hacker asked how it was not true. He was told that the two officials were not on the same floor, the other official paying people to take the milk away is on the next floor.
The main body of my post is:
- about propaganda tactics to discredit criticism and suppress inconvenient facts, and
- the IPCC report facts that even if global warming is a problem, doing anything about it makes us even worse-off.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments