Mangled Thoughts

Disgraces the title Professor. And a word to “ESS” at the end of this item.

The title of Professor is close to literal in meaning. Someone who is learned in a sound discipline. Steeped in its history and an impeccable exponent of it. It is not necessary to have made a seminal contribution to a field. An essential quality and test is the capacity of a Professor to expound the field. There are qualities expected of a Professor:

Integrity; upholding truth; advancing truth; honesty; rigorous reasoning; forthright debate.

Good professors serve not only scholars but also the public. Too look through the history of scholarship and not only scholarship as such but the seminal thinkers in various fields, quite a list with no degrees at all, is also to read a history of generous men addressing the public honestly. Consider a field aside from economics, theology. From St. Paul through the Fathers, into the 20th century, we find men of the first rank who paid the same respect to laymen as to their intellectual equals. Their sermons alone are not soap, they are demanding. Indeed, to recount an anecdote, as a child, I looked forward to attending each Sunday a Lutheran Church, because of the Pastor’s stunning sermons that made such a contrast to the dismal, infantile drivel and reading pumped out in school. A sheer delight.

The history of the best engaging in public controversies and fighting causes from principles is quite a record in itself. In economics, Von Mises blitzed the way in defending the free market cause. The importance of this and the success with which von Mises executed this vital work was a revelation, as it were, to Hayek who proceeded to do the same in England. They also understood the vital importance of encouraging new talent to take up the cudgels.

Mr. Jackson has the depth expected of a professor and has made theoretical contribution to economics. He also writes not only for his equals but for the public and, engages in the vital work of intellectual warfare to defend the free market cause. The Right is absent on all counts. So we arrive at Professor Sinclair Davidson:

A fifth rate mediocrity whose depth in economics is shallower than a spit of water on the ground, and whose notion of forthright honest debate is to smear others. Whose notion of serving the public is to write trite articles which end as they do, shot down in flames. Who implies he his learned but there is no demonstration of this. Who cannot hurt the Left but does not hesitate to smear his superiors. Let’s first consider another example of Professor Sinclair’s stupidity.

Professor Sinclair suffers some delusions beginning with, genuine Professors do as he does and he’s right - the disreputable types do. A few hard leftists have been noted for it and this places Davidson in good company -

Holds that debate, challenge, and responses rest on:

1. Mere assertion and then running away when someone destroys what he asserts. This he does before Leftists. Quiggin enjoys humiliating Davidson.

2. Smearing some-one who has put a soundly reasoned case, but not to a man’s face. Oh, no. Davidson runs around various blog sites to deliver his cheap shots. This is profound debate and defence.

Cheap shots loaded with ad hominem innuendo and insinuation and never explained nor substantiated. He delivers these powerful arguments in safety of numbers. He stands firm with his intellectual equals who include the economic ignoramuses John Humphreys and Chris Berg. With such talent to vouch for him, I defy any man to deny Professor Sinclair Davidson is a giant of economics.

So, for the umpteenth instance showing what a great, learned Professor he truly is, this:

CIS organ grinder, Greg Lindsay, really knows talent when he sees it. Can’t do better than his pet monkey, John Humphreys. This genius can’t help demonstrating his prowess. Smearing Jackson, with Davidson joining in and not only joining in but Humphreys citing Davidson as an authoritative source for one of his usual masterpieces (ah the scholarship) is awesome. The cynical might say which of the two hides behind the other’s fat bum but I wouldn’t say that. Not me, no fear. I take the reasonable, restrained line; they take it in turns.

Humphreys contends he is still in a debate in which, according to this warlord, he has emerged victorious. I’m referring to Jackson’s demolition of the Sinclair-Davidson paper on manufacturing inviting, to Kim “Il” Carr’s joy, ‘industry’ policy.

Surprise surprise, it ends with a call for the Capital Flattener Tax Davidson is in love. For it means he will be, in his wet dreams, immortalised. Sure will, “Sinkers”, all those livid Australians smashed into the ground by Co2 taxes might well “immortalise” you along with Greg Lindsay, Rudd, and Right-wing clique supporting carbon taxes.

Look it this way, Sunker Ker Plunker Davidson:

Immortalisation through carbonisation at the hands of millions of the immiserated sounds like a real hoot. Look at the United States. The man in the street is already up in arms against Obama and the few treacherous Republicans who supported his carbon tax. I look forward to your apotheosis along with the aforesaid criminal bastards.

In their ‘paper’, Berg and the good Professor asserted that manufacturing is only a home cottage hobby of ‘making things’ and so it won’t be missed if it is wiped out. Well, what are imports about must be a huge mystery only these two geniuses can solve, with help form Humperdink Humphreys.

Here it is, Humphreys and Davidson in courageous action, and what a gentlemanly title it is too in acknowledging Jackson:

The hater strikes again

What on earth did Jackson do. Oh, I know, he wrote this:

Is monetary policy destroying the country’s manufacturing base?

“Any paper relating to industry policy that the Institute of Public Affairs sponsors deserves to be carefully read. This is precisely what I did with their Thumping the Table: Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’ (authored by Sinclair Davidson and Chris Berg, January 2007). It ought to be extremely difficult for any economist to write a paper on industry policy that is basically worthless. Unfortunately, Davidson and Berg managed to do just that.”

Well, I suppose telling the truth is, according to these two geniuses “hateful”. I ponder Davidson’s approach to his students and their papers. Mind, this clown struggled to work out what the Laffer curve was. He can hardly be expected to assess whether one of his undergraduates is writing crap or not, but this saves him the hateful hurt of hating them by telling them a paper is worthless.

Such hate! Sound graduates and their tutors didn’t realise they engaged in mutual hate crimes. I’ll let a couple of Cambridge Profs I know that they are hateful too, when we are not sober together and taking the piss out of each other.

Humphreys asserts that Jackson claims he is “Australia’s only Austrian economist”. It never occurred to this inveterate liar that Jackson did not write the piece in which it is set, a bio by a U.S. free market news magazine that has as one of its commentators, Jackson,

Free Market News Network Corp.

That, it might just be the editor who wrote the bio and not Jackson. That, in delivering the smear, ie. opening his fat gob first and not bothering to check with Jackson. That in ignoring this, he picked on a cheap and nasty scrap of nothing in another attempt to impugn Jackson. For good measure, the bum tacks on, “Jackson is neither trained in economics nor understands basic economics”. Let’s see:

Animals are trained. Soldiers are drilled. Scholars read deep and wide, absorb theory and advance it. The standard undergrad texbook bound economist that prevails in Australia might be ‘trained’, as parrots regurgitating their master’s voice, but:

Humpers and Sunkers are closer to trained rats. They scrabble around the Internet trolling for anything they can construe as damnation of anyone they seek to defame. They are trained. Yet, they they are an insult to rats - rats will, if cornered, come at you from the front and go for the jugular. No, just a pair of trained monkeys.

As for the second, the idiot pretending to be an economist, as Greg Lindsay tells donors -, there’s none finer than Humphreys and hey, Humphreys is a Mannkel scholar. Mr. Ron Manners, this is where your scholarship fund is being spent, on a nasty little monkey that trolls the Internet in order to get hold of something to defame his superior and genuine free market economist. Are you sure, Mr. Manners that that is what you proudly boast is a free market economist, defender, and scholar? I won’t say much more on it, for now, Mr. Manners, but is that the echo of a blown light bulb or only a loose screw hitting the concrete.

Humpy makes what he believes are killer economic statement against Jackson’s paper. I won’t go into this but they are, and I am being charitable here, as ‘worthless’ as the Davidson-Berg paper. The statements are so wild as well as misleading that they demonstrate for the umpteenth time, and we are talking millions of time, that this bozo is not only an economic illiterate, he is incapable of even a modicum of reasoning. Consider another example:

He is fond of saying to any who criticise Lindsay’s Co2 tax claims that Humphreys voices:

If they oppose a carbon tax, they must be for Cap and Trade. Ah, no. The second is a tax too and that critics have made it plain the real debate is carbon tax or no carbon tax, and the economic force of the proposition must be examined. This is what Lindsay and his putrid gofer savagely smear anyone for: challenging and examining the economic force of the proposition. How on earth did this irrational idiot matriculate, forget actually go up to a University?

Now we arrive at the Good Professor - what he’s good at is a mystery to many. Sinclair has been smearing Jackson for some time around the internet. His usual approach is innuendo and insinuation. Sometimes he can’t help himself, and really let’s fly and in this mode the nicest term he uses  frequently is , ‘Jackson rants’. In comment No. 37, providing authoritative, erudite support to Humphreys, Sinclair the Professor wrote:

Comment no. 37:

“DO a google search of Gerard Jackson and what do you find

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22gerard+jackson%22+%22corporate+tax%22&meta=

On Sinclair Davidson…and corporate tax

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22sinclair+davidson%22+%22corporate+tax%22&meta=

I think I’ve done a bit more work on this than has Gerry.

…also I checked his references on the latest rant, and they don’t support his argument, especially the Schumpeter reference”

I shall comment on the tax allusions shortly. So, the good professor rates the Jackson paper and by insinuation all his articles a rant. No-one, if they are reasonable, can say they are rants. What they are is unmistakably well written, well argued treatments of grave matters, applying very neatly a solid framework of theory.

Davidson is lying again in reference to Schumpeter. First, Davidson doesn’t explain what is wrong with it and he doesn’t merely assert there is something wrong. He is insinuating Jackson ‘fabricated the quote’ and I put it like this because one “ESS” used ‘farbication’ in comments on my site, saying with glee that Sinkers had caught Jackson out. Let’s see what this means:

1. Sinclair is saying Jackson is not deeply read, and has no thorough command of the history of economic thought - it’s slight.

2. Fabrication means falsehoods and that, in truth, means lying. So, he is actually accusing Jackson of lying. But, left at the ‘genteel’ form, fabrication, the force is clear: It means Jackson is fraudulent, cannot, understandably, be recognised as an economist.

Sinclair is the liar. Jackson’s quotation of  Schumpeter is accurate, as all the seminal economists in the history of economics Jackson quotes and this is reinforced by:

Jackson not only quotes, he supplies the work and the page.  Well, what do you know:

Jackson in the above paper not only accurately quoted Schumpeter but it is accurate usage as explanation in the argument Jackson mounts and it shows:

Jackson demonstrates routinely he is working from established theory, when it was established, and by whom. It is not Jackson saying it, it is not him, it is solid economic theory. The sheer exhaustive bibliography Jackson furnishes of leading exponents is inseparable from the hard core tradition of economic reasoning in which Jackson stands, works from, advances and defends.

And, he gives the page no.”:

…allow me to draw your attention to Joseph Schumpeter’s observation that “the ‘classic’ writers without neglecting other cases, reasoned primarily in terms of an unfettered international gold standard”. (The History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 732).

Actually, it is Humphreys who abuses Schumpeter, for in “Hater” he shows he just doesn’t understand what Schumpeter stated. It shows in the grammar. Schumpeter, notice, says “in terms of…”. That is, the unfettered gold standard was hard background against which, economists developed and and tested theory for explanatory power. Much like Hayek had common law before him in regards to his Constitution of Liberty.

Humphreys wrote “conceived within the framework of a gold standard”. This is garbage undilute. This is numbingly idiotic. One cannot even grace it by saying, it’s a metaphysical mistake. Humphreys ends with a final telling, slimey little sneer, again invoking the authority of the greatest living scholar on earth:

“After that, Sinclair wisely decided to give Gerry the respect he deserved, and started ignoring him.”

Now, nothing Sinclair Davidson nor the rest of the CIS and IPA produces demonstrates command of the history of economic thought. Their bibliographies show this because they are completely devoid of it. Funnier still is many of the ’sources’ they use happen to all have the same name, “I”.

In his heavy tome on the Laffer curve, in which Sinclair struggles to find out what on earth it is, a Mr. I fills each page and the bibliography. Blow me down, this Mr. I turns out to be Professor Sinclair Daavidson. Here’s someone who doesn’t have a bloody clue and he uses himself as a source ?! This isn’t unusual. It litters the junk spewed out by the Right. Which only goes to show: the Right is inbred, to Mr. I.

Mr. I doesn’t appear to have expended time and application to economics but he sure was busy reproducing himself and marrying his offspring to each other. No wonder Mr. I needed a couple of charities, IPA and CIS. A daddy has to stump up for all his little ‘dahling’ girlies’ weddings.

Now for those two links. One of the Augustan poets’ put-downs for the ‘grub-street race’ was the total weight of all the books the grub-street race had churned out. Credential-ism in Australia has achieved the same result. Quantity, no quality. Davidson’s and co. strive one better, no content at all. The link to Mr. I on corporate taxation was as to be expected, because the very expression, ‘corporate tax’, smacked of no economics and possibly destructive of the fight against a great problem:

Taxation, it includes regulation, is strangling capital and entrepreneurship in Australia. 

The point to Davidson’s contrast is transparent, to insinuate that Jackson, contrary to his claims, is not defending free markets and firms, and is idle on the matter of taxation.

No-one who is honest and has read Jackson can say that against the man. Nor would they have missed Jackson’s starting point, reasoning from free market economics. From within this sound framework he has consistently addressed the problem.

There is no economics in Davidson’s drivel on tax. Worse,  Davidson supports another tax on capital and entrepreneurship. It’s the capital destroying carbon taxes. Another thing, Davidson and the Right have been so successful on this matter that under Treasurer Peter Costello, their hero and guru, they multiplied and intensified the tax regime.  What a bloody joke.

Now, while Davidson smears Jackson the economist and free market warrior, what turned up?

Yesterday, on other matters, I came across this:

Davidson: “On this point I do have to depart from my colleague [at RMIT] Professor Legge…”

Well, that’s a relief, he found something to disagree with Legge on. Though, I don’t know why it’s a relief when it is considered Legge is the same as Kenneth Davidson, a hard Left, anti-free market economist. Funnier still, Legge once challenged Jackson. Jackson did what Davidson failed miserably in, eviscerated Legge.

Davidson played footsies with another hard Leftist economist, quibbling over a point. Well, he would. He’s afraid of Quiggin, so the notion that this mediocrity is about to acquire muscle and smash Legge in the face is a ludicrous suggestion. Besides, he can’t do it and if he tried, Legge would chop him up into little bits and just to check, here’s another Leftist smashing Davidson up for public enjoyment:

Rob Watts, Professor of Social Policy, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT,

Unrestrained markets are as noxious as unrestrained state socialist regimes

How interesting and let us quote a fascinating opening:

 SINCLAIR Davidson’s splendidly vitriolic rant….

What happened? Thanks to his incompetence and feebleness, Davidson discredits the free market cause and thus presents another cheap way for diseased Leftists to gain traction where it counts, with voters.

Brilliant. Just bloody brilliant. He keep this up and their won’t be a gong big enough to pin on Davidson’s chest. He’ll have to be content with the order of Lenin for services rendered. Here is an indication of the damage he caused:

RBA got it wrong on rates, Sinclair Davidson

While Davidson struggled long after it was too late with what the RBA might have done, Jackson was explaining and warning years before of the force of the RBA’s actions, the perils involved. Moreover, in the three articles below on Soros, it could be said that Jackson had demolished Watts’ article before Watt’s even thought of writing it. 

George Soros: economic buffoon and enemy of democracy

George Soros, economic illiteracy and monetary policy

A George Soros myth lives on

Done, finished. Notice, Jackson saw the danger Soros posed straightaway and thus immediately challenged Soros. But the Right didn’t and they ingnored Jackson. So, instead, we find Davidson, pretending to be bright, couldn’t help himself. He had to pen more muck and gave Watt’s oxygen when that hard leftist was asphyxiated. 

Professor Sinclair Davidson is an economic illiterate. He had to compound the defect with stupidity. This is what has the bloody hide to smear and impugn Jackson for one purpose only, to damage Jackson professionally. This bastard is no Professor, he disgraces the honour. He is a bloody disgrace and a liar.

Now for ESS:

It is curious how ESS’ linguistic range is the same as John Humphreys’, right down to the snide remarks, smears and the professional defamation of a man who is a learned economist.

It’s no secret that “ESS” is John Humphreys, the evidence is overwhelming. This ignorant, lying, whining, cretinous bastard has joined the IPA’s defamation of Shostak and Jackson.

Humphreys and Davidson are dragging the IPA down in the defamation effort. How much self-inflicted pain can the IPA withstand? Isn’t lousy economics humiliating enough? Feebleness embarrassing as it is? Cowardice before the hard Left shameful? To cap all the defects off with idle, illiterate, lying, thugs smearing others who happen to be their superiors is a self-inflicted icing. 

These two can’t damage the CIS any further because Lindsay has sunk CIS deep into Carbongate and they are his flag-bearers.