Mangled Thoughts

It is in three parts. This part is per way of introductory comments to clear the air on a disagreement. The second part responds to the main economics points raised Mr. Eltham. The third part is summary remarks, one foreshadowed shortly below.

Mr. Eltham has written a courteous reply to,

Right-wing think tanks the toast of the Left

“In leftist rag,The New Matilda, Ben Eltham subjected Des Moore’s and Professor Sinclair Davidson’s efforts to careful analysis. Ben Eltham simply threw some of their nonsense back at them. Neither answered, again. Eltham’s articles could convince readers who are unsure whether the free market case is wrong, immoral and destructive. It degenerates. If Eltham is an economist, it is a well concealed secret. ^(1)….”

I retun Mr. Eltham’s generosity in this two part article.

Something in his remarks is suggestive. We shall come to this after addressing his central points,  but here, we shall say, I thank Mr. Eltham for his willingness to engage in open exchange. This is, to say the least, quite in contrast to what is called the “Right”, which is a narrow clique only.

It is assumed that this clique is identical with genuine Liberals and their nostrums with genuine free market economics. The Right has asserted a death grip over the Liberal Party. They have, through Michael Kroger, secured total control over the Victorian Division. They have reduced the Liberal Party and its forums to a platform for themselves.

Thus, before public contest, they have eradicated all debate and open exchange within the Party. They control and direct advice on all grave matters. It is why the genuine free market case has never been heard in public, and put in debate against other positions . Their destructive antics and  travesty of an ‘economic’ case” for free labour markets is only one of the myriads of consequences of this. Now they are doing it to the fight against carbon taxes.

Mr. Eltham gently chided,

“The tone of your post. Can I respectfully suggest that while insulting language might be fun to write…”

Anger drives it. The above answers, why the anger. They play games with matters that have grave impact for all, as Mr. Eltham you would agree, going on your unmistakable concerns, such as the abuse of pensioners, and the unemployed.

Genuine free market economists are not dogmatists and cultists, “Believe/trust me” (or else). They put sound theory and reasoning with evidence and say, test it for yourselves and, in debate, contrast it to, say, Keynesians. Importantly, as Mr. Eltham appreciates, voters must be convinced. Ineptitude and feebleness can destroy not a sound, therefore moral case. It discredits them in the eyes of all, leaving intact assumptions that are perilous. A carbon tax, which is what the ETS is, is one such instance.

The Right is not merely discrediting the fight against carbon tax destruction day. There is information indicating that they are sabotaging it. Though this might seem exaggerated and over the top, it isn’t. We shall put why not in another item.

Mr. Eltham, that you could eviscerate Sinclair Davidson over the Laffer curve is only a reflection of his incompetence. Note also, the Right is devoid of capital theory, as Professor Sinclair Davidson typifies.

It is not merely a matter of theory and debate. Vital principles of tremendous impact are at stake. Error in these have appalling consequences of great magnitude for the lives of not a few but millions of Australians. I note your empathy for the modest man. This empathy stamps all genuine free market economists, and they are also deeply concerned for fine values – much of their ‘warfare’ is given to defending them.

There is a real ‘war’ occurring in Australia. The hard Left are determined and implacable. Debate and exchange in this is not a pleasant turning over of propositions.

It is a deadly fight and it is brutal. The Left waste no opportunity in dealing out abuse of not only opposed positions, but also of those who propound them. They do it inside Parliament too; an instance will be related this week because it happens to be very important in the fight against carbon taxes.

Exchanging blows with the hard left does not disturb me, nor dealing them out against the Right. Blood sport is a joy. To engage in open, public debate, you cannot be squeamish, and afraid of receiving blows. You must learn to love blood sport.

Here is one more reason for anger against the Right. In discrediting good causes, they smear and defame genuine Liberals who can fight to discredit them. They have done so even on this site! They have even smeared the reputations of Dr. Frank Shostak and Mr. Jackson of Brookesnews on this site too! They continue to do this, mostly not out in the open, directly to Mr. Jackson. Oh no, not this lot of gutless bastards. There you are Mr. Eltham, when I dish out abuse, I do it coming at the target from the front, out in the open on this site.

Importantly, I don’t simply pour it on, I ground it in argument – the hard left appreciates this and how effective it is, it is why they do it. It is something the Right never learns, but they are so feeble it would come as a surprise anything greater than amoebas dwell inside their craniums.

Mr. Eltham, it is wrong to spare sensitivities in debating fights against the hard Left. It is also wrong to do so with the Right. I noted, by the way, your jolly good barb against Professor Sinclair Davidson. You are welcome, but one word of advice:

On economics, it is important to understand what the case is for a given matter, and to work within one’s limits. Otherwise, what can happen is exactly what I did in that first item. In skewering Davidson I skewered you too, and did so because I saw the danger in what you wrote. It could not be left unchallenged and it had to done, as unpleasant as it seems, with ferocity. There is no other way, as unpleasant as this might seem. The hard Left knows this, this is why they do it.

Davidson and the rest are afraid of hard Left economists such as Professor Quiggin and Professor Legge. Each time the likes of Legge and Quiggin hit any of the Right, the target runs away and the rest crawl on the blogs sites of Quiggin and the others saying, “Please, please Mr. Quiggin, nice Mr. Quiggin, good Mr. Quiggin, “don’t hit us too”. It is hilarious reading them on Quiggin’s site. Quiggin’s rubber balls.

Pathetic. Within my limits, I enjoy attacking Legge and Quiggin. I have not done so for some time because of intervening matters. Also, Bob Brown and Peter Garrett. In an item this week, I will be attacking Greg Combet and Doug Cameron for what they support.

Yah, Greg Combet and Doug Cameron, I’m going to do what those occupying precious Liberal seats cannot do and, besides, even if they could they are too gutless to do it. To foreshadow, these two are, unlike in Parliament, not candid at all with ordinary union members on what they are about to do them. Funny that. Patriotic unionists should take note of it.

Finally, in view of your generous, courteous reply, let me say, so long as it is grounded in argument, I’ll take abuse. If, Mr. Eltham, you wish to call me bastard and so forth, I won’t censor it. Why should I. I dish it out, and I can take it.

I thank Mr. Eltham for his willingness to do what the Right will never do, cannot do, and are too gutless and venal to do. Debate. The next item will be a forthright reply to his economics points, and, there will be no abuse, it will be strictly on the points. I extend a generous arm to Mr. Eltham.

Yes, Des Moore, Ray Evans, John Roskam, Ken Phillips, Alan Moran, Michael Kroger, Greg Lindsay and his CIS, the rest of the inmates at IPA and HR Nicholls Society, the only thing limiting laying out evidence by the truckloads is writing and editing time. But, it will be rolled out, showing how much damage they cause.