Home > Regular Features > Weekend reflections

Weekend reflections

January 7th, 2007

Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. pseudonym (econowit)
    January 7th, 2007 at 15:02 | #1

    JQ
    Re your article ‘Politics of emission’ Page 63 this Weekend Financial Review. (Subscription required)

    It seems to be agreed that carbon emissions are rising. It is inconclusive what effect this is having if any? (SE Australia is now going through one of its coldest summers).
    To propose a new tax based on this philosophy is to be “sadly misinformed�

    Please read Airlines fly into emissions row; page 29 the same Weekend Financial Review.

    Michael O’Leary of Ryan Air sums it up “Taxes won’t reduce emissions� and “a lot of lies and misinformation have been put about by eco nuts on the back of a report by an idiot economist�.

  2. January 8th, 2007 at 02:04 | #2

    This article in the Asia Times On Line, is well worth a read, for those interested in the Iranian question. The Sunni Shia division is revealed to be a simplistic view of the Middle East. The article begs the question as to the stability of the Sunni conservative alliance of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia but I suspect that may be the author’s intention.

  3. January 8th, 2007 at 08:33 | #3

    Shelley Gare’s book on the Airheads is getting some coverage and she has certainly identified some targets that are worthy of being put in the stocks and pelted with second hand fruit and vegetables. The problems of anti-intellectualism and the retreat from commonsense are not going to go away in a hurry and people who care will have to make a concerted effort over a long haul. It will be essential to identify the real causes and there is a distressing tendency in the book to put economic rationalism and neoliberalism in the stocks along with pomo and cognate pathologies.

    There is some discussion at Catallaxy along the lines that economic rationalism and classical liberalism are not really the villains of the piece.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2309

    It appears that Shelley Gare and her has not come to grips with the form of classical liberalism and economic rationalism that has intellectual and moral legs.

  4. January 8th, 2007 at 08:34 | #4

    I mean Shelley and the people who she has read and consulted.

  5. January 8th, 2007 at 11:47 | #5
  6. wilful
    January 8th, 2007 at 12:18 | #6

    demand away…

    What will you do if you don’t get it, stop paying your subs?

  7. Jill Rush
    January 8th, 2007 at 12:55 | #7

    Rafe,
    I had a look at the site you link to which argues against the arguments put forward by Shelley Gare. I haven’t read the book so am unable to comment on that. However the arguments put forward in regard to Economic rationalism at Catallaxy look decidely shaky. The arguments of the high moral fibre of the Economic rationalists and that a few bad apples don’t rot the others is dubious at best.Classical liberalism and Economic Rationalism are not the same thing in any way. Whilst the Economic rationalist may like to spin their way onto the moral high grounds their actions speak louder than their hypocrisy. Economic rationalists and airheads have a natural affinity as neither has to put a value on nebulous considerations such as the long term consequences of an action for intellectual development or the environment, or native populations, as long as the creation of wealth (for themselves) occurs. The arguments are short on logic, long on abuse and intellectually sloppy.

    However you have helped me make a new year resolution to read the book which I probably wouldn’t have done otherwise. Thanks for raising the topic.

  8. January 12th, 2007 at 08:31 | #8

    Jill, when you read the book be sure your brain is more engaged than it was when you read my defence of classical liberalism and associated agenda of economic rationalism. Would anyone else like to attempt a more cogent comment than Jill’s uncomprehending effort?

    This is the link http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2309

Comments are closed.