Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link
You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my <a href=”https://www.facebook.com/JohnQuigginPublicPage/”>Facebook public page</a> and at my <a href=”https://www.facebook.com/EconomicsInTwoLessons/?modal=admin_todo_tour”>Economics in Two Lessons page </a><
John Quiggin 
Re the recent discussion on the nature of neoliberalism.
The multi stranded nature of the beast is sometimes overlooked. The article below perhaps fleshes it out more clearly than Wikipedia.
https://stateofnatureblog.com/adam-kotsko-political-theology-neoliberalism/
The ABC has a news article about how the Tesla battery in South Australia actually works better than expected. And yet, the most senior ministers in the government mocked and derided SA for purchasing this solution. What is the opportunity cost of ongoing climate change denial and/or stoopidity with respect to alternative/renewable energy solutions, amongst the top members of the government? Given the example of the impact of the Tesla battery system, it would seem that the opportunity cost of government derision is pretty high.
No doubt this news item will attract complaints about the ABC, whether by direct ministerial statements or by leaking. It seems to be the pattern now.
In light of ‘events ABC’ this may seem trivial but if it suggests a bit of editorial vigor then I’ll buy it. For months ABC RN have referred to Liberal Senator John Williams as ‘John Whacka Williams for reasons
that escape me. Yesterday the stand-in ‘AM’ host, Kathy Van Eckstell – the spelling may need work – referred to ‘Whacka’ in an intro segment on the bank inquiry but in closing the segment it was plain John. In between somewhere commentator Michelle Gratton also stuck with the orthodox Sen, John Williams. Has the penny finally dropped with ABC staff…that using funny nick names demeans the subject and the participants and I’ll wager is contrary to editorial rules.
The cost of disruption to private business, in both Sydney and Newcastle, appears to overwhelmed any social benefit. It seems incomprehensible that a modern bus system was not used as an alternative public transport. Given the cost of construction free bus transport would be more cost effective.
I wonder if anyone has any comments on the Grievance Studies scandal. There is an interesting discussion going on it on Quillette: https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/
One comment there —
“Perhaps part of the value in this “hoax” is to be found in the way it could be utilized to change the public perception of these journals so that public discourse may proceed from more critical frames of reference that don’t accept the mere mention of peer-reviewed data as dispositive, or even terribly meaningful?”
Whoops, my above comment was regarding light rail.
Donald Oats, the high cost of contracting generators to provide frequency stabilization was a known thing, so the question is why was public money used to help private companies make extraordinary profits?
Is anyone else uneasy about the left wing and feminist lynch mob’s behaviour towards SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh? I am 100% opposed to Kavanaugh’s politics but the behaviour of the feminists, or at least the ones of been reading in places like the “The Guardian”, has been disturbing.
Professor Quiggin once suggested that we ought to prioritise submarines as part of our defence. I have gone back and forth on this idea myself and I know our submarine projects have had a lot of bad press. But its looking like a fine idea. The submarine is looking like the best leveller when it comes to dealing with stronger powers.
I think its a matter of persistence over many decades to make sure our lads are superior anywhere close to the continent. Its not something we can rush, which means competing with us is not anything else a competitor could rush. I think the idea goes well with another idea; to have a communist undertaking to produce lots of artificial reefs, floating and otherwise, for the purpose of providing habitat to stimulate abundant sea life. I would start the teen submariners off, helping set up these artificial reefs, and even working on public goods fish hatcheries. This ought to be communist. Its too costly to try and get back the benefits of a fish hatchery directly.
I say start the kids off on these easier tasks, because its a different world down there, an undiscovered planet. Prior to being trained how to take out other peoples navies, inhibit their trade without casualties, launch special operations onto any coast on the planet, and other extremely delicate missions, I think they just need to be supreme masters of the territory, and of oceanic dexterity.
Our submariners are exposed in open sea. You want a more featured and abundant ocean territory. Give the lads more things to hide behind. Plus we want extreme fish abundance. Fishing is not best achieved under the capitalist model. Enlightened hunter-gathering combined with communist seeding is the best model for fishing in my view. Not every last inch of the earth needs to be under the capitalist model. A lot of it yes. But not all of it.
Hugo one small thing. Yes it does look like a lynching for sure. And you may not be a fan of backward speech analysis. But the backward speech analysis is suggesting that this really did happen to Christine Ford when she was 15, and that she was quite traumatised about it. The same analysis shows that the Judge cannot remember the incident but his protestations are not honest. Now this is back in 1981. In a situation where he was blind drunk. But we don’t want to think this woman at least is lying and that she was not affected in a serious way. The other thing is that there is some talk that this fellow helped out in writing the patriot act. Not the most patriotic thing to be doing if true.
I go for a hard right interpretation of constitutional law. I think the leftist side of constitutional interpretation is pure usurpation. So I suppose I’m taking the mirror image position to you. I would be more inclined to this fellows interpretation the Ginsburg lady, who just makes it all up as she goes along. But on the other hand this fellow …. a little bit dicey. Not someone who ought to be persecuted. But kind of questionable.
@Hugo
Could you be a bit more specific about the “behaviour of the feminists” you’re referring to? I’ve read a bunch of stuff about Kavanaugh online, including some articles about him on The Guardian, which are opposed to his appointment to the Supreme Court bench. But I haven’t read anything that I’d characterise as even remotely like a “lynch mob”, so I’m a bit unsure what you’re referring to.
I have not heard or read about any behaviour by opponents of the nomination that makes me uneasy, but maybe you have heard or read about some other behaviour that I haven’t? Perhaps you could explain which behaviour you’re referring to and why it makes you uneasy. Or perhaps you don’t care to make yourself clear; of course you’re not obliged to.
In a lynching, somebody is killed. In this case, nobody has been killed. So it doesn’t seem like a lynching to me.
As regards the recent hoax, there’s plenty of discussion at crookedtimber.org. IMO, this is a pretty low-grade hoax, comparable to the Windschuttle Quadrant effort a few years back. It’s been all downhill since Ern Malley in the world of hoaxing.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/06/how-windschuttle-swallowed-a-hoax-to-publish-a-fake-story-in-quadrant/
https://johnquiggin.com/2009/01/07/the-great-windschuttle-hoax/
A minor point of amusement is that lots of people appear to have taken the hoaxers at their word, when they describe what they did. Doesn’t it occur to these people that they might also be having their legs pulled?
If you are going to use feminists as a pejorative or as an argument then I think you have lost the argument.
Nothing more from you on this topic, please. If you decide to comment further on other topics, please read the comments policy and avoid personal attacks – JQ
@ Tim Macknay
If you search “Brett Kavanaugh” at The Guardian site you get 233 results. As far as I can tell, most of these represent an article. I see plenty of statements like this re the confirmation hearings:
“Ford composed, human and brittle; Kavanaugh snarling, rude and unravelling. This was the bad guy, the images screamed, and he wasn’t even trying to hide it. But with every new revelation, with every apparent lie Kavanaugh told during his testimony …”
***www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/08/kavanaugh-case-revealed-system-rigged-against-women
In order to see any criticism of Ford, I had to leave the left wing reservation and enter the right wing parallel universe. If I hadn’t first left the reservation, I wouldn’t know that some of Fords statements have been disproved and that there are some prima facie reasons to doubt her testimony just as there is with Kavanaugh’s testimony.
I have no idea who is telling the truth and neither does anyone else apart from them. If I took The Guardian with more than a grain of salt on gender issues, I would “know” Kavanaugh is guilty. To hell with the need for a trial.
Hugo, if you found some people criticising Kavanaugh and some people criticising Ford, why is it that you mentioned being uneasy about the way Kavanaugh was being treated but didn’t mention being uneasy about the way Ford was being treated?
I don’t find the fact that a person is being criticised sufficient to make me uneasy.
@J-D: “Hugo, if you found some people criticising Kavanaugh and some people criticising Ford … “
You are being disingenuous. I found the Left behaving like the Right. I expect better from my side.
If I observe people on the left publicly advocating for their favoured causes, I do not feel myself uneasy because publicly advocating for their favoured causes is something that people on the right also do. If I observe people on the left soliciting donations, I do not feel myself uneasy because soliciting donations is something that people on the right also do. If I observe people on the left organising and mobilising support, I do not feel myself uneasy because organising and mobilising support is something that people on the right also do. So, if I observe people on the left publicly criticising Brett Kavanaugh, I do not feel myself uneasy because publicly criticising people is something that people on the right also do.
“If I observe people on the left organising and mobilising support, I do not feel myself uneasy because organising and mobilising support is something that people on the right also do. So, if I observe people on the left publicly criticising Brett Kavanaugh, I do not feel myself uneasy because publicly criticising people is something that people on the right also do. ”
Fabulous. That makes two of us.
Oh wait, I just spoke to Captain Obvious and he also agrees. So that makes three of us.
If people criticising Brett Kavanaugh is not the behaviour which has made you uneasy, then what is the behaviour which has made you uneasy?