— Aren’t forced formalities disparaged as affectations?
— The mind boggles at “feminist” “progressive” “democratic” “welfare lobby” “compassion industry” “Nanny State” policies towards commoditising, subjectifying, entitling, professionalising, bureaucratising, standardising, credentialing, certifying, decreeing, decreeing degreeing, unionising, nationalising, guaranteeing, taxing and subsidising housework, childcare, charity, casual work and employment with benefits.
— At least we have Paddy McGuinness to guide us through the thick smug, often displaying his distinctive triple-threat of huge nuance, extreme empathy and sneaky truth-telling:
1. “Welfare, mainly for social workers,” The National Times, January 13-18, 1975, pp. 33, 37.
2. “The poor and the social workers are always with us,” The Australian Financial Review, September 16, 1975, pp. 3, 6.
3. “Prayers from a Marxist litany,” The National Times, week ending March 24, 1979, p. 54.
4. “Providing proper child-care facilities is the major issue,” The Sun-Herald, June 5, 1988, p. 32.
5. “How to create more jobs,” AFR, July 15, 1988, pp. 84-83.
6. “Housing the poorest,” AFR, November 30, 1988, pp. 92-91.
7. “Homeless used as cannon fodder,” The Australian, March 2, 1989, pp. 1-2.
8. “What price marital sex?,” 27/2/90
9. “Just what is a woman worth?,” 9/1/91
10. “Economic arteries hardening,” 24-25/8/91
11. “Why welfare is of poor benefit,” 8/10/91
12. “We need to make people want to work,” 28/2/92
13. “A poor show when private welfare stays in the shadows,” 22/5/92
14. “Vested interests leaving young out in the cold,” 7/7/92
15. “Older but no wiser on jobless,” 8/7/92
16. “Ideology burdens the state of welfare,” 9/7/92
17. “Unemployed plight the shame of mindless militancy,” 10/7/92
18. “Sacrifices vital to overcoming unemployment,” 11-12/7/92
19. “Childcare figures reveal zealots behind statistics,” 18-19/7/92
20. “Domestic work holds the key to unemployment,” 22-23/5/93
21. “No-nonsense charity converts a nation,” 26/1/94
22. “Poor show when homeless at mercy of politics and yuppies,” 28/4/94
23. “Workplace welfare costs poor their jobs,” 12/8/94
24. “Women and work,” SMH, 23/11/94
25. “Machinations of the system,” 21/6/95
26. “Bleeding hearts with tight fists,” 31/8/96
27. “Old-style families at a financial loss,” 21/9/96
28. “Young people are the losers,” 14/12/96
29. “Rights-based view of welfare is wrong,” The Age, 23/6/97
30. “Why raddled old feminists are wrong on parenting,” SMH, 29/8/98
31. “What price the housewife on the open market?,” 19/10/00
Appendix: Parallel paragraphs put P.P.McG in good company Continue »
P. P. McGuinness, “THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS LAST,”
The Australian Financial Review, November 23, 1976, p. 4.
“Will the minister see what can be done to put a tariff on New Zealand horses in order to prevent them running faster than our home-produced horses?”
This question was asked in Federal Parliament on Melbourne Cup day by the Liberal member for Wakefield, South Australia, Mr Bert Kelly, satirising common Australian attitudes to the protection of industry.
However, Mr Kelly’s wit was hopelessly outclassed by reality last week when a newly-formed group of Sydney prostitutes stated that they were worried that if prostitution were legalised, which they favour, there would be an influx of prostitutes from other States and overseas “and girls that have faithfully served the community for many years will face a lot of competition.”
Of course, Section 92 of the Constitution would prevent any barriers to entry of Melbourne prostitutes into the Sydney trade unless indeed the NSW Government were to license prostitutes and set up a Licensing Reduction Board, which, no doubt, would be concerned with progressively reducing the numbers operating in the central Sydney area and shifting licences to the outer suburbs.
Moreover, it would be possible to impose tariffs or import quotas on foreign prostitutes, or even maybe a language test. Continue »
Ron Manners, The Lonely Libertarian:
Turning Ideas into Gold — then Gold into Ideas
(Redland Bay, QLD: Connor Court, 2019)
review by Benjamin Marks
How far out is libertarianism? How uninhabitable is its terrain, disorienting its position and remote its chance of success?
Perth is the world’s most isolated capital city. Libertarianism is the political philosophy furthest from any other. It is so far from communism, socialism and fascism that it makes them all look alike. Libertarianism is not even on the Left-Right continuum. Continue »
Politicisation is the gamification of politics as a blame game. Politics full circle is blaming blame-shifters. That blah-blah blame-blame bang-bang is what Bert Kelly taught me.
1. “Did the VFL really kick up inflation?,” AFR, 10/8/73
2. “‘Get stuck into those Treasury sods’,” AFR, 6/9/74
3. “It isn’t my fault — it’s the system …,” AFR, 14/2/75
4. “Need for more shifts at the money machine,” AFR, 28/4/75
5. “It’s easy — sack the Treasurer!,” AFR, 13/6/75
6. “‘You chaps must all pull harder’,” AFR, 1/4/77
7. “A binge of self-righteousness,” Bulle, 24/5/84
1.
A Modest Member of Parliament [Bert Kelly],
“Did the VFL really kick up inflation?,”
The Australian Financial Review, August 10, 1973, p. 3.
One of the things one quickly learns in politics is to smartly pass the blame. I learnt this soon after I became a member. Continue »
Now the myth of “politically impossible” is easy to recognise. That’s the aim of this compilation.
These fundamental essays on the “politically impossible” assertion are bewilderingly neglected. The first, a Helmut Schoeck speech at the 1957 Mont Pelerin Society Meeting, was a major influence — (along with an earlier masterpiece by longtime Mont Pelerin Society Treasurer Clarence Philbrook) — on W.H. Hutt’s Politically Impossible …?: An essay on the supposed electoral obstacles impeding the translation of economic analysis into policy; or, Why politicians do not take economic advice (London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1971). Hutt is already digitised and easy to find, but there were a few inaccessible yet interesting reviews further exploring the “politically impossible?” question, including: in The Economist with a reply by Hutt, then in The Spectator, Indian Journal of Economics and, the most positive review of all by the biggest name of all, Henry Hazlitt in The Freeman.
1. Helmut Schoeck, “What is Meant by ‘Politically Impossible’?,” Pall Mall Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1958), pp. 48-53.
2. [Anonymous book reviewer], “The inseparables,” The Economist, July 17, 1971, p. 55. Retorted in the following item.
3. W. H. Hutt, “The inseparables,” The Economist, July 31, 1971, p. 6, as a letter to the editor.
4. John Biffen, “John Biffen on W. H. Hutt,” The Spectator, August 7, 1971, pp. 216-17.
5. M. C., “The politics of money,” Indian Journal of Economics, vol. LII, issue no. 205 (October 1971), pp. 191-93.
6. Henry Hazlitt, [untitled book review], The Freeman, vol. 22, no. 1 (January 1972), pp. 58-60.
1.
Helmut Schoeck, “What is Meant by ‘Politically Impossible’?,” Pall Mall Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1958), pp. 48-53.
(Adapted, with Dr. Schoeck’s kind permission, from a paper presented at the 10th Anniversary Meeting of the Mont Pèlerin Society, St. Moritz, Switzerland, September 7th, 1957)
We all know the saying, “Politics is the art of the possible;” first phrased, of course, at a time when statesmanship was less subject to democratic sensitivities. If we accept, for the moment, this definition of politics, then the popular phrase that describes the “politically impossible” is absurd.
Something may be impossible for any number of reasons (military, physical, economic, psychological, geographical and so on), but not primarily for political reasons. Of course, a specific political objective may be impossible because of any combination of non- or pre-political reasons, but that is a different problem. Perhaps we could define the current meaning of the “politically impossible” as anything we know in the depths of our hearts to be morally (or economically, or militarily, etc.) sound and proper, but at the same time as something we don’t care to do (or to propose) for fear our parliamentary opponents could misrepresent it to parts of the electorate to our own personal future disadvantage. Continue »
EMBARGO Till 3.30 p.m. 18/2/70
“Agriculture and Public Policy”
Given at the Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural
Economics Society in Melbourne on 18 February 1970
by C. R. Kelly (Member for Wakefield)
When I returned to the backbench, I thought I ought to catch up with agricultural economic thinking, which I now realise had not stood still while I was sitting pre-occupied in a Ministerial chair! I thought that one useful way of doing this would be to attend this Seminar, so I eagerly signed my registration papers. The next thing I knew I was billed to speak. It seems a funny way of learning! Continue »
1. P. P. McGuinness, “The strange case of the ‘close watch’ on rising tariffs,” The Australian Financial Review, September 12, 1972, pp. 2-3.
2. P. P. McGuinness, “We are nearly all socialists now,” The Australian Financial Review, October 8, 1974, p. 3.
3. P. P. McGuinness, “The cry of the hip-pocket nerve,” The National Times, June 30-July 5, 1975, pp. 47, 51.
4. P. P. McGuinness, “The socialists always win,” The Australian Financial Review, December 2, 1975, pp. 3, 6.
5. P. P. McGuinness, “How to influence the new Government,” The Australian Financial Review, December 16, 1975, pp. 3, 10.
6. P. P. McGuinness, “Tariffs: A case study in academic failure,” The Australian Financial Review, September 5, 1978, p. 4.
7. Padraic P. McGuinness, “Caught between a frock and a harsh, post-modern place,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 26, 1998, p. 19.
8. Appendix for Economics.org.au readers
1.
P. P. McGuinness, “The strange case of the ‘close watch’ on rising tariffs,” The Australian Financial Review, September 12, 1972, pp. 2-3.
Although it is clearly in the interest of the Australian economy that Government departments should get to know the problems of all sectors of industry, and seek to understand their problems so as to be able to plan wisely for industrial development of industry, it is, nevertheless, not the case that the interests of individual companies and industries are necessarily identical with the interests of the community.
Thus, in assisting industry any Government department should be careful not to step out of its primary role as servant of the community as a whole to become the servant of particular interests. Continue »
Two Modest Member columns with interesting responses:
1. A Modest Member of Parliament, “No such thing as a free feed …,” 6/2/76
— 2. A. G. Pearson, “Tariff IAC system negative,” 11/2/76
— 3. C. R. Kelly, “A free feed, indeed!,” 13/2/76
— 4. Peter Drummond, “Impressed by Eccles’ logic,” 4/3/76
5. A Modest Member of Parliament, “What’s in it for the little man?,” 2/4/76
— 6. R. J. L. Hawke and R. G. Jackson, “What the Jackson suggestions could do for everyone,” 9/4/76
— 7. V. R. Forbes, “Vision based on freedom,” 20/4/76
1.
A Modest Member of Parliament,
“No such thing as a free feed …,”
The Australian Financial Review, February 6, 1976, p. 3.
Mavis has always been adamant that the way to get on in the political world is not to say anything that would offend anyone. Continue »
Today, while surfing The Australian Financial Review microfilm for other research, I stumbled upon an exciting diversity of outrage on Bert Kelly’s egregious egress from the Canberra Kremlin:
1. Anonymous, “A modest disaster on the way to the polls,” 17/11/77
2. Ray Aitchison, “BERT’S EPITAPH — FROM A LOBBYIST,” 23/11/77
3. John Martin, “Champion of freer trade,” 25/11/77
4. Ian Wearing, “Clarity resented,” 25/11/77
5. Lang Hancock, “Sad demise of Bert,” 30/11/77
6. Peter S. MacPhillamy, “Bert Kelly: principle before expediency,” 7/12/77
7. R. D. Kelsey, “‘Fight on’ call to Bert Kelly,” 14/12/77
1.
Anonymous “On the hustings” column, “A modest disaster on the way to the polls,” The Australian Financial Review, November 17, 1977, p. 4.
As C. R. (Bert) Kelly, the member for Wakefield, would put it, a modest disaster occurred on the way to the polls.
Eccles was trapped in his ivory tower while Fred was too busy with the drought to go along to the party meeting. Continue »
Introduction for Economics.org.au readers
— Know the mots justes (the perfectly fitting descriptive terms): “latte lefties”, “champagne/chardonnay socialists”, “parlour Bolsheviks”, “the chattering classes”, “the commentariat”, “conventional wisdom”, “the New Class”, “nimbys”, “bobos” (bourgeois bohemians), “NIMBY 2.0s”, “drawbridge syndrome”, “regulatory capture”, “featherbedding” and “guilty capitalists”; and then easily recognise as lacking substance the holier-than-thou politics of financially wealthy anti-capitalists.
— “Hey Benjamin, you name-caller, you’re just chucking names at us.” Yes, and accurately. Until your response resembles, “I’m not a champagne socialist because …,” then it’s as though you admit you are, but you’d prefer to be known only for your positive attributes. You’re insulted to hear yourself called a sham and a pain. Your disagreement appears to be with both your own behaviour and being called on it. Cheers.
— This distinct group (who, according to themselves, ought not to be described critically by others) are very confused. They confuse wanting to share a passionate opinion with demanding it be imposed by official edict and funded by conscription. They confuse morals with moralising and moralising with politicising. They confuse virtues with entitlements and vices with crimes. When they deem that a specific vice should not be a crime, they then deduce that it must be a virtue. They think everything important impels government to penalise or subsidise, and unintended consequences be damned.
— This plays into the underreported overriding tension between single-issue groups and the more balanced working-class; between motivated organised winners and innocent scattered losers; between beneficiaries of government intervention and those who pay for it.
— Those are the themes of the following seven articles, consisting of: two Robert Haupt articles prompted by Mick Young’s passing (1996); two Paddy McGuinness columns on New Class hypocriticism of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (1997-98); two more McGuinness essays, marking the launch of Michael Thompson’s Labor Without Class: The Gentrification of the ALP (1999), which in turn marked the 50th anniversary of Ben Chifley’s “Light on the Hill” speech; and another McGuinness column triggered by another book, David Brooks’ Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There (2000).
1. & 2. Robert Haupt, “Labor pains,” The Australian Financial Review: Weekend Review, April 12, 1996, p. 2; and “In search of a vision,” The Australian Financial Review: Weekend Review, April 19, 1996, p. 4.
3. & 4. Padraic P. McGuinness, “The truth about the rise of the New Class,” The Sydney Morning Herald, May 3, 1997, p. 42; Padraic P. McGuinness, “It’s time to admit Hanson sometimes gets things right,” The Sydney Morning Herald, July 2, 1998, p. 17.
5. & 6. Padraic P. McGuinness, “Labor’s true voice should rise above chardonnay chatter,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 10, 1999, p. 15; and “Labor’s ‘chardonnay socialists’ definitely not a premier crew,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 17, 1999, p. 19.
7. Padraic P. McGuinness, “Yuppies now bobos, and the clowns want it all,” The Sydney Morning Herald, June 8, 2000, p. 19. Continue »
1. P. P. McGuinness, “Don’s Party: an accurate portrayal of a pretty horrible sub-culture,” The National Times, December 6-11, 1976, pp. 48-49.
2. P. P. McGuinness, “A fine piece of Australian gallows humour,” The National Times, October 6-11, 1975, p. 44.
3. P. P. McGuinness, “‘Petersen’ is not son of ‘Alvin Purple’ though there is a trace,” The National Times, October 28-November 2, 1974, p. 53.
4. P. P. McGuinness, “A master of black humour talks on authoritarianism, plays and films: Williamson looks for his screenplay role,” The National Times, August 21-26, 1972, p. 20.
1.
P. P. McGuinness, “Don’s Party: an accurate portrayal of a pretty horrible sub-culture,” The National Times, December 6-11, 1976, pp. 48-49.
The major difference between Australians with a university education and a social conscience, and the rest, is that they behave a lot worse than the rest. Continue »
Introduction for Economics.org.au readers
— Quietly, many Australians are waking up to the myth of intellectual property. (For example, “Australia’s loudest free market think tank” had an “IP & Free Trade Unit” until recently.) By shifting position quietly, many other Australians remain asleep to its injustice.
— American patent attorney Stephan Kinsella disintermingles the fallacies of “intellectual property” in “Why intellectual property is not genuine property” and “On life without patents and copyright; or, But who would pick the cotton?”
— The closest Australia has to Kinsella are the following stirrings of IP discontent from Paddy McGuinness, inspired by a “Friedrich von Hayek”. McGuinness’s final paragraph in his third of three columns below is particularly encouraging. Without further ado:
1. “Revision time in copyright lore,” The Australian, 14/2/1990.
2. “Discordant disclosures …,” The Australian, 19/12/1990.
3. “Wrong-headed thinking on copyright,” The Australian, 13/5/1994.
1.
Padraic P. McGuinness, “Revision time in copyright lore,”
The Australian, February 14, 1990, p. 11. Continue »