catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

A quick tour around Ozblogistan

with 27 comments

Don Arthur is stirring up trouble at Club Troppo again – getting called a Right Wing Death Beast by one annoyed commenter, and critiquing Hayek’s ‘road to serfdom’ argument here.

Andrew Elder responds to my recent call for specific proposals for slashing government.

Andrew Landeryou continues his blog vendetta against Stephen Mayne while the rest of us sit back and watch the resulting circus.

Andrew Norton explains how the Greenies have turned him into a tree-hugger.

Pcully of Andrew Reynolds’ Ozrisk site discusses Islamic equity funds.

Steve Edney muses on the economics of minimum wages.

Graeme Bird, continuing his series of thoughts on defence has a piece on an ebay approach to weapons buying.

Mark Bahnisch makes the case for a ‘libertarian social democracy’.

Sacha Blumen has returned to blogging and dicusses the potential electoral impacts of higher petrol prices and interest rates.

Melaleuca discusses and endorses the use of private enterprise solutions to conservation.

UpdateJohn Humphreys has set up a new blog called Big Bird Brain which he describes as ‘A charity dedicated to the education of Graeme Bird’ with the aim of helping ‘the promising boy develop into a real libertarian man with appropriate skepticism of government and love of freedom’.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 12, 2006 at 9:53 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

27 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hi Jason, yes, I’m blogging a little but focussing more on career development activities. In the report I link to on the story on my blog, similar graphics appear for the gold coast, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth (the graphic for the impact on Brisbane residents is the only in the fin review article) – people can speculate about potential electoral impacts as they wish using these graphics!

    Sacha Blumen

    November 12, 2006 at 10:15 pm

  2. Jason,
    Are you aware of any other such “meta-blogs” as the one devoted to GMB? It must be a rare honour to have one thus dedicated.

    Andrew Reynolds

    November 13, 2006 at 1:12 pm

  3. Andrew
    There are blogs dedicated to ‘watching’ Andrew Bolt, etc but this is the first I’ve heard of dedicated to ‘educating’ a purely blog personality without prior old media presence. This is a breakthrough.

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 1:24 pm

  4. john humphreys just likes creating wordpress blogs…

    he’s like a spammer…

    c8to

    November 13, 2006 at 2:10 pm

  5. I think I’ve asked this question before, “Who’s Bird?”

    Another question is, “why would anyone set up a blog just to have a go at him?” Doesn’t so much seem like a breakthrough, as evidence of too much time on one’s hands.

    Nevertheless, it must make the “Bird” feel special.

    Darlene

    November 13, 2006 at 3:49 pm

  6. “john humphreys just likes creating wordpress blogs…
    he’s like a spammer…”

    No no. He creates blogs with great taste and discrimination. This is his best one yet.

    It will be a great success. And it will be good for his political career.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 3:51 pm

  7. because instead of him educating you you plan to educate him, right Graeme?

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 3:53 pm

  8. Now Darlene. Why should any girl reveal so much?

    It was scarcely necessary for you to give away your intense jealousy that you didn’t think of the idea first.

    But start your own blog about me if you like. I can even get official approval.

    AUTHORISED.

    GMB.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 3:54 pm

  9. Jealous?

    Sweetknees, I already have a blog about a far more interesting person…me.

    http://thespinzine.squarespace.com/

    Darlene

    November 13, 2006 at 4:16 pm

  10. Darlene
    Asking ‘Who is Bird?’ on Catallaxy … well, that’s a bit like asking ‘Who is John Galt?’

    Here is John Humphreys’ explanation
    http://bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com/who-is-graeme-bird/

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 4:23 pm

  11. “because instead of him educating you you plan to educate him, right Graeme?”

    WELL NO ACTUALLY ITS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING A GREAT PHILOSOPHER (psssst: shuuuudup-maaaaaaaaan) ONCE SAID.

    He said:

    “YOUNG BABES TALKING ABOUT ME: I Found You Out.
    Slinking off to Club Sissy to talk about me.

    But thats GOOD!!!

    Doesn’t matter what they say. Whether it be good or bad. So long as the girls are talking about me.”

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/young-babes-talking-about-me-i-found-you-out/

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 4:53 pm

  12. Whats’interesting is that JohnnyZ gives tacit support to the stern report… a report that speculates gender inequality and forced marriages will rise as a result of global warming.

    Using that JohnnyZ is suggesting that Bird is anti-science.

    johnny Z do you agree with that stern reports account?

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 6:26 pm

  13. JC — I’m not even going to try and educate you as you seem beyond saving.

    You seem to once again be offended that somebody would try to use rational analysis of consequences to work out whether you beloved multi-billion dollar government program was worthwhile. Sorry commie — but your views are worthless.

    Amazingly, you seem to be suggesting that the war against Hitler made us worse off! Is that really what you think? If not — then how am I wrong to suggest we should only go to war if it’s makes us better of? More to the point — why am I even asking you?

    If you don’t believe in rational analysis of consequences of government policy then you simply have a government-loving religion. Game off.

    John Humphreys

    November 13, 2006 at 9:21 pm

  14. John
    thanks or the complement… not.

    I think i have been more than a little clear over the past years where I stand with governments and free markets. Defense and policing are the only two things I still consider need to be in the hands of the government.

    To some extent the military has been privatized since the advent of a volunteer army.

    Now to your points:

    1. I’m not even going to try and educate you as you seem beyond saving.

    You mean like sucking up to the campus leftist vs jackson and bird. Fine don’t even bother trying to save me from that one, you commie suck up. What are you, a leftist plant or just a someone who’s afraid of your own convictions? Quiggin won’t love in the morning for sucking up to him , you know.

    2. “You seem to once again be offended that somebody would try to use rational analysis of consequences to work out whether you beloved multi-billion dollar government program was worthwhile. Sorry commie — but your views are worthless”

    Using the same methods you are using with this worthless cost benefit analysis we end up with you cheering Chamberlain’s peace in our time.

    3. “Amazingly, you seem to be suggesting that the war against Hitler made us worse off!”

    The timing made us worse off . Sure it did. If we had attacked the bastard in 36 we would have been better off. Do you even get it?

    4. “then how am I wrong to suggest we should only go to war if it’s makes us better of? More to the point — why am I even asking you?”

    make sure you use the right inputs instead of using Chamberlain’s. It’s a good thing you asked me.

    5. “If you don’t believe in rational analysis of consequences of government policy then you simply have a government-loving religion. Game off.”

    Ok. Start now, rationalize it. Tell me the factors and the weighings of the inputs of your cost benefilt analysis and I will tell you where you are fucking up.

    Chamberlain’s mini me is an appropriate name for someone who thinks the risk to the west is a joke. Go tell that to MI5 who is trying to unscramble 30 potential terror attacks according to the press.

    Look Humphreys, Libertarianism is not a philosophy where you bend over and let potential enemies prod it up your backside.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 10:06 pm

  15. what’s worse humphrys is that you don’t even have all the information that could allow you to make any rational decision about going to war.

    You don;t have all the intel that the Prez and the PM have at their finger tips. you couldn’t possibly know how close Iran is to a bomb if we attacked them, unless you saw all the intel.

    Like me you can only look backwards. I have at least done the rational thing and said the occupation was/ is a mess.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 10:21 pm

  16. You don;t have all the intel that the Prez and the PM have at their finger tips.

    Yeah, J.H. trust the state. They know what’s good for us.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 10:28 pm

  17. What other information can you go on Johnny Z…. in order to arrive at your cost benefit analysis?

    Don’t be an idiot, by trying this shit on me.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 10:43 pm

  18. Recent NYTimes piece points to saddam looking for Nukes material or buying the thing lock stock and barrel.

    So intel wasn’t to far wrong.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 10:45 pm

  19. “A charity dedicated to the education of Graeme Bird’ with the aim of helping ‘the promising boy develop into a real libertarian man with appropriate skepticism of government and love of freedom’.”

    This is waste of time, for this guy is not refromable. But it may be fun. I envy people who have so much spare time on their hands. I mean it.

    Boris

    November 14, 2006 at 12:13 am

  20. He taught himself to fly, Boris. Give the kid a break. you let the swearing get the better of you.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 12:20 am

  21. I have identified a problem:

    JC: “Defense and policing are the only two things I still consider need to be in the hands of the government.”

    In general, this is a fine statement. But it is what is left unsaid that is dangerous. Sure, police and military are good arguments for government, but that doesn’t supply a blank cheque. You still need to use rational analysis of benefits and costs to see when and where we should deploy government into the security market.

    The problem, I think, is that some people think that there is a blank cheque for government to create perfect security. There is an efficient amount of everything that is non-infinite and non-zero. Including terror, crime, security & death.

    You mention MI5. They seem like a good idea to me. Let’s keep them. I haven’t suggested getting rid of the defence force, or ASIO, or the right of the police to detain suspects for questioning.

    I think our security forces generally do a good job. I find it strange when people argue: “unless we invade Iraq we’ll be overrun by terrorists”. They seem to undervalue the quality of the work already being done by our security establishment.

    As for the intellegence of government — that is more often over-estimated than under-estimated.

    And for an intro into the rational analysis of terror & war, check out my article here — http://www.cis.org.au/policy/autumn04/autumn04-5.htm

    Published by those evil bastions of communism — the Centre for Independent Studies (www.cis.org.au)

    I take it back JC. Perhaps you are worth saving after all…

    John Humphreys

    November 14, 2006 at 12:22 am

  22. “You still need to use rational analysis of benefits and costs to see when and where we should deploy government into the security market.”

    But thats IRRATIONAL analysis. Since you are in denial and pretending that terrorism is something that happens, bereft of state, or yet even HUMAN action.

    As if it were a random fact of nature.

    People are just going to laugh at you if you keep this up.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 2:21 am

  23. Breath Graeme… breathe. All I said was that we need to rationally assess consequences and you call that irrational.

    Rational and irrational are different words.

    You acuse me of believing that terrorism is something that happens. I plead guilty.

    But what I’m more interested in is the appropriate public policy response. The appropriate response is that which makes us better off.

    Boris — if you want more spare time, then quit your job. Worked for me.

    John Humphreys

    November 14, 2006 at 2:39 am

  24. Boris, one way I’ve found of having more time is to blog less and focus more on what’s more important 🙂

    Actually, I only work 9 days a fortnight so I can have some time to do maths… it’s not enough time, but it’s better than working 10 days a fortnight.

    Sacha Blumen

    November 14, 2006 at 8:49 am

  25. Well, I don’t read long-winded comments, Jason.

    Thus, I’ve probably tried to avoid “The Bird”, and thus couldn’t give a bugger who he is.

    Darlene

    November 14, 2006 at 11:59 am

  26. “Boris — if you want more spare time, then quit your job. Worked for me.”

    No. Keep it, boris, otherwise you’ll be sermonizing 24/7 about Birdy using bad langauge. this way we only hear about after work.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 12:18 pm

  27. “Boris — if you want more spare time, then quit your job. Worked for me.”

    But I will be bored to death or die of hunger. Whichever comes first.

    “Boris, one way I’ve found of having more time is to blog less and focus more on what’s more important ”

    I try this from time to time. But I wish I could work 12 hours a day (which I love) AND do as much blogging as I like. The problem is that there are only 24 hours in a day and even that is not fully avaiaable for writing equations and blogging.

    jc, “therwise you’ll be sermonizing 24/7 about Birdy using bad langauge. this way we only hear about after work.”

    I take your point. I will try to keep it to a minimum.

    Boris

    November 18, 2006 at 9:55 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: