Pretence of knowledge is a phrase coined by Friedrich Hayek to describe the psychological predilection of those who believe they know enough to plan a path to economic plenty and who inevitably produce economic and social misery. John Maynard Keynes a contemporary of Hayek illustrates the mindset. A few years after The Road to Serfdom (1944) was published he corresponded with Hayek about it. “Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it,” he wrote. Only in a later letter to show that he neither understood nor agreed with any of it. Viz:
“I should say that what we want is not no planning, or even less planning, indeed I should say we almost certainly want more. But the planning should take place in a community in which as many people as possible, both leaders and followers wholly share your moral position. Moderate planning will be safe enough if those carrying it out are rightly oriented in their minds and hearts to the moral issue.”
The moral issue is quite beside the point. Unpredictable change is the difficulty. Things out there in the business of life – inventing, innovating, making, getting and spending, needs, wants and tastes – are forever changing in unpredictable ways; often very rapidly.
From an article in the Scientific American: In one decade, cars replaced horses (and bicycles) as the standard form of transport for people and goods in the United States. From a Microsoft article: In 1890 there were 13,800 companies in the United States in the business of building carriages pulled by horses. By 1920, only 90 such companies remained.
I’m fond of those not-so-old movies in which reporters rush out of the courthouse to reach the nearest public telephone booth. Wikipedia: “In 1999, there were approximately 2 million phone booths in the United States. Only 5% of those remained in service by 2018.”
Before now, the miserable outcomes of economic planning were best exemplified by the Soviet Union and Communist Chinese five-year plans. Now, I think, planning how the system of generating energy and of transport will develop over the next twenty-six years to 2050 will inevitably take the cake. Of course most of the misery lies ahead, but it’s coming. It’s coming to us in particular.
On the way: powers shortages, rationing, rising electricity prices, the continued loss of manufacturing to China, India, et al, which will continue to exploit the advantages of coal and nuclear power as we remain obdurately fixated on inadequate, unreliable and intermittent renewable energy. Then there is the inordinate delays to any new mining developments. And the maniacs in charge will be intent on reducing ruminant belching and the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Unless the Coalition regains government, and with a radically new mindset, Australia will slip down the international economics league table, as did Argentina. This is not hyperbole. It’s inevitable. Economic prosperity is not a given, even if the Greens and Teals fancifully think otherwise
How do we convince the coalition to drop net zero Peter? I’m sure they would win four terms if they did, but so many liberal members are beneficiaries of the planet saving scam.
I will never give my first preference to a party that supports net zero.
A depressing read Peter.
Unfortunately it’s only a matter of time before the sh!t hits the fan.
I didn’t study economics at university, but it appears to me that Say’s Law — supply creates demand — not only blows up Keynesianism, but 99% of modern economic theory as taught in schools and universities.
Say’s Law requires a radical re-understanding of economic theory and is a powerful tool for planning any business — especially in the field I specialised in as a journalist, commercial aviation (which is mired in market-distorting air services treaties, government red tape and often government corruption).
I can only assume that John Maynard Keynes was seduced by the adulation towards him as an “expert” and stopped questioning his own assumptions — an intellectually fatal flaw that halts the search for knowledge.
.
PS: the current energy crisis can’t be fixed until the junk science of climate change is outed as a deliberate fraud.
Not a single Australian politician dares question CAGW, even though the fraudsters know it’s bullshit.
We are stuffed!
I hear the NSW Liberal machine favours Mike Baird for Cook over a popular, no-nonsense, right of centre local mayor who might challenge the status quo of mediocrity.
Says it all, really.
My observation is that he “Liberal” party was systematically subverted by the “dark side” decades ago.
It started at branch level., with the gleeful acceptance of anyone wit a pulse as members, especially after the removal of the odious Edward Gough Whitlam.
The parallel operation was the use of the term “Agrarian socialists” to describe th e”Country / National party.
Then, the “Corporate statists”, the famous “white-shoe brigade” made their presence felt..
Interestingly, the official receipt for annual membership fees For many years had a screed bout the “Principles of Liberalism” printed on the reverse side.
It is likely that the “Legal” class at state and Federal levels did away with that practice to reduce any chance of legal action against fraudulent advertising”, but under the cover of a “50% saving in printing costs”.
behold Senator Malcolm Roberts. Senator for Queensland
Tom
Jan 28, 2024 4:48 AM
Tom, to give Pauline Hanson credit One Nation still espouses policy that declares climate change a scam. ( I think there are others?)
To quote Wiki, “One Nation senators are frequent critics of any action on climate change and have called climate science a ‘scam’. One Nation has spread debunked conspiracy theories about climate change not occurring or being part of a plot by the United Nations”.
As far as I know no one has ever proven the hypothesis that CO2 causes the planet to warm catastrophically nor has anyone proven that climate change is not a natural phenomenon.
If the Liberals/Nationals had some balls they would turf out any reference to net zero and start again using the premise that climate change is natural.
Oh look over there.., It’s a flying elephant,
Whilst the coalition may not be as far down the rabbit hole of gerbil warming mania as liebor/greens they will still guarantee economic armageddon with their plans.
The coalition doesn’t deserve my vote. With a small number of exceptions they have refused to challenge the religion of gerbil warming. The wuflu provided the same outcome. They mostly went with the flow. Where are the challenging minds, the quest for the truth?
Then we come to honesty. If the coalition said that they would reverse course who would believe them? Trust in politicians is down in the gutter where it belongs and they can only blame themselves.
The existing ‘solutions’ to this non-existant ‘problem’ will come under scrutiny soon enough, as electric cars fail, as wind and solar prove insufficient, and as more scientists decide to come out of the woodwork with alternative views, especially if the grip on political correctness can be diminished in the universities.
If Trump can win the Presidency and ensure America drills again, then some of the ‘heat’ will go out of this cult as the US economy picks up and a new generation is taught different things. In the US immigration on the southern border is eclipsing all other issues and the climate cult is on the slide. The UK too is already being put on the path to doubt in the cult, as is much of Europe, with other things such as Muslim immigration being more important in public policy.
The mainstream media may also realise that the gig is up, and report climate truth.
All this this is to say that when the future looks bleak, it is wise to keep up some level of optimism. That said, I may not live to see these hoped-for changes. They could take years, with a few wrong turns still ahead.
If humans perceive a behaviour is working for them, bringing them a benefit of some kind, they will persist with it. Australians of a conservative lean continue to vote for the Coalition primarily because of nostalgia: Once (before they were born for some) we had an actual conservative political party of substance, and the tendency of humans is towards ‘hope and change,’ ‘magic happens,’ and ‘the universe will provide.’ We stick with the Coalition because of their claim they are descended from the Original Conservatives, because conservatism is ‘in their genes,’ even though we can observe and experience that those genes have mutated over time.
Though the Coalition offers us nothing, and makes little secret that we have no value to them, we continue to wax nostalgic about ‘how things were better back then’ and ‘maybe if we’re patient enough and don’t make waves’ the boat will right itself again.
Was it Miranda Devine who labelled us Delcons, Delusional Conservatives? She was correct. Conservatives in Australia, as a body, are delusional and flaccid. We lean heavily on misunderstood aphorisms such as ‘Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake’ to sit back, whine, and watch our world burn.
By living in the past, we abrogate the possibility of influencing both the present and the future. Discard the Coalition. They don’t deserve our vote. We exist to them only for the several minutes prior to visiting a ballot box. THEY are not going to change, so it is WE who must choose a different trajectory. A trajectory towards an political party which doesn’t yet exist.
Without creating a space in which an alternative conservative party can grow (and make mistakes), we will receive neither satisfaction nor respect from the Coalition, because they know that nostalgia-riddled conservatives will stick with them, as creatures of habit. We are taken for granted by the Coalition. They know we are settlers; happy to have ‘someone, rather than no-one.’
I’m convinced that conservatives have the smarts required: we just need to engage them for a change, break free from the one-sided relationship.
I commented on an open thread recently that humility is not a state of mind we willingly choose, because it is a threat to our ego, self-esteem, and self-confidence. Rather, it is thrust upon us.
Conservatives are very confident – rightly so, in my opinion – in their moral superiority. Admitting to ourselves that we haven’t made the best tactical choices for decades now, will be a kick in the testicles to that confidence. At some point though, we need to choose humility and re-examine our responsibilities. We have failed several generations. Conservatism hasn’t, but conservatives have. It’s time to own up to our mistakes. In Australia, that will only come via ditching the Coalition.
Let’s bring this meandering dribble to an end, huh?
Muddy, I was proud to be labelled as a DELCON. That lable meant that I was not part of the “new” style of conservatism. That’s fine with me as I don’t like what the coalition conservatives stand for. They changed, not me.
One of the minor conservative parties will always get my vote until I’m 6 foot under.
Mem, you are right: One Nation is the only Australian political party that has called out the climate change scam.
But no-one in either of the only two political parties who rule over us has done so.
Sadly, Peter Dutton won’t either to avoid the distraction of a pile-on by Australia’s looney left media, which is probably sound tactical strategy.
Muddy I hear you but I simply could not bear another three years of wantonness from Labor. Hoping that Bill Shitten gets the gig shows how desperate I have become.
Ok, given the thesis of this article I’m now looking to move, but where? Are there any countries that call out this BS and CBDC that have a future? Perhaps a BRICS member other than China.
Not the only party. The former Liberal Democrats (now Libertarians, thanks to J. Howar’s changes to the Electoral Act forbidding the use of words in the names of “established parties”) have the following in their manifesto:
Vote for parties that oppose net zero, and direct your preferences yourself, it isn’t difficult.
If enough people do it, the so-called “Liberals” will get the message.