Sir Arnold Plant is very under-appreciated.

I don’t feel like commenting at Catallaxy as long as naked insults and ridicule are acceptable there.

propogated also by Sincliar in another context

Maybe there were other spelling mistakes in James’ post at #26, but I didn’t see them.

James, you left out Smith, and Schumpeter, and von Mises, and Hayek. At the very least… Alchian, Demsetz, Buchanan, Coase…

#23 Francis, I’ll thank you to stop referring to me as a member of Opus Dei (not for the first time) if you don’t mind. It conveys nothing but your own prejudice towards non-kumbaya Catholics. Moreover, I dare say you know more people keen on S&M gear than I do.

I doubt he’d relish going back to the grind of the Melbourne Bar ..

While he faced the round eternal of the cash-book and the journal—
But I doubt he’d suit the office, Clancy, of The Overflow.

Let me (or Nabs) know if you want to know more about the relish of the grind at a melbourne bar.

Thanks for the invitation to join in. I’m just not sure where. The BrookesNews website you linked to doesn’t seem to have a comments threads, and I don’t feel like commenting at Catallaxy as long as naked insults and ridicule are acceptable there.

In any case, I don’t see where ‘Keynesianism’ comes into it, as far as the carbon tax is concerned. There are really ony two issues. The first is whether there is an externality that needs to be limited by government measures. If Jackson belongs to the shrinking rump of AGW denialists, it’s the science he ought be debating with John, not the second, and second-order, issue of what form regulation should take. As far as taxes versus cap-and-and trade is concerned, I’m not much of expert, but the basic micro argument — that they should have much the same effect — makes sense to me. I’m assuming that, under cap-and-trade, rights to pollute would be auctioned rather given away to incumbent firms. In that case either scheme would raise a lot of revenue, which would obviously finance a reduction in some other tax. Replacing consumption taxes would be less regressive than replacing income tax, I would have thought, but you probably don’t care about that.

Making fossil fuels more expensive will obviously reduce GDP and living standards. But the avenues by which this will happen are captured pretty well in the multi-sector models used by researchers in the area, and the magnitudes of the effects depend on elasticities that are best left to the econometricians. I doubt that Jackson, through his reading of Classical Economics, has stumbled on some avenue that these modellers have overlooked. I didn’t try very hard to get to the bottom of what he was saying in that article, but I was struck by the conceit — propogated also by Sincliar in another context — that mainstream economists are all labouring under basic logical fallacies that can only be corrected by reading Mill and Say.

Just as long as that state is somewhere between Perth and Melbourne and underneath NT.

Wash your mouth out!

I have always thought Costello would make a good state premier.

oh thanks saint. Just as long as that state is somewhere between Perth and Melbourne and underneath NT.

http://www.brookesnews.com/080303capital.html