Report this

00

Report this

00

“Malcolm Turnbull to recontest Wentworth

Published on: May 01, 2010
Today I am announcing that I will recontest the seat of Wentworth at the election later this year. I have advised the Leader of the Opposition and the Presidents of the NSW Division and Wentworth FEC of the Liberal Party accordingly.
When I recently announced that I would not stand at the election, I said it was the most difficult decision I had ever made.
Since then I have been overwhelmed by the many local residents and members of the Liberal Party who have urged me personally and via hundreds of emails and letters to reconsider my decision and run again.
I have carefully reconsidered my decision, as my Party and many of my constituents have asked me to do. I have taken the decision to re-contest the seat fully understanding the commitment required of those who seek election to public office.

The most important service I can render is to continue to represent the people of Wentworth with the commitment, the conviction and the energy which I have always sought to bring to the last five and half years of my parliamentary service. I am determined again to earn the support of the people of Wentworth and in doing so, contribute to the election of a Coalition Government.
The Rudd Government has shown itself to lack both competence and commitment. Its financial mismanagement surpasses even the recklessness of the Whitlam years and the Prime Minister’s abandonment of the central element in his climate change policy – measures which he said were necessary to combat the greatest moral challenge of our times – constitutes an extraordinary act of political cowardice.
Over the last two terms of Parliament, whether as a backbencher, a Minister or as Leader of the Opposition, I have always stood up for my political convictions. And I will continue to do so.
Above all I am committed to continuing effective representation for Wentworth, ensuring that our area, which I believe is surely the best part of the best country in the world, has a strong voice in the Parliament and that it secures the services and the support from the Federal Government that it deserves.”

Eric says:
May 3, 2010 at 10:39 am
If you ever become leader of the Liberal party again Malcolm, it wil be the first time in decades that I will not vote Liberal.
You at least showed some honour in your original decision to quit, now you’ve shown that you’re a double-minded man who can’t be trusted. You and Kevin Rudd have the same politics – go join Labor where you belong, or start your own party – it’s now doing a lot better without you as it’s leader. The ETS is one big tax scam, and you and Goldman Sachs know it.
Anne says:
May 3, 2010 at 8:48 am
I think Nick Minchin summed you up today Malcolm.
I’m a died in the wool Liberal supporter and as long as you remain on the Back Bench and out of the way so you don’t impede the progress of the Party.
You are disruptive Malcolm and you are not following the Party Line with the ETS. Therefore, you cannot be on the Front Bench! You want a great big new tax, as does Kevin Rudd and his Government, even though the rest of the world have woken up to the fact that Al Gore and Goldman Sachs are about reaping billions of dollars for their own coffers. I’m reminded that you worked for Sachs and with that, I’m very uneasy.
In less than one month you have changed your mind to return. That does not inspire confidence Malcolm !! What will it be next week???

Keep up the good work.

Report this

20

Report this

00

In addition I suspect econometrics is essentially a Keynesian discipline, and thus Marxist in its origins,

I recently ordered “Statistics and the German State, 1900-1945: The Making of Modern Economic Knowledge” by Adam Tooze after hearing some good comments about it. Econometrics is a significant topic of the book.

Report this

10

Not sure what your point is mate…

Scratious! You really don’t know. Seems I’ve been given the job of carrying one more bit of bulldust to your door, which I’m sure you have no use for but that’s the way of the world.

The “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” has never been part of Alfred Nobel’s will and was created some 50 years after the man’s death for not much reason other than to give the economists a bit of good cheer while they pretended to be scientists.

I for one have never been overly impressed by such shenanigans. If they needed a prize they could have invented their own and been proud of it, rather than slinking late into someone else’s party to perpetuate an endless shame which in unmentionable in polite company. Fortunately, on this blog there’s no need to be polite to economists

Funny just how much of the seemingly tangible world turns into crudely painted plywood when you get up close

Report this

10

In addition I suspect econometrics is essentially a Keynesian discipline, and thus Marxist in its origins, and hence the belief that socialism is a scientific theory and hence “scientific” economics that prevails today is the outcome of system of economic thought, economic here used as an adjective to imply parsimony.

Report this

10

Economic modelling involves predictions, which means economic activity expressed in terms of time – and as the basic unit of economics is price – it ultimately means equating prices to time via some complex equation in calculus.

But prices are not related to time per se – nor is human activity, and both are intrinsically unpredictable in the sense that a satellite’s position in space is intrinsically predictable using Newton’s Laws. Economists made the error of applying the calculus of the physical sciences to economics, putting it simply.

That’s why its a crock. Hence the IPCC modelling of both economic activity AND climate is theoretically a nonsense, as neither can be.

Report this

10

Tel: but the advertising rights are, well, priceless really.

LOL

Report this

10

Want to feel really sick… watch “Capitalism – A Love Story” by Michael Moore. As with all his films it is hard to know how much truth there is to it without some serious research, but I would imagine tha the basic thrust of the film was accurate. The main thesis was the Goldman Sachs was essentially running the financial policy of the US Government.

Tel:
Not sure what your point is mate, but it is something I picked up elsewhere in my readings – i.e. two economists (macro variety) basically picking up Nobels for opposing theories. It would not be surprising, but I would have to research the reference. Perhaps the description is a tad extreme, but many schools of macroeconomic thought have mutually exclusive core assumptions.

Economics, because of the macro field, has always struggled somewhat against the hard sciences for credibility. I find the US approach of applying complex models and statistics to human behaviour (i.e. market choices) to be somewhat lacking at most times. Some of the most daunting mathematics I have ever seen, let alone try to grasp, has been in economics lectures in the US. There comes a point where you step back and say… humans are often irrational… this can’t possibly be a realistic representation of their behaviour. And then you get back to worrying about how you are going to fake comprehension to pass the mideterm >.>

Report this

10