Eric Crampton's latest op-ed attempts to cast those who are concerned about the well-documented ties between the government and international corporate lobbying groups as paranoid conspiracy theorists
Crampton was an extraordinary find for the MPS / Atlas and has been with them for a long time, suggesting he's very well paid. Seems his special power is to be completely unflappable- never strident in his extremism. I wonder if he's the same in open debate as when composing press-releases?
- he has opined of things in ways that show a lack of detailed knowledge of what he is opining on (our actual resource management law and process is one example), his references do not necessarily support his assertions,
- he can be extremely demonstrative in video seminars, as he was in a recent seminar on congestion charging
God, that's good writing Ryan. You nail the twisted logic (wrong word - he's not very logical) beautifully. Why in hell's name aren't our MSM doing it! Yes, I do know why 😞.
What I find baffling is the sense of shame these people project about their connections. I see no reason to conceal a relationship with the Mont Pelerin Society. It is founded on the thought of Hayek some of whose ideas I don’t disagree with. He was pessimistic about the efficacy of government. Having worked in and around governments I think he is right in many ways. Hayek’s followers tend towards libertarian whereas I tend towards Anarchy with a capital A. Those two thought processes are at opposite ends of the political continuum but the continuum is a near circle not a straight line. Personally I agree that the regulatory burden should be reduced. Where I might differ with the Atlas folk is where to start. The most pernicious statute in my view is the Companies Act 1993.
I think the issue is that when you trace the history of some of these intellectual movements, particularly around libertarian philosophy, you find that they were heavily funded and supported by business interests in the US. So sure, people can have ideas about whether government can be efficacious and can debate these ideas intellectually. But when you have US business interests financially supporting intellectuals who criticise the government's intervention in business interests, something seems a bit fishy. The Mont Pelerin Society was founded and financially supported by US business interests. It's hard to argue for the purity of the intellectual thought that arose there.
I have never thought much about the origins of the MPS but I am not sure it ought to be dismissed as the mere lackey of expedient pecuniary interests. I did a quick search and found this statement:
At the first MPS meeting in Switzerland were Hayek, Karl Popper, and Lionel Robbins of the London School of Economics, Milton Friedman, Aaron Director, and George Stigler of the University of Chicago, Leonard E. Read and F. A. Harper of the Foundation for Economic Education, Henry Hazlitt of Newsweek, Ludwig von Mises …
I have no doubt I would find much to disagree with these people about though the group did (I assume they are all dead) had an intellectual heft to them. I am confident that the modern day adherents see themselves as serious intellectuals and not merely the puppets of nefarious interests. I also think that the dire state the world has fallen into (or maybe about to fall into) renders their Whiggish view of industrial capitalism hollow.
I would have guessed Sun Tzu but apparently it was Lao Tzu who said: “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” Leave the ad hominem nonsense to the denizens of NZI.
Hayak and Mises-funded by US business interests, including Hazlitt, who arranged visiting professorships for them
Friedman and Stigler-paid to write propaganda for a business organization
Director-laid the intellectual foundation for the legal gutting of antitrust law
Read and Harper-founded the Foundation for economic education which they stated was for spreading pro-business propaganda equating freedom with unregulated capitalism
I am pessimistic about the efficacy of government, but there are significant cases where the counterfactual of no government (for example, in the case of food standards, some level of environmental protection) is unambiguously worse, and the argument of ‘we can’t leave it to government, as they sometimes get it wrong’ becomes decidedly weak.
I doubt even Hayek would advocate no government at all. There are three ways to approach regulation: a) regulate and provide the will and the means to enforce b) regulate without the means to enforce c) no regulation in that particular sphere. By far the least desirable is b). Unfortunately that approach is typical of NZ government, law as tokenism.
Great peice Ryan. Have to say am a bit disapointed by comment in Danyl McLauchlan column in the latest Listener. Obviously referring Dame Anne in regards to Atlas and conspiracy theories.
Terrible that so called right wing organisations promote their ideas and according to you lobby governments
On the left however, all is sweetness and light pure and blameless. Our recent PM was president of an international communist organisation as well as a member of the WEF. But it’s ok for them to promote their ideas and lobby governments because they’re the good guys - apparently?
Except for the small detail of course that left leaning governments generally attempt to support all of society rather than just the business class. This equating left and right as equally bad is rubbish.
Crampton was an extraordinary find for the MPS / Atlas and has been with them for a long time, suggesting he's very well paid. Seems his special power is to be completely unflappable- never strident in his extremism. I wonder if he's the same in open debate as when composing press-releases?
Three things I have noticed about Mr Crampton
- he can get very snarky in his comments,
- he has opined of things in ways that show a lack of detailed knowledge of what he is opining on (our actual resource management law and process is one example), his references do not necessarily support his assertions,
- he can be extremely demonstrative in video seminars, as he was in a recent seminar on congestion charging
Has anyone seen him in person? It's a good question you pose Kevin.
We should start a conspiracy theory that he’s not a real person.
Not in person but on the box. very well groomed, controlled man.
I heard him on RNZ once. He speaks like an entirely reasonable person and makes all that snake oil just seem like obviously the right thing.
Your fourth paragraph had me laughing out loud ... a real skill to illuminate a serious issue while making the reader laugh!
For me it was the line "lives rent-free in his head" had me chuckling!
Ha ha yes meet too!
Excellent article, Ryan, I love how you illustrate the psychological ploys at hand. Can't say that that's not their forte.
God, that's good writing Ryan. You nail the twisted logic (wrong word - he's not very logical) beautifully. Why in hell's name aren't our MSM doing it! Yes, I do know why 😞.
I’m so glad. I was wondering if it would come off as a stretch, like I was looking for something that wasn’t there.
Totally not. Another excellent composition. Clear and convincing
👀👀👀 One of my favourite sayings... "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a real person following you" so 🤷
Great read thanks Ryan
What I find baffling is the sense of shame these people project about their connections. I see no reason to conceal a relationship with the Mont Pelerin Society. It is founded on the thought of Hayek some of whose ideas I don’t disagree with. He was pessimistic about the efficacy of government. Having worked in and around governments I think he is right in many ways. Hayek’s followers tend towards libertarian whereas I tend towards Anarchy with a capital A. Those two thought processes are at opposite ends of the political continuum but the continuum is a near circle not a straight line. Personally I agree that the regulatory burden should be reduced. Where I might differ with the Atlas folk is where to start. The most pernicious statute in my view is the Companies Act 1993.
I think the issue is that when you trace the history of some of these intellectual movements, particularly around libertarian philosophy, you find that they were heavily funded and supported by business interests in the US. So sure, people can have ideas about whether government can be efficacious and can debate these ideas intellectually. But when you have US business interests financially supporting intellectuals who criticise the government's intervention in business interests, something seems a bit fishy. The Mont Pelerin Society was founded and financially supported by US business interests. It's hard to argue for the purity of the intellectual thought that arose there.
I have never thought much about the origins of the MPS but I am not sure it ought to be dismissed as the mere lackey of expedient pecuniary interests. I did a quick search and found this statement:
At the first MPS meeting in Switzerland were Hayek, Karl Popper, and Lionel Robbins of the London School of Economics, Milton Friedman, Aaron Director, and George Stigler of the University of Chicago, Leonard E. Read and F. A. Harper of the Foundation for Economic Education, Henry Hazlitt of Newsweek, Ludwig von Mises …
I have no doubt I would find much to disagree with these people about though the group did (I assume they are all dead) had an intellectual heft to them. I am confident that the modern day adherents see themselves as serious intellectuals and not merely the puppets of nefarious interests. I also think that the dire state the world has fallen into (or maybe about to fall into) renders their Whiggish view of industrial capitalism hollow.
I would have guessed Sun Tzu but apparently it was Lao Tzu who said: “There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.” Leave the ad hominem nonsense to the denizens of NZI.
Hayak and Mises-funded by US business interests, including Hazlitt, who arranged visiting professorships for them
Friedman and Stigler-paid to write propaganda for a business organization
Director-laid the intellectual foundation for the legal gutting of antitrust law
Read and Harper-founded the Foundation for economic education which they stated was for spreading pro-business propaganda equating freedom with unregulated capitalism
I am pessimistic about the efficacy of government, but there are significant cases where the counterfactual of no government (for example, in the case of food standards, some level of environmental protection) is unambiguously worse, and the argument of ‘we can’t leave it to government, as they sometimes get it wrong’ becomes decidedly weak.
I doubt even Hayek would advocate no government at all. There are three ways to approach regulation: a) regulate and provide the will and the means to enforce b) regulate without the means to enforce c) no regulation in that particular sphere. By far the least desirable is b). Unfortunately that approach is typical of NZ government, law as tokenism.
I would agree.
Great peice Ryan. Have to say am a bit disapointed by comment in Danyl McLauchlan column in the latest Listener. Obviously referring Dame Anne in regards to Atlas and conspiracy theories.
You can send to me in the Substack messenger if that would work. Thank you!
Would you be willing to send me the text of the article? I’m not subscribed.
Yes. Let me know your number
I’ll look into it! Thanks.
its not just NZI - other far right entities are also looking to put their oars in - from a post by Byron Clarke which seem to be pretty robust: https://www.feijoadispatch.nz/p/free-speech-union-plans-hostile-takeover?r=2u83uu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Terrible that so called right wing organisations promote their ideas and according to you lobby governments
On the left however, all is sweetness and light pure and blameless. Our recent PM was president of an international communist organisation as well as a member of the WEF. But it’s ok for them to promote their ideas and lobby governments because they’re the good guys - apparently?
You clearly haven’t read anything else I’ve written if you think I’m an Ardern fanboy or all-in on the mainstream left.
Except for the small detail of course that left leaning governments generally attempt to support all of society rather than just the business class. This equating left and right as equally bad is rubbish.