What Gina Rinehart’s critics should prepare for
Without permission, I’m releasing Gina Rinehart’s proposed new public relations strategies. This is to give Gina’s critics a headstart to prepare for her soon-to-change public image that will otherwise catch them off-guard; and we wouldn’t want that, because most discussions about Gina only quote her critics.
This essay is dedicated to Gina Rinehart’s critics. Even Gina must grudgingly admire their persistence and the lengths to which they go to defend the cause they believe in, including quoting Gina and her father out of context, pretending Gina and Lang have no arguments worth addressing, or focussing on private lives and physical appearance as if that has any bearing on political argument.
Although these techniques have been reliable workhorses, their continued success is not guaranteed. Now is not the time for complacency. Gina is also persistent. And she has some resources of her own, and the will to use them.
What advice could her supporters be supplying her? What could she be plotting to change her public relations approach? That’s what her critics should be asking.
How Gina Rinehart can catch her critics unprepared
As far as I can find, there are only three public relations strategies currently being proposed to leave Gina Rinehart’s critics blind-sided. None of these strategies involve Gina changing any of her beliefs, ambitions or investments, which are widely assumed to be the reasons for the criticism directed at her. Rather, these strategies simply involve exposing truths her critics would accept unhesitatingly that are yet to be publicised. The strategies are:
- The first selling idea is GINA THE MODERATE. Gina Rinehart is the moderate midpoint of the Australian political debate, searching for a compromise between: on one side, the advocates of big government, like both the Labor and Liberal Parties (which have both historically and projectedly increased the size of government); and, on the other side, the advocates of a total free-market, like Australian businessmen John Singleton, Neville Kennard and other Workers Party supporters.
- The second selling idea is GINA THE POPULAR. Free-market politics is more popular than all political parties combined. To claim otherwise you must devoutly worship political polls — including opinion surveys run by government agencies, like elections — which mostly ask the question of how you want to control the property of others without their consent. This ignores what people want to do with their own property; for example, we all demonstrably prefer to choose how we spend our own money than to be taxed.
- The third selling idea is GINA THE MODEST. Gina Rinehart should take the blame for everything and the credit for nothing. Wherever anything goes wrong, whenever there is any crime or injury or poverty or embarrassment or evidence of economic laws, Gina should take the blame for it.
I’ve already comprehensively explained the potential of the first idea — pointing out the fact of Gina’s moderation — in such essays as “Gina Rinehart Is Our Friendly Voice of Moderation” and “Gina Rinehart Is Our Least Controversial Celebrity”. And I’ve already established that “Gina Rinehart Is Our Rightful Democratic Leader” in my essay of the same name. So in this essay I’ll expand on the third idea — that Gina should take blame indiscriminately.
Tall poppy syndrome is a human right
Although incompatible with the “she’ll be right” mentality, it is apparently also Australian to have “tall poppy syndrome”. Tall poppy “syndrome” is disparaging someone because of their great wealth, achievements, skills, abilities or possessions. Most responses to tall poppy syndrome amount to surrender rather than fightback. For example, defending your wealth by saying you give money to charity, pay taxes in Australia or employ Australians. A few brave souls, including Gina, try to fight tall poppy syndrome by giving their critics an economics lesson or two, pointing out that: whatever their critics value (helping the poor, helping Australia, etcetera) is actually better achieved through massive accumulations of risk capital on the free-market, enabling mass production for mass consumption; and so on. But responding to tall poppy syndrome in this way misses the point.
Tall poppy syndrome is only an economic argument secondarily; it is first and foremost an attitude. The economic argument is still important, but it defers to the attitude. The attitude is: I will side with whoever I decide to be the underdog, the have-not, the less-resourced. To respond to tall poppy syndrome as the defendant is to give the game away; if you are a tall poppy, you are guilty. The best defence against tall poppy syndrome is attack. The attack most likely to succeed is to use tall poppy syndrome; to show that you are not a tall poppy, and they are. What!? How? And won’t it backfire?
Imagine if Gina stopped defending herself and started to beat her critics at their own game. Imagine if Gina Rinehart became Gina Rinehart’s biggest public critic.
Blunt, honest, exaggerated and greedy modesty was a major strategy of Australian free-marketeer Bert Kelly. He wrote, most famously, a weekly Australian Financial Review column under the byline “A Modest Member” from 1969 until his graduation from Parliament in 1977, when the column continued as “A Modest Farmer” (and then from 1980 to 1985 appeared in The Bulletin).
How unbeatable would it be if Gina wrote a regular column in the Bert Kelly tradition from the perspective of “A Modest Millionaire”? Where would that leave her current critics? Rather than rejecting automatically all her arguments like they do now, they would have to start appraising her reasoning; and when it was unclear whether she was being ironic, then her critics would have to think for themselves.
Bert Kelly’s modesty has been undervalued. Modesty is not his only technique and needs to be seen in combination with his economic knowledge and more, but it is his most distinctive, powerful and neglected skill. I think it has been overlooked because it is thought to be too modest a use of comprehension and literary skills to highlight and explore the modesty of a character who writes under names like “A Modest Member” or “A Modest Farmer”. But to dismiss Bert Kelly’s modesty as blindly obvious is as sensible as looking around for your glasses when you are wearing them. Viewing Bert Kelly’s modesty through the lens of tall poppy syndrome helps us to both understand Bert Kelly and see the diverse ways that tall poppy syndrome can be outmanoeuvred against itself.
Bert Kelly’s modesty: The character traits or rules of engagement
Bert Kelly’s modesty shows that there is more than one tall poppy card in the deck. Here are five of his recipes for humble pie. Examples from Bert Kelly are included with each. It should be easy to imagine how powerful they would be if they were adapted by Gina Rinehart, whose name guarantees attention and passion.
Tall Poppy Card 1 of 5: Admit to being uneducated, slow and stupid
Express your: admiration for and envy of the great learning and fast fancy footwork of your critics; regret for not going to university and getting a proper education; and embarrassed confusion for not being able to follow arguments. Here are a few quick examples of Bert Kelly taking the blame for being unable to make coherent the arguments of others:
It is true I have some trouble understanding the meaning, but you have to admit it sounds magnificent.1 … Look at the performance of the Prime Minister and how his footwork has really twinkled.2 … Evidently, there is a subtle difference between government intervention and government interference which is too deep for my modest intellect.3
One disadvantage of being a farmer with little training in economics is that I often get confused when important, high-protection spokesmen make important statements. Neil Walford, the head of Repco, has often puzzled me and, no doubt, that is my fault, not his.4 … I am getting the impression that Walford is getting just a little bit confused. Or is it me?5
And here are some more examples where Bert Kelly criticises his own ignorance and slowness as he criticises others:
I have never made any secret of the fact that the quality that I envy most in my political colleagues is their fast footwork.
I laboriously clamber on to high points of principle and stand there like Horatio on the bridge or the boy on the burning deck, but my colleagues, being cleverer and fleet of foot, quickly retreat to some other point of political wisdom, leaving your poor Modest Member standing alone, polishing his halo and not quite certain who persuaded him to stand for something about which he is not certain.6
Because I don’t know much about mining I tend to think that there is no end to the opportunities for easy and profitable mining development but Eccles says that this is a measure of my ignorance about mining.
Because I know something about farming I always get irritated when I hear foolish people talking about Australia’s immense agricultural resources, about how fortunate we are to have our great open spaces.
When you hear a chap talking that kind of nonsense you will know that he is either a city slicker or a member of Parliament who has been in Canberra too long and has gone soft in the head.
Those of us who know our great open spaces from grim personal experience know how tough and cruel they can be and what a big barrier they are in the path of “the development of this great country of ours” to use a phrase heard continually in Parliament.7
Went down for the mail today, and all the chaps were talking about when it is going to rain. I think these chaps who knew when it is going to rain are wonderful. We have some awfully good weather prophets round here. Some go by the ants, others by the blowflies on the sheep, some by 11-year cycles, some by the barometer, some by instinct, and a few by whether the moon comes in on its back. The moon always seems to me to “come in” in the same position, and how these fellows know when it is going to rain beats me. Before Easter all of the prophets agreed we were going to have a wet Easter. They were all so certain that I almost bought some more sheep. Now that Easter has gone, with no rain, they must all be rather surprised. But I wish I had the gift too.8
When I carefully examined my credentials, I had to admit they were not very impressive. … Still, I suppose [you’ll] allow me to draw a few conclusions as I wander through the … mess that the experts have left us.9
As most people now know, my mental processes are slow and I was half way home before I suddenly realised that the highly educated defender of the tariff system was talking through his hat when he criticised governments for tampering with industrial development, because indeed a tariff is such a tampering. By imposing a tariff to protect an industry from import competition, the government tampers with the market situation, it switches demand from imports to local products. Then during the rest of his speech, the speaker kept asking for even more tariff tampering. I wish I had been quick enough to point it out at the time.10
It was only when I had returned home and was mooching along behind a slow mob of wethers, that I realised that the minister had been talking nonsense.11
The other day I was grizzling away in parliament about the high duties on textiles and someone from the other side of the chamber interjected, “Don’t you believe in protecting us against imports from cheap labour countries?”
This rather floored me. I must admit that most interjections floor me. Often I think of some splendid answer: indeed I sometimes nearly kick the end out of the bath, laughing at my splendid replies. But this is usually about a month later, which rather spoils the effect.
… [The column then goes through his economic reasoning.] …
So the next time that chap interjects across the chamber he will cop it between the eyes. All I need is time!12
Bert Kelly often shared how slow he was to work things out, just like the last three blockquotes above especially. In fact, in his first Modest Member column, he made plain: “It takes me a long while to puzzle things out.”13 And here is yet another blockquote where he elaborates on his “type”:
Eccles is always charging around on his tariff hobby horse and this week he tried to drag me up behind him. But it’s not very comfortable riding pillion behind Eccles.
Not only does he go too fast, but I can’t see where he is going, and I get confused.
And having to hold your bowler hat on with one hand isn’t easy with old Fred the farmer throwing clods to make the horse go faster, and Mavis trotting along the other side, urging caution on me.
So I have had to tell Eccles, quite firmly, that although I am prepared to listen to his plea that we use lower tariffs to help keep prices down, I will do it in my own way and at my own pace.
Both Fred and Eccles are disappointed with me, but I can’t help that. I am the plodding type.14
Being a “plodding type” is enormously useful in redirecting tall poppy syndrome. Kelly often gives the impression of learning something as he is writing about it. He makes the reader feel able to follow the arguments faster than Kelly himself is able to. This is a good way to make the reader feel smart, important and in the know, and to make them like Bert Kelly and whatever he is saying for that reason. This sounds manipulative, but it is sharing with your reader what steps you followed to be convinced yourself and admitting that you used to think as they did until you reasoned it out. Maybe it does mislead them into letting down their guard, but only so that they can see for themselves where they’ve been mistaken. It’s as manipulative as that medicine-spiker Mary Poppins.
Here is one final quote on the subject, where Bert Kelly directly and explicitly recommends that “you” slow down when considering what the government is doing:
I suppose you would realise, if you stopped and thought, that the Government hasn’t really been generous with its own money. But you don’t stop and think. You are in such a hurry to get your hands into the honeypot, that you haven’t got time to think.
So Governments spend more and more, and so tax more and more, and you grizzle more and more, urging economy on us [politicians] on Sunday, and generosity on us for the rest of the week. It’s no wonder we get confused!15
Tall Poppy Card 2 of 5: Admit to greed, gluttony and sloth
Express guilt, remorse and shame that those who dislike you are like you, and you have set a bad example for them. If only you were a better person. For example, here is Bert Kelly taking the blame for soaring healthcare costs:
[T]he real cause for the soaring costs of medical care was not greed of the doctors nor the vagaries of the Medibank computer or the inefficiencies of the health fund, but the real root of the problem was me. Unless I incur a penalty for using the health scheme for which others are paying, then I will overuse it. … [O]ne of the world’s problems is that there are too many people in it like me.16
One of the fundamental defects in people like us is that once we find out that we don’t have to pay for services that are given to us by the Government, we over-use them.17
There is something splendid about the conception of the Welfare State. It would work well too, if only we were better people.18
And here is Bert Kelly taking the blame for the failure of socialistic egalitarianism:
But the trouble is, my heart isn’t really in it. It’s not because equality isn’t a good thing, it is. But I was very disappointed to find that, even before I became a Member of Parliament, if the government started to take away by taxation a lot of money I made in order to make other people more equal with me, then I stopped working extra hard and extra long hours. And because there are a lot of people with my rather miserable outlook on life who think as I do, then the total economic cake becomes smaller just because a lot of us stop working hard and stop taking risks …
I am disappointed to find my unfortunate attitude to life is such a barrier to progress, but I am not surprised. I remember (with shame) how, during the wool boom when income tax hit me fairly between the eyes for the first time, I spent far more time thinking about avoiding (that’s the right word) taxation than I did in working hard to make more money only to have it taken away from me.
So until my attitude to life changes and until human nature changes, we have to choose between a smaller economic cake cut up into equal slices and a larger economic cake cut up into somewhat unequal slices. There is nothing much that can be done about it, unless we are to suddenly start becoming better people. And really, there’s not much sign of this, not in me, anyway!19
Note the power of sharing information that makes you look bad (horror stories). Here is another instance of this from Bert Kelly, this time on his laziness:
I had to lift the roof of [my] blacksmith’s shop by a foot to give me room to work. I kept hitting my head on the roof because [I had] so much rubbish on the floor.20
Tall Poppy Card 3 of 5: Admit to lacking restraint and feeling ridiculous
Express a feeling of inferiority due to your inadequacy in agreeing with a popular slogan and jumping on a big bandwagon, but in defending it having dug yourself a hole that has made you look ridiculous. The Bert Kelly quote two above on “equality” is one example. Extending “free universal healthcare” to pets is another classic. Nearly every slogan or bandwagon has got the Bert Kelly treatment, including “growth”, “research in depth”, “our land of limitless resources and great open spaces”, “traditional wheatfarming is our birthright and heritage”, “national disaster insurance schemes”, etcetera. Here are a few examples of Bert Kelly mocking such sacred cows of political philosophy as the side-benefits of government intervention, the public goods argument as justification for government, and the ability of government edict to improve the law of supply and demand:
I simply pass a law which states that any farmer who grows wheat using horses instead of tractors gets a subsidy of $13,000 a year. You can see that there would be an immediate stimulus to employment because all farmers would have to employ more people if they wanted the subsidy. And the extra farm hands would need houses, so employment would be gained there. And the horses would need harness, creating more employment there. And all these extra people would pay income tax, so the government would gain on every count. There would be an immediate improvement in the economic health of the small country towns which would start to blossom again because of the extra number of people working in the bush. More country schools would open up and we would be able to demand better roads and …21
Well, what about the freeloaders? I suppose that about half the people that parsons bury are freeloaders, people who have not gone to church for years and have not paid a cent towards the church’s upkeep. Do you think we ought to have a compulsory levy to sustain churches so that there will be no freeloading there?22
[T]he only way the government can successfully create employment in the car industry is to take its courage in its hand and to rescind the law of supply and demand and to pass another law to force people to buy a new car, say, every other year.23
[I]f the Minister for Trade really wanted to make the industry worthwhile, all he had to do was to persuade women to wear the same kind of clothes, either inside or out.24 … [Or] pass a law to make it compulsory for people to spend a certain amount of money on clothes and shoes.25
Tall Poppy Card 4 of 5: Admit to incompetence at choosing good help
You too have gone through the same problems that they are and know how angry they must be. Express deepest sympathies for mistreatment by the media and ungrateful/incompetent hangers-on, and how you made the mistake of trusting them previously too. Offer charitable explanations for any contradiction, hypocrisy or inconsistency from your critics. Here are two quick examples:
Fraser could not have known about the ministers’ decision: perhaps they have been doing things behind the PM’s back.26 …I once thought that he had two speech writers, one who wrote the nonsense he used to talk in Australia about handing out tariffs to any industry that had a strident voice and a readiness to kick in the ruck. Then there was the other more educated chap who wrote sensible stuff for the Prime Minister when he was overseas. I thought that these two speech writers must have had a row or something and so they never spoke to one another.27
Tall Poppy Card 5 of 5: Admit to vanity
Go along with your critics and admit to, in the past, being too materialistic and money-obsessed. But now that your critics have informed you that money is not a good measure of wealth, you see that your critics are actually far richer than you, as they evidently feel they are in a position to criticise your physical appearance and family life. Express admiration and envy at the harmonious family life and healthy physical beauty of your critics. Demand government action to equalise looks and family life. Or at least call for your critics to stop wanting to tax you because you are rich, because according to their own arguments, you are not rich after all.
The headline could be: Gina Rinehart speaks out against the materialism and money-obsession of her critics. Arguments include: The subjectivity of value. That money is not the only measure of wealth. Sample rant: It is funny that so many people say it is unfair I have so much money, and then say money isn’t that important and criticise my physical appearance and private life. Well, if you dislike my physical appearance and private life so much and really claim money isn’t that important, then how is it unfair? Things to wax eloquent about: Facial Justice, Harrison Bergeron and This Perfect Day.
Okay, with that one maybe I got a bit carried away and confident in my own abilities.
Those five tall poppy cards, I hope, will inspire and be improved and expanded on by Gina Rinehart into a regular column, talkshow personality, television series, movie franchise and more. Basically, the automatic response they engender is to outdo the naivety, contrived or otherwise, of others. In other words, the default response to Gina’s critics, to be overlayed by reference to economics, is: “Yes, it is my fault and I am to blame for more too. You are right and I will try to defend you more enthusiastically than anyone. And I know how hard this is for you with so many people like me around.”
The popular appeal of self-deprecating politics
Bert Kelly being the main inspiration for Gina using self-deprecating politics provides circumstantial evidence for its universal appeal. Even the declaration of a national emergency has never so successfully brought all five extremes of the political spectrum together as has the legacy of Bert Kelly. His self-proclaimed fans include Gough Whitlam, John Howard, Bob Day, Ron Manners and Neville Kennard.
For another piece of circumstantial evidence that listening to Bert Kelly might be a good idea, especially for fans of Lang Hancock and Gina Rinehart: the biggest fan of Bert Kelly is also the biggest fan of Lang, Singo and Gina, at least according to the tangible measure of number of writings uncovered and republished.
It is not only from Bert Kelly that self-deprecating politics finds support and inspiration.
Self-deprecating comedy is the least offensive comedy that can still get the best laughs and biggest following. Consider Gracie Allen’s obliviousness, Jack Benny’s stinginess and Jerry Lewis’s jerrylewisness. Inoffensiveness is crucial in politics too. So why not self-deprecating politics?
Many of the most respected writers, in different areas and from different perspectives, have supported self-deprecating politics. Here is a quick tour:
The one peculiarly un-Christian idea is the idea of Carlyle — the idea that the man should rule who feels that he can rule. Whatever else is Christian, this is heathen. If our faith comments on government at all, its comment must be this — that the man should rule who does not think that he can rule. Carlyle’s hero may say, “I will be king”; but the Christian saint must say “Nolo episcopari” [“I do not wish to be bishop”]. If the great paradox of Christianity means anything, it means this — that we must take the crown in our hands, and go hunting in dry places and dark corners of the earth until we find the one man who feels himself unfit to wear it. Carlyle was quite wrong; we have not got to crown the exceptional man who knows he can rule. Rather we must crown the much more exceptional man who knows he can’t.28
I try in vain to locate and fix any authority that could rationally rule men … little would be gained by ordinary men doing it to each other … while we can always get men intelligent enough to know more than the rest of us about this or that accident or pain or pest, we cannot count on the appearance of great cosmic philosophers; and only such men can be even supposed to know more than we do about normal conduct and common sanity. Every sort of man, in short, would shirk such a responsibility, except the worst sort of man, who would accept it.29
Adam Smith said that a government office “would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”30
Wyndham Lewis agreed, “To rule is a painful, dangerous and arduous duty. It is only when it becomes too much of a pleasure that it is a danger for other people.”31
In Thomas More’s Utopia, “anyone who deliberately tries to get himself elected to a public office is permanently disqualified from holding one.”32
Douglas Adams said, “anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job” as they are “least suited to do it.”33
Arthur C. Clarke also said the same, “anyone who deliberately aimed at the job should automatically be disqualified.”34
Jean de la Bruyère said, “I place nobody above a great politician but a man who does not care to become one.”35
In the Chuang Tzu it reads, “Only one who does not wish to take on the rulership … may be entrusted with the rulership” and “those who are skilled at governing … would not do so.”36
Norman Lindsay said, “those truly worthy of power disdain to use it.”37
Thomas Jefferson said, “[W]henever a man has cast a longing eye on [public office], a rottenness begins in his conduct.”38 Jefferson said that he had “no claims or wishes on [the Presidency]” and that the Presidency is “but a splendid misery.”39 Then, to show he wasn’t bluffing, he declared, in his First Inaugural Address, “a sincere consciousness that the task is above my talents, and that I approach it with anxious and awful presentiments which the greatness of the charge and the weakness of my powers so justly inspire.”40
I’m sure you can all think of countless other occasions where public figures use hypocrisy masquerading as self-effacing sincerity. But its widespread and successful use shows its appeal and power. What if politicians and other political commentators did not merely use it as an insincere demagogic throwaway line? What if they really meant it and acted on it, like Bert Kelly did? And what if Gina Rinehart took self-deprecation even further than Bert Kelly?
I wish there were better ideas than self-deprecating politics.
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Political songwriters adept at changing the lyrics,” The Australian Financial Review, October 19, 1979, p. 11. Reprinted in his Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 65-67, as “Tariffs and the P.M.”. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “It’s footwork that counts, Mavis nags,” The Australian Financial Review, November 22, 1974, p. 3. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Breaking down barriers,” The Bulletin, September 13, 1983, p. 124. ↩
- Ibid. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “A free marketeer wary of free trade,” The Bulletin, December 14, 1982, p. 123. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “How to stand aside when it’s time to be counted,” The Australian Financial Review, November 11, 1977, p. 3. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Our great open spaces … an empty blessing,” The Australian Financial Review, May 19, 1978, p. 3. Reprinted, minus the first paragraph used in our blockquote, in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 10-12, as “Limited Resources (2).” ↩
- “Dave’s Diary” column, “He yearns for the gift of prophecy,” The Adelaide Stock and Station Journal, April 11, 1945, p. 22. Similarly, 35 years later Kelly wrote: “Bitter experience has made me cynical when governments or other people put on their prophet mantles, but they continue to do it in spite of their mistakes. So if others do it, I don’t see why I shouldn’t have a go.” Source: “Modest Farmer” column, “What to do when market forces control exchange rate,” The Australian Financial Review, March 7, 1980, p. 11. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Doing what comes naturally,” The Australian, July 1, 1985, p. 11. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “If we do tamper with tariffs, let’s do it well,” The Australian Financial Review, March 28, 1980, p. 13. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 185-87, as “Government Intervention”. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Can a lowly sheep farmer afford to grow tobacco?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 16, 1979, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 35-36, as “Tobacco.” ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “A punch in the eye for a protectionist?,” The Australian Financial Review, October 8, 1971, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 117-19, as “Cheap Labour (2)”. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “That economist may be right, but …,” The Australian Financial Review, November 28, 1969, p. 3. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “Tariffs: when to wean infant BHP?,” The Australian Financial Review, March 5, 1971, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 62-63, as “Tariffs to keep down Prices.” ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “Whose hand is in the honeypot?,” The Australian Financial Review, June 19, 1970, p. 3. Reprinted, with the first-person aggressiveness of the quoted passage toned down, in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 129-31, as “Spending your Money.” ↩
- “Clarkson Says” column, “This solution to Medibank ‘too simple’,” Country Life, August 25-31, 1976, p. 44. See also: “Modest Member” column, “Health cover needs a $30 excess clause,” The Australian Financial Review, June 10, 1977, p. 3. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “We’re quick to get sick of socialism,” The Australian Financial Review, November 23, 1973, p. 3. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “What the MP could say to the Bishop,” The Australian Financial Review, May 12, 1972, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 158-60, as “Trouble with Bishops.” ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “Incentive slices for a bigger cake?” The Australian Financial Review, May 8, 1970, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 138-40, as “Equality (1)”. ↩
- “Dave’s Diary” column, Stock Journal, February 22, 1967, p. 35. ↩
- “Modest Member” column, “You can lead a horse to water, but …,” The Australian Financial Review, September 17, 1976, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 108-10, as “Shipbuilding (2)”. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “A thought to make thin blood run cold,” The Bulletin, September 27, 1983, p. 142. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Protections that nobody needs,” The Bulletin, January 20, 1981, p. 107. ↩
- “Dave’s Diary” column, Adelaide Stock & Station Journal, May 30, 1962, pp. 56-57. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Should it be compulsory to buy footwear and clothing?” The Australian Financial Review, October 12, 1979, p. 11. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 98-100, as “Textiles (5)”. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Great ‘freedom of choice’ mystery,” The Bulletin, February 10, 1981, p. 91. ↩
- “Modest Farmer” column, “Political songwriters adept at changing the lyrics,” The Australian Financial Review, October 19, 1979, p. 11. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 65-67, as “Tariffs and the P.M.” See also: “Modest Member” column, “Why does Govt wear two faces?” The Australian Financial Review, March 18, 1977, p. 3. ↩
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, ch. VII, in vol. I of The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, ed. David Dooley (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 324. ↩
- G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils, part 1, ch. VIII, in vol. IV of The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 350. ↩
- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, ed. W.B. Todd (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), vol. I, bk. IV, ch. ii, para. 10, p. 456. ↩
- Wyndham Lewis, The Art of Being Ruled, ed. Reed Way Dasenbrock (Santa Rosa, CA: Black Rose Books, 1989), p. 92. ↩
- Thomas More, Utopia, trans. Paul Turner (London: Penguin, 2003), p. 86. ↩
- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, ch. 28, in The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide (New York: Wings Books, 1996), p. 278. ↩
- Arthur C. Clarke, The Songs of Distant Earth (New York: Del Rey, 1987), p. 62; see also p. 61. ↩
- Jean de la Bruyère, The Characters, trans. Henri van Laun (New York: Brentano’s, 1929), p. 356. ↩
- Chuang Tzu, Wandering on the Way, trans. Victor H. Mair (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1998), p. 284 and p. 81. ↩
- Norman Lindsay, Creative Effort (Sydney: Art in Australia, 1920), p. 18. ↩
- Thomas Jefferson, The Collected Work of Thomas Jefferson, vol. IX, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), p. 70. ↩
- Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Adrienne Koch and William Peden (New York: The Modern Library, 2004), p. 495. ↩
- Ibid., p. 297. ↩