Remember Russian collusion?

The Legacy Media, late-night comedians and “Saturday Night Live” had a field day mocking President Donald Trump over it.

• He colluded with Russia to steal the election!
• The Mueller Report would save America!
• The walls are closing in!

It was all hogwash. Made up. The biggest conspiracy of the 21st century, one that cost the nation millions, crippled a legitimately elected president and sowed distrust across the fruited plain.

And guess who apologized for pushing it? Surely not the Legacy Media, late-night comedians or “Saturday Night Live.” Journalists clung to their Pulitzer Prizes for reporting on a non-story.

As Jimmy Failla repeatedly says, we’re living in the death of shame.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sick of Mainstream Media’s Liberal Bias? I hope you’ll leave a coin (or two) in our TIP JAR.

Even worse?

A few folks still cling to the debunked narrative … like Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, even the far-Left TV types dropped it cold. Reality will do that to you.

Finally.

The new Russian collusion hoax is even sillier, and it’s still going strong. It’s The Epstein Files. And, more specifically, that President Donald Trump is knee deep in them and had sex with underage women.

The proof? Maybe Sen. Adam Schiff has it. After all, he said he had proof that Trump colluded with Russia but somehow never showed it.

Otherwise, there’s zero proof. None. Squat.

That doesn’t stop the TDS train, of course. Stars like Alan Ritchson blasted Trump as a pedophile.

“That b—h has the keys to the nuclear … he’s, like, all up into 13-year-olds. Like, dude, what? Go to jail. Go to jail.”

Why? With what evidence? What is he even talking about? Is it any wonder he can’t put fannies in the theatrical seats?

It’s tinfoil hat stuff. He’s not alone, of course. Countless progressives echo those thoughts, like Rosie O’Donnell. Democrats have routinely blamed any Trump action or speech on being a “distraction” from the Epstein Files.

The same files their party had access to for years and did nothing. Hmm.

Now, it’s Bryan Adams’ turn to don a tinfoil hat.

The 66-year-old rocker has a new protest song to share. The track, “Lake Ontario,” obsesses over Trump renaming the body of water Lake America. (Yes, it’s silly, and the next Democrat in the White House will reverse it)

Why did the real estate mogul rename it in the first place? Do you even have to guess?

“But things weren’t going his way in Iran / So like a baby tossing the toys from the pram / He may have thought it best to throw a low blow / And create a real dog and pony show / But it feels like another distraction / While the Epstein files are getting traction.”

At least it rhymes. Otherwise, it’s embarrassing and will only grow more so in the coming years.

Then again, Adams will get plenty of fawning press from the track from the crooked Legacy Media. So all won’t be entirely lost.

The post Bryan Adams Proves Epstein Files Is New Russian Collusion appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

If you’ve been reading Fake Nous, you probably know that the academic world is a disgrace. Universities are partisan indoctrination centers that illegally discriminate on the basis of race and sex constantly, leading plagiarists like Claudine Gay and Jason Arday to be elevated to positions of prestige for which they are grossly underqualified. Those pro…

Read more

“People over profit.”

Few political slogans manage to sound so compassionate while demonstrating such a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

It's a phrase designed to end an argument before one can begin. Who could possibly object to putting people first? Surely only someone who values money more than human life.

But the slogan depends on a false premise: that profit and human well-being are competing objectives.

In a free market, profit is earned by creating value for other people.

The businessman who wants to make money must offer something others consider worth buying. He must produce goods or services people value more than the money they're asked to exchange for them.

And he must do so while using fewer resources than the revenue he receives, or his business will eventually cease to exist.

That last part matters enormously.

Because producing something people want is only half the challenge.

You must also produce it economically enough to keep producing it.

Profit Is What Makes Production Sustainable

Imagine two businesses producing bread.

The first spends $3 producing a loaf that customers willingly purchase for $5.

The second spends $7 producing the same loaf, which customers also purchase for $5.

Both businesses are feeding people.

Both are satisfying a human need.

But only one is creating an economically sustainable supply of bread.

The first earns $2 in profit before accounting for any additional expenses not included in our example.

The second loses $2 on every loaf.

Which business is better positioned to continue feeding people tomorrow?

Which can afford to expand production, purchase better equipment, hire more workers, or open another bakery?

Which is more likely to survive an unexpected increase in costs?

The answer should be obvious.

Yet the political movement that claims to prioritize human needs routinely treats the pursuit of profit as morally suspicious.

Apparently, feeding people is virtuous until you figure out how to do it sustainably.

Then it becomes greed.

Profit Is Information

Profit serves a purpose far beyond enriching the person who earns it.

It communicates information.

When a business earns a profit in a competitive market, it provides evidence that customers value its output sufficiently to cover the resources required to produce it.

When a business consistently loses money, it indicates that something needs to change.

Perhaps customers don't value the product enough.

Perhaps production costs are too high.

Perhaps another producer has discovered a more efficient method.

Perhaps the resources being consumed could create greater value elsewhere.

Profit and loss help entrepreneurs discover the answers.

They provide a mechanism for coordinating production without requiring a politician or bureaucrat to decide what everyone should produce, how much they should produce, and where resources should go.

This mechanism is imperfect. Profits can also arise from government favoritism, subsidies, monopoly privileges, and other distortions.

But those are violations of free-market principles, not arguments against them.

Under genuine capitalism, businesses must persuade customers to part voluntarily with their money.

Under political favoritism, businesses can persuade politicians to part with someone else's.

That distinction matters considerably more than whether someone happens to be wealthy.

The Problem With Putting People Over Profit

Consider what the slogan actually implies.

If profit is subordinate to human needs, what happens when satisfying those needs becomes economically unsustainable?

Suppose a government orders a business to sell food below the cost of producing it.

Consumers initially celebrate.

Food becomes cheaper.

Politicians congratulate themselves.

Activists declare victory over corporate greed.

But the underlying costs haven't disappeared.

Farmers still need equipment.

Workers still need wages.

Transportation still requires fuel.

Buildings still require maintenance.

And the resources consumed in production still have alternative uses.

Someone must absorb the losses.

The business can absorb them temporarily, but not indefinitely.

Eventually, investment declines, production contracts, suppliers withdraw, or the business closes.

The government can attempt to prevent this by providing subsidies.

But subsidies merely transfer the burden to taxpayers. They don't eliminate the underlying economic cost.

Alternatively, the government can impose further controls, compel production, ration supplies, or nationalize the industry.

Now the original intervention has created problems that become the justification for additional interventions.

And the people supposedly being protected are left with fewer choices, less production, and greater dependence on political authority.

All because someone decided that economic reality should be subordinate to political intentions.

You cannot make production sustainable by declaring profitability immoral.

The Morality of Earning a Profit

There's also a moral question that advocates of “people over profit” rarely address.

Why should earning money by satisfying someone's needs be considered morally inferior to satisfying those needs without earning money?

Consider a farmer who grows enough food to feed thousands of people.

He invests his savings, purchases equipment, assumes financial risks, hires employees, and spends years developing a productive enterprise.

People voluntarily purchase his products because they value the food more than the money they exchange for it.

The farmer earns a profit.

Who has been wronged?

The customers received food they wanted.

The employees received compensation they agreed to accept.

The suppliers received payment for their products.

And the farmer earned a return for his productive efforts.

Every participant entered the exchange expecting to benefit.

Yet somehow, the farmer's desire to benefit from the arrangement is supposed to diminish its moral worth.

Why?

Why should the person responsible for organizing production be expected to regard his own well-being as less important than everyone else's?

Why should his success become a moral liability?

And why should someone who contributes nothing to the enterprise acquire the authority to dictate what constitutes an acceptable return?

The answer generally rests on an unearned assumption: that human need creates an entitlement to someone else's productive efforts.

But needing something doesn't establish ownership over the people capable of providing it.

Your needs do not make someone else's life, labor, or property yours to command.

Profit Doesn't Require Exploitation

Another misconception is that profit necessarily comes at someone else's expense.

This assumes wealth is a fixed quantity that can only be redistributed.

But wealth is produced.

A farmer transforms land, labor, equipment, and knowledge into food.

An engineer develops technology that makes workers more productive.

A manufacturer discovers how to produce better products using fewer resources.

An entrepreneur identifies an unmet demand and organizes the resources necessary to satisfy it.

These activities create value.

And when people voluntarily exchange the results, both parties can benefit.

The customer gains something valued more highly than the money surrendered.

The producer receives revenue that may exceed the costs of production.

Neither party needs to lose for the other to gain.

This is the fundamental economic and moral distinction between voluntary trade and coercive redistribution.

One requires creating something another person willingly pays for.

The other requires obtaining something from a person regardless of whether he consents.

And yet the people who condemn profit frequently regard the second arrangement as morally superior.

Apparently, earning money by providing something people want is selfish, while demanding money from people who earned it is compassionate.

That's a remarkable inversion of morality.

But What About People Who Cannot Pay?

This is where advocates of “people over profit” often retreat.

What about the poor?

What about people who cannot afford food, housing, or medical care?

These are legitimate concerns.

But they don't invalidate the economic function of profit.

A person's inability to afford something doesn't eliminate the resources required to produce it.

A hospital still needs doctors, equipment, medication, electricity, and buildings.

A house still requires land, materials, skilled labor, and maintenance.

Food still needs to be grown, processed, transported, and distributed.

Calling these things human rights doesn't magically produce them.

And eliminating profit doesn't eliminate their costs.

If society wants to help people who cannot afford essential goods and services, the first requirement is that those goods and services exist in sufficient abundance.

That requires production.

Production requires resources.

And sustainable production requires that those resources be used economically.

Profits and losses help make that possible.

Charity can then help people who cannot afford what they need.

Voluntary assistance is a genuine expression of compassion because someone chooses to provide value at his own expense.

It doesn't require treating producers as public property.

Nor does it require dismantling the economic incentives that make widespread prosperity possible.

Compassion cannot distribute what production has failed to create.

The Difference Between Intentions and Results

Socialism is routinely defended by appealing to its intentions.

It supposedly prioritizes human needs over private profit.

But intentions don't feed people.

Production does.

Intentions don't build homes.

Construction does.

Intentions don't manufacture medicine, develop technology, or transport goods.

Human ingenuity, productive effort, investment, and the intelligent allocation of scarce resources do.

And while production doesn't always require an individual seeking personal profit, it always requires confronting the economic reality that resources are limited and cannot be consumed indefinitely without being replenished.

A worker cooperative must remain economically viable.

A nonprofit must cover its costs through revenue, donations, or other funding.

Even a government enterprise must consume real resources that could have been used elsewhere.

Changing the ownership structure doesn't repeal economics.

Nor does replacing the pursuit of profit with political direction eliminate the need to determine whether resources are being used productively.

It merely changes who makes those decisions, what incentives guide them, and who bears the consequences when they're wrong.

Under capitalism, entrepreneurs generally bear the financial consequences of their mistakes, while consumers remain free to take their business elsewhere.

Under centralized socialism, political authorities can continue directing resources toward failed projects while compelling the population to finance them.

And when production fails to satisfy demand, the same authorities can blame the resulting shortages on greed, sabotage, or insufficient political control.

The system's failures become excuses for expanding the very powers that contributed to them.

People Benefit From Profit

The phrase “people over profit” survives because it exploits a moral confusion.

It treats profit as though it were something extracted from human well-being rather than something that, under voluntary exchange, can result from improving it.

Of course, profit alone doesn't establish that an action is moral.

Fraud, theft, political favoritism, and coercion can also be profitable.

That's precisely why capitalism requires objective laws protecting individual rights.

The moral legitimacy of profit depends on how it is earned.

But when profit is earned through voluntary production and exchange, it represents a reward for creating value that others willingly purchase.

It encourages entrepreneurs to discover unmet needs.

It attracts investment toward productive opportunities.

It rewards efficiency and innovation.

And it makes continued production economically sustainable.

The pursuit of profit has helped make goods that were once luxuries accessible to ordinary people.

It has encouraged businesses to compete for customers by improving quality, reducing costs, and developing entirely new products.

The people who benefit aren't limited to the entrepreneurs earning the profits.

They're the millions of consumers whose standard of living improves because someone discovered a profitable way to serve them.

Which brings us back to the slogan.

“People over profit.”

What an extraordinary thing to say while depending every day on an economic system in which the pursuit of profit motivates countless strangers to produce the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the technology you use, and the shelter you occupy.

The slogan asks us to choose between people and one of the principal incentives for producing the things people need.

It's rather like demanding human survival be prioritized over food production.

The pursuit of profit, properly understood, is one of the ways people serve one another through voluntary trade.

And the people who want to abolish that incentive should be expected to explain what will replace it, how resources will be allocated, how production will remain sustainable, and why their alternative deserves anyone's confidence.

Until then, “people over profit” is little more than a declaration of good intentions accompanied by an alarming indifference to the means required to achieve them.

Because the question isn't whether people matter more than money.

The question is whether you understand what makes their prosperity possible.

And if your answer involves destroying the incentives that encourage people to produce, invest, innovate, and trade, perhaps you should reconsider which side of that slogan actually serves human beings.

Libertarians rarely like the advance auction of stolen goods that are general elections. Politicians mindlessly throw around promises to spend money that isn't theirs, on projects they wont be accountable for (really), to give to people who didn't earn it, or to control people's property, or to tell them what to do, and send some people to prison for not doing what they say. It is a bidding war on borrowed money from future taxpayers by and large, and it is fundamentally banal.

The NZ 2026 election has been particularly woeful. However, there are choices

• Keep the National-led coalition government in power;

• Replace it with a left-wing variant led by Labour, but also with the Greens, Opportunity and maybe Te Pati Maori;

• Opt out of giving any of them your endorsement.

I'm tempted by Peter Cresswell's support of the last, but I think it is ill founded, because there really is a choice between a ragtag mob of people who sometimes do good, and a ragtag mob of people who rarely do good. The right to not vote is important though, Australians don't have it, because it is a much more rules based country than NZ. You don't need to vote, you can curse them all, noting your impact is miniscule although not zero. However, I think you should consider voting for a party at least (electorates are a different matter, which I will follow up on tomorrow).

There are nuances to these three choices of course, some think you can have the first with Opportunity, some think you can have the last without, but for a country with an electoral system now offering seven parties that are highly likely to be elected, it seems fairly binary. It’s not though, it’s a sliding scale as to the degree you want government to have power, control and your money to spend, what you want it to have power, control and to spend money on, and the philosophical underpinnings for doing that.  You can make choices for options 1 and 2 that are variants on what matters to you. You can be moderate with the two main parties, or be more aggressive in various directions. There is only one direction I want to go in, which is a bit less government.

What about ACT?

Despite commentary by some of the shallow of thinking, there is no libertarian option on the ballot, so I should first address that elephant in the commentary. ACT is not a libertarian party. It isn’t even the party of Roger Douglas’s Unfinished Business – which was a manifesto in itself.  ACT is neither radical nor bold, indeed where it lies today is perhaps where the National Party was in the late 1990s, with occasional flashes of inspiration on a handful of matters. 

A libertarian party would be calling for significant cuts in state spending, not simply taking it down to levels proportionate when John Key was in power. 

A libertarian party would be calling for decriminalising adult ingestion of any substances, as long as there is adult responsibility for the resulting behaviour.

A libertarian party would be calling for getting the state progressively out of the supply of most goods and services, fundamental reform of education and healthcare, and individualising national superannuation, ACC and social welfare.

ACT sometimes lights up on parts of these, from time to time, but it is mostly a party of the conscience of the National Party. It’s single greatest achievement is charter schools, even those these are somewhat hogtied by a National Party terrified of the teachers’ unions. Starting a more fundamental debate on the Treaty was useful, at the very least as a way of venting frustration and discussing what could not have been discussed for years – the role of the Treaty and what its application meant. On a side point, it is a disgrace, to the other parties, that ACT is the only party that doesn’t want to wage war on supermarkets.  However, it is also extremely disappointing that Paul Henry will be in Parliament.  Yes I've read his book, it didn't take long.

NZ First?

Beyond ACT, occasionally NZ First will emerge with something that is consistent with individual freedom, free market capitalism and supporting core defence/law and order roles of the state, but it is fundamentally a party of opportunism. NZ First is reverting to a mix of soft-nationalism, casual bigotry towards migrants and conservativism, even if it history in power has been largely to be happy with symbols and spending on baubles (railways seem to be one of the latest ones). It’s conservative-nationalism without the anti-semitism, white supremacy and militarism. While I admire NZ First’s rejection of critical theory, and baiting of the ethno-nationalists on the hard left, a party that calls variously for nationalisation, vast state projects and incoherent regulation on an ad hoc basis is not one I can support. I'm heartened though that it might hoover up lots of votes that might go to smaller loony parties.

 Though I will give Winston Peters credit for ending funding of the Hamas infested UNRWA.

National?

National this past term has been more impressive than under the Key-English era, not least because it actually repealed laws passed by Labour. That’s no small achievement, as National usually just continues what Labour did, with a handful of exceptions. Most notable was repealing Labour’s Natural and Built Environments Act and Spatial Planning Act, which would have continued the nationalisation of land, although the replacement is a long way from being what many of us hoped for.  Also notable is:

• Scrapping Three Waters which would have indirectly shared control of water infrastructure with Iwi.

• Scrapping the Maori Health Authority

• Scrapping the creeping ban on (legal) tobacco sales for adults

• Scrapping the virtue signalling ban new offshore oil and gas exploration

• Scrapping the grossly inefficient Lake Onslow Pumped Hydro boondoggle

• Scrapping the Auckland Light Rail project

• Scrapped the compulsory national Social Insurance programme

• Unwinding the centralisation of polytechs

• Scrapping legislation to impose industry-wide collective bargaining

• Scrapping the “ute tax” subsidy for new EV buyers

• Scrapping the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate

• Reintroducing applying the same tax deductibility on interest bills for residential property investment as with other investments

There is plenty of disappointment too. Reform of local government has been mixed, with semi-forced amalgamations, rather than stripping the power of general competence. The rates cap is a significant win, although it is much later than it should have been.

On education, the reinstatement of charter schools is a good step, as have been some reforms of the curriculum, but the fundamentals are still antagonistic to choice and diversity in education, and little has been done to strip out the significant leftwing/critical theory bias in curriculum, teacher training and recruitment. Nothing matters more than getting this right because education profoundly affects the futures of young people, as well as national culture, identity and philosophy. For many years it has been dominated by a philosophy and people whose views on this do not align with the government, let alone a free, open liberal democracy with capitalism, private property rights and individual responsibility.

That wont change while so much power is centralised in Wellington, and while a central focus of the system is preventing industrial action by teaching unions that openly back leftwing parties and oppose performance based pay, and opening up teaching beyond the heavily post-modernist oriented teacher training system.  National has shown little interest in tackling these issues. What a disaster the free school meals policy has been as a distraction, set up by Labour in its endless effort to give people something paid for by future generations. 

On healthcare, it is all tinkering. Beyond some arguments around centralised vs. devolved power, or having a specialist cancer hospital, almost all debates on healthcare are around how much money and where does it go. While the left debates bans and taxes on products that it disapproves of for being unhealthy (tobacco, alcohol, gambling, sugar, fat, salt), the “right” says little beyond enabling more private provision of healthcare. Nobody talks about how the current system, fundamentally, has little link between user demand and supply, nor how the rationing of public healthcare inevitably means people wait for services, and some are delayed, and they suffer and some die as a result. Talk of reform onto a partial insurance model, as seen in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, France, Germany and others will inevitably see shrieks of unhinged hysteria about “Americanisation”, which nobody advocates. Politicians who don’t advocate more socialism in healthcare (i.e. free dentistry supplied by whom?) are fearful of even starting a debate about how healthcare is structured and funded. So, nothing new is coming there. Don’t expect anything about ACC either, that lumbering state monopoly isn’t being challenged by anyone.

On welfare, it is tinkering as well. Sure, eligibility is somewhat tighter, and there is talk about drug testing (which is somewhat performative), but there is little about stripping back the scale of the middle class welfare state that Helen Clark and Michael Cullen set up to trap the National Party, successfully. Indeed, Nicola Willis has thrown more money at it with her Family Boost package subsidising (heavily regulated) childcare. Nobody has answers about addressing structural welfare dependency, and indeed the Opportunity Party wants everyone on welfare, and the hard-left parties want much more.

On the size of the state and freedom more generally, besides a few surprises (abolition of the Broadcasting Standards Authority), there’s little sign of any progress. Nicola Willis wont cut the public sector to the level to 2017 levels (adjusted for today’s population) because apparently that would be “too tough”. However, she’s and Luxon are keen to consider breaking up the largest NZ franchisee owned supermarket chain, to show off a commitment to lowering grocery prices. It’s only slightly more sensible than Labour’s policy of structural separation, which is economic lunacy and unprecedented anywhere in the world.  Moreover, Luxon is also keen on following Australia’s unsuccessful ban on under 16yos accessing social media, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to compulsory ID for internet access because, well, the instincts towards individual freedom are difficult to see.

Finally, on the economy, the age of riding off the back of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s is well and truly gone. Clark did that, as did Key, but the gains from those reforms have ebbed away as regulation has creeped in, and the role of the state has grown bit by bit. It has become more and more difficult to set up business, hire people, open bank accounts and trade, and the competitiveness of NZ compared to other economies has waned as a result. Again, four of the parties vying for Parliament are keen to make that significantly worse, of course always with the best of intentions. Genuine interest in reforms that improve productivity exist in some. Addressing housing supply, reforming the planning system, even allowing road pricing all make small and useful differences, but none are fundamental. David Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation has surprisingly, made some small differences, but there needs to be a much more direct commitment to making starting and sustaining businesses and hiring people easier.  The leftwing parties don’t believe in that.

Perhaps, by far, the most disappointing element of the Luxon Government is Luxon himself. He is one of the most uselessly uninspiring and awkward Prime Ministers in recent history. He lacks authenticity and seriousness. He is so unconvincing it is painful. He laughs awkwardly at questions or things he said, and nobody really knows what matters to him, beyond his family. To his credit he has largely let Ministers take charge of their portfolios, like CEOs do to sectoral managers, but he is not a CEO. He is expected to provide leadership, gravitas, philosophical and “national” authority as he represents NZ globally and presents a vision that is convincing, not always popular, but grounded in something, anything.

The fact that few opinion polls put National at 30% or above is a testament to his failure. It remains quite the paradox that on the one hand so many in the country think Luxon is a poor Prime Minister (but even more think Hipkins could be worse), but a majority of National’s caucus don’t think so (or merely dislike the alternatives). It’s obvious that, short of a remarkable turnaround in the next week, Luxon will not be Prime Minister at the 2029 election. Even if he can manage to retain power this time, he will have lost authority, especially if he has also lost Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop because the party vote has fled elsewhere out of sheer frustration and fear. 

Overall?

A great government? No. A good government? In snippets. A better one than Hipkins had? Yes, but what a low bar that was.

Could it be better? Of course. It could cut spending, it could liberalise education from the bureaucracy, the unions and the stultifying ideology that cauterises real critical thinking. It could embrace private property rights as so many of them want to. It could focus relentlessly on productivity, and on an outward looking mindset, and a belief that individual freedom and responsibility are to be cherished and encouraged, and for people to be judged not on their background, but on their deeds.  It could believe in retaining internet anonymity and freedom, and promote parental and business responsibility in changing the online culture of bullying and harassment.

A party vote for ACT might inch that a little closer. I doubt one for NZ First will. I’m unsure one for National really would.

What is clear is that the other four parties turn away from this. Their main driver is how to take more money from people and businesses, and to funnel it through Wellington to pay for more public sector employees or more welfare, and more spending. They want to control and regulate more, they want to more judge people based on their background, than on their deeds. They want more state. They talk of freeing people from burdens, but they want to take charge, be our parents, and to divide people into those who must be taken from, and those who should receive.  Moreover, they have become more radical, more militant, more strident. Some want wealth taxes – taxes on what you own, after paying taxes on the income in the first instance, all want to sacrifice your standard of living to reduce emissions for zero measurable gain, all default to more spending, more regulation and more control.

So yes, vote for one of the three coalition parties. I’ll be party voting ACT, with many reservations, but it’s not like 2008, when the choice between Clark and Key was largely one of style, not substance.  This government has many weaknesses, the biggest one is at the head of it, but it’s much less dangerous than the side led by activists, unionists, race supremacists and haters of capitalism, liberal democracy and private property.