Some new bloke called ben doesn’t know the difference between bank-cash-pyramiding and credit. But anyhow he posted a good link with Barnaby Joyce. One of only two top intellects in Australian politics.
Here’s the new Russian fighter that Dennis refers to that we have to be able to beat with a large margin of comfort. Its a stealth fighter. Meant to match the Raptor according to what Jensen is saying in the youtube above. If we cannot get a plane that can knock the Russian one out, with much assurance, and send our pilot home to mama, we are being foolish and callous and the defense department is not doing their job. Mass-sackings must follow until the department has a culture that somehow makes then want to decide that they actually want to do their job.
And its not a hard ask to get hold of the best gear that the US has to offer. The Americans are in so much debt now, they will soon be willing to sell us their daughters. We can get the best gear if our diplomats are doing THEIR job. If our diplomats also fail, then the idea is to sack THEM until the surviving incumbency finds-religion/sees-the-light.
But supposing after all our best efforts at departmental cultural transformation …. supposing then that the subsequent diplomatic efforts are still not successful (in terms of procuring the best gear for our pilots)? Suppose we couldn’t get a superior American dogfighter. Well then we would want Tony to talk to Russian about this Pak Fa. Matter of fact Tony ought to have someone talking to the Sukhoi-design-bureau within a month from now. No harm in having a chat.
Scroll down to July 26 for Barnaby talking to Steve Vizard.
Barnaby on the ball on immigration policy:
” ….. if they are coming in, what we need is to make sure that we give them the encouragement to go into the regional areas. We need …. Out in regional Australia we want more people. So if these people are coming in …. And down in Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane YOU DON’T. So here we have something we can all agree on. We want them. You don’t want them. So lets come up with the policies that get them inland.”
Where is Barnaby coming from here? What does he mean by “want” I would say he’s not in the least talking about urban elite attitude. Rich taxeaters in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and especially Canberra want huge numbers of migrants to underwrite their big spending fantsies, and their by and large useless jobs. Barnaby is looking at things from a strategic and an infrastructure perspective, in keeping with his ability to get quickly across his new job. Its all very nice here in Sydney to get all these promises of massively expensive infrastructure projects, where we spend billions and billions for a rail link between Epping and Paramatta. Epping and Chatswood. But where does this all end? And of course putting all your infrastructure eggs into these coastal towns like Sydney and Melbourne make us as vulnerable to destruction as Carthage. We can do so much more with word-class, yet modest infrastructure projects in these small towns. A new bridge here. A small container-capable port there. A few short tunnels. These are projects that are less likely to lead to cost overuns and white elephants.
If infrastructure is going to be socialist (I’ve given up for the time being in trying to convince people of a working free enterprise model) then lets do things in a smart way. Lets start sprucing up the regional infrastructure. After all thats where we will have to run too if we cannot defend the coast.
Actually I like it now that Barnaby is our infrastructure guy. Hockey just basically has to commit to getting in surplus as fast as possible. If he is totally committed to doing that (and getting the debts that Kevin foisted on us, paid off quickly,) that comes under the heading of “good enough.” Infrastructure probably requires a lot more intellectual ability. Its a tough gig, and thats why Tony may have wimped out, but accidentally done the right thing, by kicking Barnaby out of finance, and giving him a job that probably nobody else has the required intellectual capacity for.
Hopefully “encouragement” means more of the infrastructure spending pie, and regional tax exemptions. Since nothing good every comes from outright subsidies. As well the regional impetus could be built into many visa categories. Making it easier to get a student or a work Visa, away from these top-heavy cities. Perhaps if you are the most desirable immigrant you could easily choose the big cities. But most people, should they want to get near the front of the queue, could volunteer to restrict themselves to the smaller towns and cities. “Encouragement” could also come down to charging for clogged up infrastructure in the big cities in peak-time. In line with one of the Ken Henry recommendations.
“If you want a credible, peer-reviewed survey of published climate scientists, try this one by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, published in the journal Eos, which found that 82% of more than 3000 scientists with expertise in climate science thought that humans are causing the observed increase in global temperatures.”
Can someone take some time out to explain to Ben what evidence is? The above has no scientific evidential value whatsoever.
Really thinking outside the box would have us realise that it is the artist that ought to fund arts funding. The idea clearly is to have the cost of living so low, and the tax free threshold so high, that the artist can survive on a part-time-job and have the time and financial resources to enable his creative pursuits.
Arts funding bodies get in the way of this. Arts funding bodies require artists to waste time filling in forms. They pay people to produce and read these forms, and this gets in the way of lifting the tax free threshold.
Of course we could continue to do what we are doing now. Get further under obligation to Beijing, and use the resources to pay for investments in taxeater ego.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 7:04:50am
How many schemes do this particular Labour leadership need to mess up before people get the message? We want the faster broadband speed. But you ought to know you cannot trust these dummies with your money? Surely? What do you imagine has changed? How do Wayne and Julia propose to keep costs down when they have exhibited no such abilities?
This Labour leadership have ruined the scheme right from the start by associating it with private debt. This will restrict our ability to allow the access that the technology implies and that the original idea dreamed about.
The original idea was the highway/trucking company idea. Wherein the government builds the roads but the private sector runs the trucking companies on those roads.
But the way this government has structured things has already ruined that prospect. So the idea is just to slow down, take a breath, and find people who can get value for money when it comes to this sort of thing. Those people aren’t Wayne Swan or Julia Gillard.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 6:55:10am
Bang up job in uncovering the mysteries of extinction events. My goodness Dave. As if a six degrees increase could touch of an extinction event. Not global fires, gamma ray blasts, massive volcanic action occasioning huge tidal waves. Not these sorts of catastrophes. No Dave reckons a bit of extra warmth during the night is all it takes.
Dave imagine a series of catastrophes that brought our population down to 1 million people? Six billion or so all the way down to one million. That would be pretty harsh wouldn’t it?
But homo-sapiens would not have been made extinct over it. Extinction events are a much nastier affair than you have imagined.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 12:52:42am
Because if the feedback is there its desperately weak. If we got into a runaway air pressure effect then that would be another matter. But the runaway greenhouse effect appears to be a myth. The whole theory is illogical. Since they simply assume the temperature anomaly is due to greenhouse. But this cannot be the case since the Moons temperature anomaly is bigger than the Earths.
Reply Alert moderator
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 7:33:41am
Because the effect is feeble. You might talk about a runaway air pressure effect. But its foolish to think about a runaway greenhouse effect when the magnitude of the effect is both small and totally unknown.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 6:49:00am
If you are going to support this dopey point of view Ben, sooner or later you ought to come up with a specific hypothesis and some evidence. We have seen through your prevarications and excuses, and they fall flat. What you need is evidence. Did you know that the moon has a greater “greenhouse effect” (in terms of unexplained temperature difference based on the watts per square metre model) then what the earth does?
Did you know that?
When you want to hurt your countrymen (as you pose as some sort of analyst)you at least want to have some evidence. Evidence doesn’t exist separate from a specific hypothesis. Thats a fact that has eluded the pushers of this racket.
What defamation were you about to lay on Hertzberg in your unscience you mongrel twit? Were you about to say he was a Christian? That he was part of the tobacco lobby? That he received money from Exxon?
Go on. Go on. Tell the people what was your next planned argument cul de sac you were going to pull matters down to distract them.
Oh I know you jerk. You were going to cast aspersions on the magazine the article appeared in right? Or you were going to link to a realclimate denialist rant, without putting the argument in your own words.
You are just a fuckwit mate. Total unreason. Total lock-step PZ Myers brainlessness.
Whose the most stupid out of Hairshirt-Hamilton and Lewandowsky? I would say that Lewandowsky is even more hard-core stupid than Clive Hamilton. But Clive makes up for it by a predilection towards fantasy, and also from sheer dishonesty. Also Clive is ethically perverted. Lewandowsky could be all these things too. But on the surface its at least possible that the whole problem could be put down to logic deficit.
I have a question. Or at least some thoughts to run by some of the people here. I’m trying to imagine electrical transfer between the sun, the galaxy proper, and the earth and what will determine where that implied electrical-energy will be converted to thermal-energy. So we are talking about cosmic rays, solar wind particles, and presumably electrical transfer through Birkeland currents. These may overlap for all I know. What I mean is that Birkeland currents might be mediated through cosmic rays and/or solar winds. I’d be interested in what understandings or best guesses people have on this matter.
Now the thing is, its an issue WHERE and in what proportion these electrical currents result in thermal energy. You see one would guess that on Venus more than half of this conversion would be effected prior to the electrical current hitting the ground. Whereas on earth one might expect that three quarters and more of it get converted in the magma. The magma would probably be where most of the thermal energy conversion takes place.
On the other hand SOME of the conversion might be starting straight away, and it may be meaningful at 100 millibars. And of course you would expect more and more with the extra air pressure. Since we are talking about the excitation that these charged particles effect when they react with the molecules. But for them to react in a big way with the molecules the molecules may have to be close together. If not instead of colliding the charged subatomic particles may attract or deflect molecules as they pass by without this making a serious conversion to thermal energy.
Now why do I think that most of this conversion on earth would occur in the magma? Well on the oil-is-mastery blog the fellow there introduced to me the concept of “p-holes”. These seem to be akin to the continuation of birkeland currents by other means. It appears that no matter how deep humans have been into the earth, you can tell the state of the cosmic ray bombardment above, because of the existence of these p-holes. The p-holes are mobile like you would expect twisting electric currents to be.
What is surprising is that these flows are moving through substances which are not thought to be great conductors. But this is probably a prosaic thing in that we all know that electricity is homesick for earth. So we are talking something akin to well-worn paths of electricity flow. But even being that as it may, it is the case with wires and things that when they get hot they conduct less well. And perhaps the heat and mobility of magma would block these flows to a great degree, and thus the magma would maintain its heat.
What do people think? this would help to explain the heat on Venus if this electrical energy was 50% converted to thermal energy by the time it hit the ground on Venus, whereas if it was the case on earth that 70% of the conversion was in the magma itself, that would seem to explain things rather well as well.
I suspect that now that someone has tried to put these suspicions into words in this way, what I’m saying here will seem to be rather old hat.
The original concept for this scheme was hatched and advocated by Paul Budde (as in Buddha) prior to the privatisation of Telstra. Now the thing is that Budde’s wisdom was so clear, and the fibre-optics technology was so powerful that many people are trying to hold onto this long-delayed dream, even after the current Labour leadership has ruined it. It was this rare, once-in-a-generation opportunity where a large socialist undertaking made a lot of good sense.
Its a vision thing, this Paul Budde idea. A marvelous scheme as it was originally conceived. Had he been listened too, and the scheme rolled out in a cost effective way over about twenty years (and out of the surplus) we would have the best, cheapest, and most competitive telecom industry in the world by far.
All the telephone and internet companies wouldn’t even need to be armtwisted and over-regulated. Since the government would own the superhighway, and anyone would be able to start a telephone company from scratch almost.
But they blew it. And now we want to belatedly get this dream back, even after Conroy-Rudd have messed it up by adding private debt obligations to the mix. Well after all this time we can still get this sort of thing up, but we have to untangle the mess thats been made. And the most important thing to do is stop the current flawed scheme in its tracks as soon as possible.
We must stop the Rudd scheme right away before the banksters of this world have their legal hooks too far into matters. Who does Conroy think he’s messing with?
Lets make it very clear. Despite the awesome potential of the technology the creditor-sharks MUST restrict usage to keep the prices high. There is no getting around this.
Now we can do better than that. And since the new infrastructure shadow minister is Barnaby Joyce, we can have some confidence that at least one person will be able to get his head around this tangled mess.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 4:17:20pm
Your analysis would be good but for one factor. The labour party isn’t building this thing out of the surplus. They are building it using the restriction of PRIVATE DEBT OBLIGATIONS.
The Goldman Sachs types lawyers are better than ours. Its an absolute fact that they are going to restrict this potential that you speak of so as to get paid back. There is no way around this. The scheme is cursed right from the start. You couldn’t even invent a scenario where I could be wrong.
I mean its hard to have to break it to people but Rudd, Conroy et al have messed it up. Its almost hard to believe that even they could have been this stupid. We knew they were stupid but THIS stupid. It beggars belief.
Face it. Labour had a good idea for a change and they still managed to screw it up. You can support fibre optics, as I do, but you won’t get any good result unless you throw these bums out, so they are only a bad memory.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 9:48:16am
Right but you are making a comparison between the status quo and the promises. And this is not the right comparison.
1. Broadband speeds have been increasing all the time without this proposed scheme.
2. There are other, less expensive ways for a government to effect an acceleration in the rate at which internet speeds are increased.
3. The costs are totally bogus and made up. All the quoted billions tells us is the rate at which Julia wants to spend money. It tells us that labour is wanting to force-feed 6 billion dollars a year for the cause. The results will be the same as when they tried to stuff 2 billion all at once into the home insulation business. Only disaster and cost blow-outs can come of such a childish and unsophisticated approach.
Graeme Bird :
14 Aug 2010 9:42:07pm
But this is a right-wing scheme!!!! If by right-wing you mean “crony-capitalist.” This is a scheme for lunatics who never see private debt that they don’t like.
Once in a generation a visionary scheme like this comes along; a socialist extravaganza which makes sense. But it ONLY makes sense if it is paid for out of the surplus. The entire logic of the project falls down the minute you attach legal contracts involving private debt TO the project.
The right business model for almost everything is a free enterprise model. But the right business model for this one undertaking was clearly the socialist model. Once you bring in a crony-capitalist debt model, the entire logic of the scheme unravels. Be practical. Surely you can understand what I’m saying here.
Graeme Bird :
15 Aug 2010 4:37:05am
The inequality of wealth is coming mostly from fractional reserve and inflation, as well as from insufficient capital formation. The idea is to reverse it by getting rid of the problem, and by the way you raise taxes. Not by overspending. Thats the wrong solution, and an irrational one, to a problem not caused by underspending.
What is important is that when you are closing down the government departments, you translate the savings into four areas.
1. Lifting the tax free threshold up from the ground.
2. Getting the surplus back.
3. Getting rid of any taxes on savings and retained earnings.
4. Getting rid of the inflation tax. A tax which is mostly going to banks at the moment.
Ha ha ha ha. The blockhead Mark Hill tries to set up a demarcation dispute. The stupid young man is instinctively gathering to himself the characteristics of a priesthood rather than the calling of a scientist.
“Gittens is an accountant. He is entirely unqualified to pose as an expert on economics. The ESA have him as a speaker. The topic wasn’t “accounting for economists” either. He has the gall to gainsay qualified, well researched people in economics with two bit diversions and deflections.
The man is entirely unqualified to comment, particularly as the topics range further afield from accounting theory or firm valuation.”
1. You are not even pretending to understand the field, so how is it you can judge the honesty or conceptual ability of the people involved?
2. Obviously some of the scientists disagree strongly, in a way that goes well beyond some sort of easy-going collegial dispute. Ergo you get a conceptual audit F-for-fail. Because your statement is vouching for all the scientists, and not just the ones that, in your ignorance, you appear to be siding with.
I assure you that the advocates of this global warming business are uniformly fraudulent and-or stupid. You might want to actually find something out about the field before you continue to spout off in ignorance.
Graeme Bird :
15 Aug 2010 10:39:00am
The reason why it seems sensible to make a government project out of fibre optics, is that the consultants who were in charge of flogging off telstra made a hash job of it. Just like the Queensland government is completely botching up the sale of their rail network. This is a level of incompetence that transcends notions of left and right, and the same neoclassical economist types refuse to recognise or learn from their mistakes.
Rolling out fibre-optics ought to be dead cheap. Afterall you could string them along power-lines and telegraph poles, until such time as you are digging up individual roads for other reasons.
But the structure of the newly privatized telecom industry was so unsound that it was to no-ones interests to do these very simple and cheap things.
I have a lot of sympathy therefore for some kind of national roll-out. But why to every house? Every town and suburb given enough time, and if done out of surplus budgets. This would be fine from a cost point of view if the fibre optic cables were strung along the existing phone/electric infrastructure, and not done so quickly as to blow out costs.
But connecting every house is unnecessary and at least doing so in a great big hurry seems imprudent. So I’m very sympathetic to some aspects of this plan.
Consider another factor in favour of a focus on fibre-optics. One day we will get a coronal-mass-ejection that will burn out all our satellites. If we don’t have surge protection it will take down our electrical grid. It will short out pretty much every electrical appliance that we have that is not specifically protected. A nuclear explosion above any of our cities, or indeed high above the east coast, would have the same effect.
But such a calamity would leave fibre optics exactly as before. So its pretty critical that we DO emphasize fibre-optics. We just have to slow and rework this flawed labour plan. A core capacity of fibre-optics is important from a national defense point of view.