Posted by: graemebird | July 20, 2008

Nation Of Qualified Lunatics.

Here we will see the shoddy sort of analysis you will get from Nick Gruen. But just to show that stupid economists are upwardly mobile in our society we see the Quiggins wikipedia entry, written no doubt by Quiggin, talks about the number of CITATIONS. The dumb-left reads and quotes mindless lunatics and lifts them up. Helps their careers.

“Government and the private sector are good at different things, and there are gains from trade.”


The government is good at stealing. The private sector is good at production. There is a trade to be made? Look Nicks just a lunatic and what he’s doing here is making excuses for more stealing. But who would do so by distorting economic concepts in this way? A lot of people. But few with more fervent vandalism than Nick. And not all of them are contacted by Lindsay Tanner to be some sort of governmental harasser of business.

A trade is a voluntary exchange. But anything Nicks talking about isn’t voluntary so it isn’t a trade. Stealing is not a good. Stealing is a bad. But it doesn’t stop there. Nick will keep buggering the language by picking on the word “asset.”

 “Thus government has certain assets at its disposal. One of those assets is the taxing power….”

Taxing power is an asset? Well it must FEEL like an asset if you get to use it. “That asset should be ‘worked’ wherever it gives rise to value.”

Stealing ought to be conducted wherever it adds value? But thats alright you see. Because Nicks taken this stealing, renamed it “the taxing power” reclassified this as an “asset” and assets don’t produce a cash flow. Instead assets “add value”.

So he’s just a fucking idiot. But we have allowed a situation to develop wherein people can be lunatics so long as they are QUALIFIED lunatics. Should we really be so surprised when we have this idiot Garnaut prancing around the place then?

“Bruce Chapman has spend a substantial proportion of the last two decades of his life outlining the various ways in which the basic mechanism of HECS can be expanded to all manner of things.  Like collecting fines, and helping farmers with droughts and funding maternity leave.  As Bruce says, in principle, everything is HECSable.  Indeed it is and it’s a worthy agenda which Andrew Leigh has also supported in a column.”

Right. Like that moron Andrew Leigh is some sort of authority. These idiots pass their multi-choice test and then they forget everything they were supposed to know. Now that they have the piece of paper its a license to say any mindless bullshit they want. Nick and Andrew want to smooth out the stealing with HECS so that more can be stolen overall.

 “I’ve also argued in favour of the Aussie Mac proposal on the grounds that extending the idea of the government as a guarantor of certain lending as an extension of its role as the lender of last resort and underwriter of financial liquidity is a worthwhile thing to do.”

What magnificent timing. You’d think the idiot would keep it to himself.

So the problem of the degraded level of economics understanding in this country is a big one. Its not just about the dishonesty of Jason Soon being unwilling to confirm to know-nothings that banks create money out of thin air. Its a serious problem and there will be grave consequences as a result of it.



  1. I like the “portrait of a lunatic” title better. You’re not scared of his lawyers, are you?

  2. No its just when I was writing it the story tended to spread. It went from Nick to Quiggin to Andrew and Garnaut. Its this “Have degree will will talk nonsense” aspect of it all.

    Look at Garnaut. Talking absolute shiite. And he’s understating the costs but then its Quiggin doing the figures so its all part of the same lying. The cost figures understated. The costs of extra-CO2 lied about. Being as its a benefit the costs are obviously negative.

    None of that matters. Because they can say what they want. They have a degree.

  3. “These idiots pass their multi-choice test ”

    Maybe at the University of Taueahariri Wakiki Baaa Baaa all you need to qualify for an economics degree is a multi choice test but not in Australia, mate.

  4. Yes of course. You have to spin out a few essays that you’ve memorized via the method of Nemonics. The Australian approach to higher learning.

    But seriously how can one explain the global warming racket, Garnaut, Nick Gruen or anything else you see going on around you today. How do you explain fatfingers. The dopey bastard ought to have figured that these guys have gotten the paradigm wrong. Now someone just spins another computer model to say that things will get colder than hotter…. And fatfingers is totally taken in by that. He must be in fact brazenly showing such stupidity so as to become minister of health. The stupidest person getting the highest paid job.

    I cannot explain it. I do my best. How do you explain Gruen, Garnaut Quiggin and other idiots?

    With fatty I tend to blame his mother.

  5. They are of proven fertility. Now stop your sodomite trash-talk. This is a forum that demands intelligent input. This be no realm for Venusian sexual spastics. Use what little intelligence you have or beat it.

  6. “Why would you blame fatfinger’s mother?” For his relentless stupidity. What else?

  7. This is a forum that demands intelligent input.

    Yeah? Shame about the output tho’ innit?

  8. This be no realm for Venusian sexual spastics.

    But they have an open-door policy on perverts from Uranus now don’t they?

  9. Is your bottom sore, Graeme?

  10. Well if FDB doesn’t own up than its you coming out of the closet Humphreys. And it fits for sure. The person who would know how to frame FDB up and the same guy fuming so much that he’s wiping all my posts on “Thoughts On Freedom”.

  11. The universities need to be burnt to the ground and we need to start again.

    Far better that young people learn a trade than that they pay money to be indoctrinated by the communists in academia.

  12. Yes even if it was only the economics departments. Some of these guys would learn that milk doesn’t come from bottles and stuff has to actually be manufactured by someone who can make things. In treasury they appear to think that agriculture, trucking and manufacturing are dirty activities better to be undertaken by black or yellow people overseas. They call themselves “knowledge workers” rather than the parasites that they are.

  13. A traitor in your midst all this while, Mr Bird

  14. Yes the stupid woppy has had the chance to comment on the appropriate thread and has never come up with anything serious whatsoever. I guess it doesn’t take all that much smarts to be a momentum trader.

  15. Look how easily the woppy is taken in. He quotes Annan who has never come up with any evidence for this racket. Who is so stupid as to apply Bayesian statistics to a controversial issue. And he’s just entirely duped by him:

    Take a look at this. James Annan is a serious scientist doing work on climate.

    (No he isn’t. He’s a dope with some quantitative skills)

    He’s not a phony Lambert type pretending he’s running a science blog when it’s nothing more than a hate site.
    Annan makes this perfectly simple to understand scientifically based observation:

    With no feedbacks at all, the sensitivity to doubled CO2 is about 1C, based on the well-understood radiative physics.

    (This assumes that the world is flat, twice as far from the sun, its always noon, the water vapour is averaged throughout the entire planet and at all heights in the troposphere, and that warm pockets of air don’t rise)

    It is also obvious that a warmer atmosphere has the potential to hold more water vapour (itself a GHG of course), and although the magnitude of this effect isn’t known with certainty, the most plausible first-order estimate (supported by models and data) would be that relative humidity will stay roughly constant.


    This gives another 1C, making 2C in total.


    [The numbers here are intended as ballpark estimates, please let’s have no quibbles about the precision.] Clouds may have a significant effect to enhance or offset warming. We know the climate has varied plenty in the past (indeed this is generally one of the septics’ favourite talking points), so it seems implausible that they are a very strong stabilising force.


    Almost all models, using a wide range of physical parameterisations, suggest a significant positive amplification, giving the typical range of 2-4.5C for sensitivity.


    All analyses of observational evidence also point towards a value of close to 3C (exactly how close is still subject to some debate).


    The rest of the thread is worth reading too. Annan is also very respectful when talking to people he disagrees with and is able to put forward a complex argument into easy to understand English.

    We know the loop in terms of the effect Co2 has , so where is the doubt that the warming and future warming isn’t Co2 induced?

    Bullshit Cambria. You cannot find any evidence for CO2-warming. So clearly it must be very small if positive. Far less than the 3 degrees idiocy.

  16. Bullshit Cambria. You cannot find any evidence for CO2-warming.

    Yes, birdie there is. There’s 100 year old experiments that indicate this according to Annan. Is he wrong to say there have been, Birdie? There hasn’t been any experimentation done at all to so the link?

    Yes or no?

  17. umm to show the link.

  18. Yes he’s wrong. The Arrenhious model is dead from the neck up. It way overestimates any CO2-warming on first principles.

    If you suppose that you get 1 degrees warming for a double of CO2 under the following conditions:

    “the world is flat, twice as far from the sun, its always noon, the water vapour is averaged throughout the entire planet and at all heights in the troposphere, and that warm pockets of air don’t rise..”

    Then how much warming will you get in the real world? The answer is A LOT LESS.

    Since in reality warmer pockets of air do rise. When they rise 100 metres and they are above my head most of that energy can be deemed to have been lost to me. When it gets out of the troposphere most of that energy can be thought of as lost to space.

    This 100 year old model is not evidence. Its just an idea some guy called Arrenhius had. Its not evidence. Its speculation.

  19. Its quiite literally flat earth science. The world is not flat. There is day and night. The planet holds a great many joules. The moon causes tidal warming. The seas have immense effects. Yet the watts-per-square metre model has it all determined by air and colour.

    The whole thing is a joke. Its a watts per square metre model. It makes no sense from the start. Its the equivalent of the labour theory of value. Or some really bad outmoded economics mode like the Keynesian spending multiplierl. Its stupid right from the start.

  20. “Aside from the likes of Bird, who seriously denies that GHGs are a radiative forcing?”

    Dover is so full of shit isn’t he?

    Of course it has some effect. But if you come up with 1 degree based on it always being noon on a planet twice as far from the sun and you are only allowing brownian motion then how much is it going to be if you allow convection? So that warm pockets can rise and release their energy into space?

    Its therefore going to be a lot less than 1 degrees isn’t it dover you moron.

  21. But Bird, there are scientific experiments that annnan refers to which show the effect of co2.



    Find them!!!!!

    They are not there!!!!

    And don’t my word versus Annans. Just try and understand the situation.

  23. How do you think that they can say 1% for a doubling straight off the bat like that?

    They need to make simplifying assumptions. And the simplifying assumptions happen to be ridiculous.

  24. Dover being an idiot says:

    Aside from the likes of Bird, who seriously denies that GHGs are a radiative forcing?

    So JC being a moron says:


    So I sez you are never going to understand the situation Cambria if you insist on being a moron. This is easier than economics. Its dead easy. But while you go with this “who do I believe” silliness and this stupidity of parroting dover when he’s being a fuckwit you are just running from any comprehension of the situation.

  25. What am I making up Mark?

    Its back to your old self. Just relentless lying.

    Too be sure. I cannot really know what their simplifying assumptions are because they won’t tell you. But they are “HEROIC” simplifying assumptions thats for sure. You cannot take a phenomenon that you have in the lab for static light travelling through essentially staticf gas in a tube and then generalise to the dynamic planet entirely without simplifying assumptions.

    And the simplifying assumptions they use are silly. No night and day. Averaged water vapour.

    Look Mark. Fuck off if you are going to lie all the time. I hate liars.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: