Posted by: graemebird | September 15, 2008

The Michael Costa Method Of Intra-Party Diplomacy/Costa Sanctified.


Costa has been sanctified and one feels sure that his oldest friends who knew him prior to him getting into politics will be glad to have him back from that cess-pool of tribalism and vice.  Glad to have him back untainted, unscathed and perhaps even a tad hallowed,  like a grey wizard made white by virtue of the battle with the Balrog. It seems that Michael Costa is beginning to be a rising force in the conciousness of the centre-right and the right in Sydney. For this reason I’ll bring a couple of my Costa threads to the front. Somehow in my mind Costa has escaped the taint of being head State thief. And there is a very good reason for this.  I was out of town when all the action happened. So I only caught a couple of glimpses of all the marvellous blows and counter-attacks on the cable TV where I was staying in North Queensland.

Anyway correct me if I’m wrong. But it appears that Costa complained openly that his budget ought to have been a lot tighter. There ought to have been more cuts to spending. Is that right? And Lemma,  mad as a cut snake, saw this as disloyalty and sacked Costa which wound up causing he himself to be booted out on the very same day.

It is in this way that Costa has been sanctified and forgiven for his sins of being in charge of stealing. One could scarcely have orchestrated a better way for a person to leave politics untainted. He was sticking by his constituents and trying to reduce the stealing you see. Or at least thats what I remember from watching the cable TV.

I read that he is now on the staff of Newcastle and I’ve just been overcome with a burst of sadness thinking that now he would be a colleague of the wonderful and unsung Sudha Shenoy had cancer not claimed her a short time ago.

 Mises Audio/Video Sudha R. ShenoySudha R. Shenoy

Below is a post about the Costa method of intra-party diplomacy:

I want to make this a purely sociological study. Here we see Costa in the field. He wears a wig, and he sidles up to members of a faction of Visi-Goths. This faction far stronger and more ruthless than his own.

And here we bear witness to Costa laying forth with the famous Costa diplomacy:

There’s a lot of biff-baff that goes on within the labour party behind the scenes and the members don’t like to talk about it lest it start a factional war.

Here is Costa again. Disputing , away from media glare, about an affront to his standing and person, delivered on the sly, by way of sabotaging his morning coffee, and therefore his morning.

Here is Costa getting BLOWBACK from his anti-terrorist posture. You see he believes in pre-emption, co-option, and overkill (the three bulls of defeating terrorism)… but this untidy incident comes as a misunderstanding as a result of the CO-OPTION-DOCTRINE…..

The CO-OPTION-DOCTRINE has only been field-tested in intra-party disputes within labour because they rightly judge it as being too harsh for the broader community:

Costa is always one for talking. Costa hates contention and his attitude is always in line with the British war leader in that he says:


Here we see Costa more than eager to talk with the vanilla-GOTHS in his party, but the problem is that the modern institution doesn’t appreciate you for your strengths, yet cuts you off at the knee-caps for your failings, as if your failings ought not be handled by the bottom level employees.

So being as that is the culture of the faction involved, though this faction attempts to humiliate COSTA, nontheless he talks to them the best he can and grants them all their requests and ambit claims to the best of his abilities:


It is the case that once a righteous man joins the organisation he becomes exploited in order to get all the work done. His very righteousness, by a ringaround serial of psychological subterfuge becomes the chain around his neck to force him to do all the work. Suddenly all his weaknesses become the only salient and unforgiveable weaknesses but if he never complains and works three times as hard as other people still they might give him his long-service leave.

Here we see Costa trying to delegate a task away from his own in-tray but it typically and hopelessly falls flat.

You could do better than the lower rungs of the labour party to find a place to express your artistic side. Here is an example of Costa’s artistic spirit in full bloom. There was much intra-factional fighting after this was performed by some retired party ministers. It was apprehended within the great, almost Shakespearian scene, that COSTA was running payback within his own party.

But in the inner circles it was proclaimed that Costa was a person of true artisitic bent and so it was not the case that any of the people within the scene represented people from the party but rather they were (and I quote) ARITISTIC CREATIONS.

After much deliberations it was thought that Costas protestations as to his creativity were sincere and true. For how could it be (it was asked) that the Costa-like character could come off so poorly if it were a matter of disguised history. And again it was thought that the non-Costa adversary would have been subject to a kick in the throat if matters were true to life. So that upon deliberation the factions allowed Costas creative endeavours to be carried forth within the party.



  1. Mr Bird,

    Perhaps we should pass a hat around and erect a statue of the great man in Macquarie Street?

    By the way I do think that Mr Costa wouldn’t let the Russians push around their neighbours and cut of independent regions. We need more men with the cut of his cloth.

  2. No need for the sycophantic Mr Bird treatment, Dick. won’t work for you. Graeme isn’t into guys

  3. “What is the economically efficiency rationale behind proportionality?”

    This is the problem with being a philosophical skeptic Jason. You are letting bad economics invade into territory where it doesn’t belong. Proportionality in punishment is what is known as JUSTICE. Since you wanted to know it is JUSTICE that makes a society efficient beyond any other societal guiding principle. But one ought not reverse cause and effect.

    Proportionality can be practiced for any level of punishment so long as you keep them alive long enough suffer. It is pointless and impossible to hunt down terrorists outside ones jurisdiction if the other regimes aren’t as enthusiastic about the hunt as you are.

    Above we see CO-OPTION as one of the key guiding principles to the immediate cessation of terrorism. Costa, in his role as Harry, CO-Opts the mafia leader by placing a 300 pound all-muscle Negro in the Mafia bosses cell. The man gets to get out of prison on the basis that if anything happens to Harry, for whatever reason, the Mafia bosses new cell-mate will act as Harry’s proxy in the appropriate fashion. Thus co-opting the mob to Harry’s purpose.

    It is not to be thought that the natural state of regimes is to be co-equal with eachother. Such a notion has a short history. And in the past princes would make pledges of fealty to other princes, who were stronger than they.

    The way to end terrorism is to immediately make terrorist states Satrapcies for extended periods. Where anyone with decision-making authority must pledge allegiance to the civilians of the superior state.

    Here we see what the “death penalty” is to be reserved for. Its for a hunting season of short and predetermined length. Wherein the most influential/culpable of the leadership of the subject state are to be hunted mercilessly, preferably by their own people, but also by the superior country who feels with justification that there civilians have the right to be aggrieved by the leadership of the problem territory.

    The length of time must be limited and a new start made thereafter but made on a hair-trigger. The citizens of the subject regime must know that if they see the targeted leadership figures they have too choices. Kill them immediately in the hope of gaining a large bounty, or run like hell. Since it must be known that these people can be targeted at any time,and any one in physical proximity or in communication with these people could at any time be obliterated along with all physical evidence that they ever lived…

    .. Such a situation would make the waging of war for the problem leadership impossible. If even a phone-call during these several weeks or months could get the person at the other end of the phone killed and even so much as picking these guys up in the car to take them to the embassy or downtown could be a death sentence.

    But if you catch people on your own territory the idea is to make them suffer in proportion to their guilt minus some factor in relation to the co-operation they give you in helping you solve your problems.

  4. “Mel you’re the one who raised the spectre of terrorism in the first place, you wanted to ban innocent muslims from coming here because you were afraid they would become terrorists. Mark then suggested we just kill the ones who actually do become terrorists. I agree.”

    My goodness Jason. How many migrants do you WANT!!!!! Since we cannot take them all why not exercise some mindfullness over policy.

    Is neglect and a brain-free approach really mandatory in migration policy? I don’t think so.

    And whats the point of all this killing after the fact? Why not prevent the killing in the first place? Steve’s whipped your ass in this argument if you just go and edit his bad points and leave the good ones in.

    Killing is not proportional justice for terrorists, it won’t bring the victims back, and its unleashing the state as a domestic slaughterer.

  5. “14
    JC. Says:
    September 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
    Wow Kimbo is a regulatory proponent now. That’s interesting. Does she know that there are possibly 70,000 pages of regulation of assorted financial firms in the US.”

    Its important to not allow ourselves to be stooged by talking about things like “the 1980’s financial deregulation” since as JC shows there was no such thing. “The regulation changes of the early 1980’s” is what we really ought to say.

    If we want to reduce the regulations by 99% or even 99.9% we need obviously to phase out fractional reserve.

    CATO LOSES IT and falls for post-Nobels silliness by Hayek:

    “If we had free markets in printing money, a few brave souls would temporarily devalue their private currencies by printing money, assuring shareholders (or simply themselves) that they can buy in and make a profit, later rebuying their own currency and reversing the temporary inflation. Now that would be a resilient financial system.”

    If we had free markets for printing money no-one would ever accept banknotes again. There is a certain benevolent logic to that. Its the in-between situation that really stinks.

    But in fact one ought not allow any pyramiding of money. Counterfeiting racketeers are smart and they will sneak through just enough leverage to keep their act going if it isn’t a total prohibition on fractional reserve.

  6. Is having alternative currencies to compete with the Federal Reserve/Standard US dollar the wrong way to getting back to a currency backed by goods.
    If so, is counterfeiting the only problem with introducing other currencies?
    I wouldn’t say it’s a benevolent logic pushing this. Just ideas lacking direction.
    That said, I’m still learning economic history. You seen the Corrupt Banking System cartoons on Youtube:
    Haven’t watched all of them yet. They seem to lack imporant thing such as names and dates. They also show the view that bank forced a intellectually passive government into the system we have today.

  7. There is a theoretical idea that if every single person had a banking license that would be the same as nobody having a banking license.

    And there is a theory that if every single person could print up their own currency than all the currencies would be worth nothing so we would get to sound money via that route.

    Now thats alright in theory. But there has never been such a situation. And we can never get there by this sort of passive idealism. Its inevitable that such an approach throws us into the hands of the crony-socialists who are, in reality, quite at home with socialist money.

    Whenever we think of this sort of surface extremism masking complete happiness with the status quo, we are asked to look at a snapshot as if we have no past and no need to make a smooth transition.

    We are asked to believe that 70,000 pages of cartelisation-regulation is just sweet, but the specific regulations, which would amount to 1 page of principles and a small booklet…… well these would be just too offensive to contemplate.

    The adversary in this case always puts on the anarcho-capitalist hat when in sober reality he is likely to be centre-left on most things and centre-right on economics.

    In the democratic era its inconceivable that a proper market would come out of a sort of series of crises that lead to that snapshot picture of the theoretically sound fractional reserve system and competing currencies system that Hayek came out with….. decades after he turned his pen away from monetary matters.

    Hayek always tried to make compromises. I didn’t know where he was driving at when I read what he had to say about this subject not long after he got the Nobel. I didn’t read it then. I read it about two years ago. But after two years of being witness to absolute lunacy whenever this topic was broached I now must surmise that this was a compromise of sorts.

    People just go apeshit when you attack fractional reserve. I’m famous for threads of doom on this subject. But each and every one of them were caused by people who just didn’t want to know about monetary economics. Acted like they knew everything and knew nothing, and were absolutely in love with fractional reserve as a sort of magic elixer.

    So I suspect that he came up with his impractical notion on the basis of just being slapped around for decades by folks who have this mysterious relationship to fractional reserve. And he figured he had to come up with a second-best solution. Milton Friedman never liked Gold. But he started off advocating 100% backing and then came up with his second-best solution of stable monetary growth. Its no solution at all. Its a failure.

    Now supposing we were to say that if no government authority ever accepted fractional reserve as payment. This is what Andrew Jackson did with the Federal Government. But that still leaves local and state government willing to accept fractional reserve. And there goes the notion that the free market will sort it out allowing this inherently fraudulent and deceptive practice to be carried out but in a moderate and restrained fashion.

    Since once you have even one of these guys accepting fractional reserve as payment thats enough of a hook for the practice to take off, start a boom, get that government re-elected, and set things up for unsound money.

    So the theoretical idea that the market, debauched by fractional reserve, will sort it out, while it could possibly be true if we’d have the last 50 years in perfect anarcho-capitalism, is in realtiy just untenable. The only people who insist on this are folks who want to subvert the argument since they really dig paper money, or pure-bread anarcho-capitalists, or people who really don’t understand the situation.

    Nothing but a total prohibition (after a phase-out) will do. Since anything short of that is a liability waiting to happen. A constant temptation for folks who don’t need to be tempted in the first place. A temptation to corrupt behaviour by people who think of fractional reserve as a fountain of wealth-creation and something-for-nothing.

    Also fractional reserve introduces an advantage to market share that no other industry has. Which of necessity must destroy sound money eventually but from the start completely buggers what investment and banking is about.

    The thing is that a bank can create money in proportion to its market share.

    Supposing I go to buy some capital equipment. I borrow the money from the biggest bank in town. They lend it to me, and I buy that equipment. The supplier puts his winnings…….. in which bank?

    Well its more likely to be the biggest bank in town than any other bank. And that probability drives cartelisation in a way that does not make the same sort of economic sense that Standard Oil or De Beers diamond makes. The biggest bank doesn’t need to be doing the best job. He just needs to be the biggest bank and he gets to create more money and benefits from that creation just as a counterfeiter would.

    Thats why St George bank and other small banks are of a higher quality than the larger banks who have more counterfeiting subsidy given to them by the wider community. That the small bank survivesat all means they have to be that much more efficient but the inefficient are getting the subsidy. Thats why also that before the democratic era bankers of immense political power emerged all the time….

    …The Medicis, the Rothschilds, the Morgans…

    But here is the thing. If you are concentrating on bigness to score superior counterfeiting (ok then… pyramiding) ability, and if the industry at large is doing this then there is no chance that we are getting the most powerful brokering of savings money that we would be getting otherwise.

    The basic, fundamental notion of wealth-creation through the use of debt (under sound money) is the following…..

    … Someone has a cash-flow….. He sees a clear and present opportunity to increase his cash-flow via the purchase of a capital good… He gets in line, probably on the basis of how quickly he can pay off the loan… And the debt therefore is used to expand productive power.

    Some of these NGO’s and lefty outfits doing third world micro-loans…… I hate to say it… are probably closer to that model than our freaking banks. Who are focused on simply creating money, pocketing that as profit (both principle and interest) when they get paid back, and doing that to the extent that they can get away with it.

    So while the germ is planted to destroy hard money from the start with fractional reserve…………. while that is planted right from the getgo…. in practice the cartelisation might take decades.

    However right from day one the productive nature of turning savings into wealth-creating temporary-debt is utterly subverted. Subverted further with the inevitable waves of horrendous asset appreciation… and its just inconceivable that anything short of a phase-out, then total prohibition, will stop this cycle from kicking in.

    The tipping point in this case begins right at the start of the process. The worm grows up with the apple tree and migrates to all the fruit.

    Perhaps on a different planet where the brains of the ruling species were wired differently and they had not this fascination with fractional reserve… perhaps the prohibition wouldn’t be all that necessary. And on this planet anarcho-capitalism was hard-wired into the genes and there was not the knowledge of government… Perhaps on that planet merely full-disclosure would be sufficient.

    But I doubt it since as soon as you have fractional reserve you have the cartelisation-momentum building and getting so big that it will swallow all things.

    Even all the above doesn’t fully show the impracticality of getting worried about this theoretical anarcho-capitalist proposal of hoping that fraud banking will lead to a positive outcome. We still have to worry about the transition. And no sound transition, forsaking all booms and busts, could be had without at first re-introducing a small but growing reserve-asset-ratio. Such a notion is simply untenable. No-one alive could give me a credible notion of how this could be done.

    And why worry about all this fuss in the first place? The Americans have 70,000 pages of regulations according to JC. And what I want to do is reduce that to a small booklet. So why are people getting dirty about the booklet?

    Its just crazy-talk.

    The other thing that comes up is that the courts ought to judge it all. It ought to be judged by the common law. They site a common-law decision that allowed fractional reserve and didn’t hold the banks liable for non-payment.

    But this was the bloody bleeding house of lords???? An interested party and hardly a model of the people voluntarily submitting to the counsel of wise men without duress.

    Hayek might have had this common-law superstition on the go. Somehow equating it with free enterprise. But this is no good. The mistake I think comes with the fact that all good things came out of the common-law after the dark ages, and the Roman law really early on.

    Or you had other laws that came out of a period of no-law. Of effective war-lordism and extreme theology. The slate is wiped clean. The traders have to deal with eachother and not get into a fight lest the war-lords law takes over. So you get good law building on itself. And the good things flow from that.

    But its pure superstition to think that we leave it to the courts in 2008. The magistrates are paid by the state. The whole thing is enforced by state power. Its a make-work scheme for lawyers at the expense of the people. Its not free-enterprise. The number of cases is infinite so its really a matter of lawyers being fancy-pants and clever and making it all up as they go along. The place stinks of compulsion and leftism. And there is so much overhead to it that to submit business regulation to the common-law with 2008 as your starting point would be an absolute disaster.

    Supposing you show up at the bank and they won’t pay up?

    When do they get closed down? Do you call a policeman and if he shows up what can he do? Afterall the money that was created has dissapeared? What about the executives earning counterfeiting wages for the many years prior? Are they liable? Or do they merely do a runner and start another bank?

    What about THEIR creditors? Do THEIR creditors have to pay up? And we now see that if so…… this is contrary to the principle of equality before the law that their creditors must pay but their debtors won’t get the money. If neither the creditors or debtors need to pay up the economy will implode since the money has dissapeared.

    Are all these matters to be decided in court? If so how will you contest the matter with all your cash gone? You see it will be ALL!!!!your cash gone as well. Since under hard money you only give them your gold/silver/oil-backed-notes/Platinum on-call if you absolutely need access to it. There is very little interest involved under hard money. And you would either get superior interest in a term loan or you would have the cash in your house or buried somewhere. You don’t need banks to maintain the value of your money. So you only deposit on-call money with them that you truly need to get by. Not to be left high and dry.

    So this idea of leaving it to the courts… starting point 2008 is simply a way of locking in unproductive rich slobs. And what is needed is not common law but natural law. Using the older common law as a guide sure. But common law is no way to regulate business.

  8. so now even poor CATO is out of favour
    or maybe you should just adjust your thinking

  9. No Cato is not out of favour. He, CL and Edwards are still in my good books. But this monetary business. It takes some looking into. Its not hard but before you can learn anything 10 people have obsessively sent you astray.

    Edwards sent me a very good article he wrote for quadrant. He’s been reading a lot of books that young fellow. Going to ruin his eyes.

    People should set out to RESOLVE their questions on monetary-economics. They ought to ask questions if they don’t understand about it.

    Cato’s thought things through a bit. But this paper-currencies thing really cannot work. It will be smart cards trading stored commodities.

    We might be able to take the commodities off the trading floor and use them as electronic money instead if we get rid of this fractional reserve. Trades can be done on the instant and without fractional reserve the speculator is far more of a price stabiliser as the theory attests, but the practice doesn’t always. So its not a question of bidding up some one metal sky-high necessarily. Getting rid of fractional reserve as a total prohibition, means that portability and divisibility are less crucial when it comes to money and a single barrel of liquified-coal could change hands ten times in a week without anyone thinking he needed to take delivery.

  10. “Jason Soon Says:
    September 18th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
    you dishonest turd Mel, what opportunity cost is there in having a frigging law on the books? if a terrorist is caught we use it, if not we don’t. simple.”

    Dangerous naievete.

    The idea is not to have Muslim immigrants in the first place. Killing the people the state is accusing isn’t bringing anyone back. Very silly Jason. You are pretending that the government isn’t dangerous, aren’t by their nature criminal, and not given to runaway brutality once they start.

  11. so this was an injustice was it Graeme?

    what are you? a soft cock leftist?

  12. GMB – soft on crime.

    who would’ve thought it?

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: