Posted by: graemebird | October 30, 2008

Nuclear Power And The Best Way To Get It.

  1. Comment from: Graeme Bird October 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm 

    Whenever it comes to nuclear power another enquiry is launched and the issue goes away. This is a mistake. The idea is simply to scope out a thousand sites where people could potentially build a nuclear power plant. Square it with the State and Local government that these potential places are fine for nuclear power if someone is willing to buy the real estate for that purpose and then put in place the 50 year tax exemption for company and individual revenues earned at these places. Also we can have the uranium royalties-free for 50 years if used up in these sites.

    Why another enquiry? Its just going to be more lies associated with it? This is an emergency. And we cannot wait for the ten years of red tape that these things typically take. Without the red tape this is the cheapest form of electricity. It can crowd out coal-electricity so the coal can be liquified. The coal can be liquified using nuclear heat generation and the off-peak electricity generation of hydrogen via hydrolysis.

    This will inspire great careers for a whole new generation of science graduates. You’ve got the plasma chemistry and the plasma physics that go into this. You’ve got the ability to turn municipal waste and any waste plant material into high-grade fuel. This will require enourmous development in technology to be able to manipulate these plasmas at temperatures well over 1200 degrees centigrade. To be able to separate all the impurities and refine them for commercial use. With the tax exemptions we can get to a place of being the lowest cost producer of high-grade liquid fuel. We can make the Middle East look like yesterdays news in terms of energy production. And the thing is we are in a high-energy era that will create enourmous pain until such time as nuclear crowds out coal electricity and coal goes to liquids. And once we are in that position we are back in a cheap energy environment. Access to cheap energy ought to be considered a human right.

  2. Comment from: Graeme Bird October 31st, 2008 at 9:18 am 

    “(1) How much fuel is there realistically and how long will it last?”

    There is heaps of Uranium and its likely to last tens of thousands of years. Its the most abundant of our energy resources with that sort of heat flux density. Far more abundant then hydrocarbons. And it can make our hydrocarbons go a lot further. Uranium is about as plentiful as Tin or Magnesium.

    “(2) What’s the TOTAL ROI for a plant’s life cycle?”

    That would depend on your competition policy with regards to electricity. And your tax policy. It also depends on your litigation. Because the main cost of nuclear electricity is not the fuel. Its the IMPLIED INTEREST ON THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Whereas a good nuclear power plant only costs three years to commission from scratch it is a common saying that nothing happens in ten years in the nuclear world. But this is only because of the modern contempt for property rights. We have to scope things out in advance to avoid any delays. Because its the nature of finance that the difference in the implied interest cost when you have 3 years before you are earning money and 10 years when you are earning money is a big difference.

    The internal rate of return won’t be all that high if we plan for massive overcapacity. Because its the level of capital investment in any industry that brings the prices down. Profitability across industries tends towards equalisation just so long as capital investment is able to accumulate to where the higher than normal profits go. Hence it is not in our interests to get the government doing this. Rather it is in our interests to set up a very long-run tax exemption for this power generation and make sure there are no barriers to entry and plenty of potential sites where all legal problems are done and dusted in advance. That way many plants will be built and the electricity price will be low because of competition and overcapacity. So it need not cost the taxpayer even one cent.

    Put it like this. We don’t want to sell our wharves or current power generation to the Chinese communists. Because they are strategic resources and that would give a foreign power both pricing and strategic leverage over us. But if it is determined in advance that private investors are going to create a massive overcapacity of wharves all along the coast the sheer capacity and numbers of wharves we wind up with means that wharves cease to be a strategic asset that some coterie gan gain undue leverage on the rest of us with. It ceases to be a situation where a wharfies union (for example) can make enourmous gains at the expense of the public at large.

    It is this same thinking that ought be applied here.

    Now as to the useful life of the plant. All capital goods are things that are used up in production. But in the case of fixed durable goods the using up is sort of transferred to maintenance costs. A well thought out plant ought to be able to last as long as you want to make it last. You just update some parts of it a bit at a time and replace other parts of it a bit at a time. Generally speaking when people make estimates of the useful life of a plant though they would estimate a nuclear plant as lasting twice as long as a solar plant or a windfarm. But in principle the nuclear plant ought to be able to last indefinitely.

    Chernobyl is still going. Actually there were parts of it that never shut down at all.

    Comment from: Graeme Bird October 31st, 2008 at 9:26 am 

    “Not sure what point you’re trying to make with the links gavin. A quick read suggests they agree that thorium may be a safer alternative but that there are still technical issues.”

    Its pretty hard to determine that something is SAFER then something else that is already perfectly safe. The record of the nuclear industry speaks for itself. It is the safest, cleanest, cheapest form of electricity production yet invented. Thorium is just another fuel added to the already hyper-abundant uranium.

    If there are still technical issues they are not issues we need to worry about. We just set it up as a no-lose situation for us and let the investors worry all they want.



  1. Good article on the looming Marxist takeover.

    By the way I think that McCain will probably win.

  2. Its Obama and his crowd. See how far things have fallen. They are actually contemplating putting a Marxist in the white house. You can put him in the white-house but how are you going to get him through airport security.

    Some of the idiot-conservative side of politics are acting like its as safe as if the constitution party held the majority in the house and the Senate and had appointed all the judges. I agree that if that was the case an Obama Presidency might not be a problem.

    Good old Sarkozy tuned up Obama on his attitude towards dealing with the Iranians. Sarkozy’s a real champion. He is almost the anti-Chiraq. He talks a little in Frenchie lefty sounding platitudes. But he’s basically a Thatcherite. Thats where his head is at.

  3. You have no idea what you are talking about. Read the article. Got to school fool. Obama just uses the phrase “middle class” in line with the Alinsky handbook.

  4. Anyway. The good news is that McCain ought to win. Although the vote should be so close that it might come down to third party leakage.

  5. No you are lying. And you are a commie. Why do people trust you any more? Why do they assume that you have even one bone in your body in favour of liberty?

    Ok then. If you are so sure its my 50 against your 200.

    This commie will not win except for three party leakage.

    My 50 against your 200.

    Why do you lie about everything?

  6. Why just talk nonsense and say that he’s like some sort of moderate? He’s a commie. Why lie about it?

  7. Fucking hell man. We know his background. And you are just going to lie about it and hope he gets the top spot?

    Go home you traitor.

    Look at you. You have come out against liberty in every possible way that counted. CO2-bedwetting. Against sound money. In favour of the bailout. Against Ron Paul. All the way down the line.

  8. erm you hysterical fat chook where did I endorse Obama? all i said was I thought he was going to win.

    if you predict an Ice Age do you want an Ice age, you low IQ twit?

  9. You are relentlessly rooting for Obama like he’s yo Mumma.

  10. Why are you predicting a win in the first fucking place? He’s only got a 4%, people are worried, and they are likely to swing against a fellow whose policies will definitely make things worse.

  11. You are actively supporting this fellow. You pretty much always have. Against Ron Paul and for Adolph Barrack Hussein Obama. Who you going to be in favour of next? Who against? Everything you say you say with Bahnisch and Merkel looking over your shoulder.

  12. Okay Z. You got it. I’ll go my 50 against your 200 as you suggest. Except for one thing. You have to acknowledge that though I’m taking the bet I’m thinking that there is a pretty good chance that third party leakage will push Obama over the line.

    But still the odds are good enough for that bet.

  13. Ok Graeme. If he’s willing, are you happy to use Cato as an escrow?

  14. Sure. Its a good bet. I think you’ll win actually. But I think you’ll win on third party leakage alone. So while I think you will win the odds are good enough for me to take it.

    If there was an objective way of allowing for third party leakage I’d go even money. But there isn’t and I’m broke so the odds are pretty fair.

  15. Dude. Cato is a good arbiter and judge. But does this mean I have to seek him out an deliver the cash by the end of the weekend?

    It aint like there is much time left in it. Get hold of him somehow. I expect my 200 even if I don’t manage to track Cato down in time.

  16. Do you have PayPal? We could just wire the money.

  17. Cato’s wired up to receive paypal? Why do you always have to make these things difficult? Are you trying to slip out of the bet should I win?

  18. Heh, it’s a matter of trust. How do I know you’ll cough up?

  19. Ok thats fine then. If we don’t make it to Cato in time we still have to pay up. A matter of trust as you say. The last time I won a bet with a left-winger he wouldn’t pay up. And I almost got fired over it with implications that roll along to this day. Actually he’s come good now and is a fine fellow. Totally changed from how he was just four years ago. But the rotter still hasn’t come good with the 50AUD from the last Presidential election.

  20. No-ones worried about me paying up on my 50. Its your 200 we have to worry about. Because leftists are thieves IN PRINCIPLE and its hard to get them to pay up on a bet.

  21. Not that simple turkey. You don’t exactly have a stellar record with bets – the last fiasco springs to mind. I, on the other hand, paid up my $100 as required in the Al Gore / Malaria bet, so I have an established record of trustworthiness.

    I haven’t been able to get in touch with Cato, so I propose that Jason acts as the escrow (if he’s willing). We outsource adjudication to InTrade – there is an equivalent election contract there and I’m happy to settle the bet in the same manner as that contract.

  22. Just pay up if you lose you fucking cunt?

    I’m sick of this. You and Jason trying to pull the leftist projection when it was always you that was acting shifty. Even Kiwibird II fell for the pantomime that the two of you put on that time.

    Sort it out you fucking idiot. Are you going to pay up if you lose???? I aint going into no one-sided bet where the leftist pockets the money if he wins and won’t pay up if he loses.

    Leftists are thieves. And I can see now that you are setting it up so you don’t have to lose money either way.

  23. You fucking unbelievable shifty cunt. This is precisely the act that you and Jason put on last time.

    But its not even plausible this time. Since my liability is only 50 bucks no-ones going to believe your ludicrous act this time around.

  24. Are you suggesting Jason might pocket your money?

    If we can’t reach Cato in time, who else would you accept as escrow?

  25. He’s not to be trusted. Now are you going to pay up if you lose. I can get into town on Monday. You suggested Cato. What is the story? Are you claiming you won’t pay up?

    I aint interested in these leftist bets where the leftist isn’t going to pay up.

  26. Jason’s not going to steal your cash, turkey. Agree with his politics or not he’s an honest man.

    Of course I’ll pay, but to make sure you will we need an escrow. I’ve emailed Cato, he may or may not get back to us in time. Since there’s only a few days to go, we need a fallback plan.

    How about JC? Mark Hill? Adrien? Fatfingers? Humphreys? Edney? Terje? All would be fine by me.

  27. The funny thing is that Graeme trusts me by not requiring up-front payments but does not trust Jason as escrow.

    Clearly this is an attempt to avoid paying the money up-front as he has no intention of paying.

  28. I don’t trust you at all. I want to make sure that the money is in someones hands and not yours. What I want YOU TO DO is guarantee that you’ll pay up no matter what.

    Because you are a shifty bastard who will look for a loophole not to pay up.

    And since my end is only $50 your shiftiness will be recognised this time and people will in retrospect understand that it is you that wimped out of the last bet you suggested. And in fact only came up with the idea of a bet after you had been comprehensively whipped in the argument.

    There’s a lot of that going around now. Leftists having no evidence but putting about a phony bet instead.

  29. There’s nothing wrong with Cato. And there is nothing wrong with the loser handing the money over straight.


    Because the last time you wimped out of the bet and then played the leftist-projection.

  30. Clearly you are the problem here. I am happy with the odds. Can handle a $50 loss. And just want to know I’ve got a two-sided bet and not the usual leftist deal.

    You know Barnes sent me the money. When the bet fell through I sent it back and even laid out a bit of sneaky interest without telling him.

    I can see right now you are trying to get away with a heads-I-win Tails-you-lose scenario.

  31. You clown. The bet isn’t on unless the money is with the escrow prior to Nov 4th.

    Now, in the event that Cato can’t or won’t be the escrow, can you nominate a backup?

  32. Right. So you won’t pay up and so I don’t have to pay up unless we get to Cato.

    Fucking fine. At last. Finally its not a one-way bet.

    Which means of course that you’ll see to it that one of us won’t get the money to Cato. Or else you wouldn’t have given me the fucking runaround in the first place.

  33. Name a backup escrow turkey – let’s ensure the bet goes ahead this time.

  34. No backup.

    If you don’t want it to go ahead its not going ahead. So stop trying on the leftist reversal.

  35. I’m not frightened of loosing 50 bucks you brainless dishonest gook. The fucking leftist-reversal all over. If you cannot say that this idiot Z is trying to set up a one-sided bet like he tried on last time, then you are more stupid than I took you for. Already he has confirmed that he won’t pay up if I win. So the bets off unless there is some convenient way to deliver the money.

  36. This is precisely the same thing that JohnZ did last time. Proposed a bet, promptly wimped out of if, and then the lot of you idiots got round and pretended it was me that wimped out of it.

    This is what stolen-money financing does to people. Turns them all into relentless liars.

  37. chicken


  38. Let me get this right Bird;


    Okay. got it.


  39. Still no word from cato. If you want this bet to go ahead you’d better nominate a backup escrow.


  40. Just more idiocy from JC. Whose turned into a compulsive liar.

    Lets get this straight JC. JohnZ has confirmed THAT HE WILL NOT PAY UP IF HE LOSES. Hence the bet is off until he sorts himself out.

    Are you in fact too fucking stupid to understand that JC ?

  41. I’m not convinced you’re good for the $50. But if I get confirmation from the escrow that you’ve deposited the fifty or that they’ve extended you a line of credit by MONDAY EVENING, I guarantee that I’ll pay up in the event of a McCain victory.

    Cato is the preferred choice but is off the air. I’ve nominated nearly 10 acceptable backup escrows. Pick one, open a line of credit/deposit the $50 and we’ll be good to go.

  42. Its Cato or nothing. It you don’t want a two-way bet quit the fakery.

  43. No lying on my site Z. If you don’t want a two-way bet then say so. The bet is not on until you promise to pay up if I win. The only time I can make it into town is tomorrow morning. Thats an inconvenience at that. Thats the last chance if you are demanding 50 up front. So if you know where Cato will be tomorrow then you either have to promise to pay up or you cannot have the bet. Its pretty clear that you never wanted a two-way bet in the first place.

  44. Are you going to pay up if you lose?

    YES OR NO?

    You are a left-winger. The last lefty to pay up on a bet was Ehrlich. Its got to be a real bet. You know. The two-way type. The kind where you have to pay up if you lose.

  45. There’s not much point posting here turkey – you wipe everything. Further correspondence will be posted at Catallaxy.

    The summary:
    – I’m happy to use any Catallaxy regular as escrow
    – If they tell me you’ve either paid the deposit or have a line of credit then I guarantee that I’ll pay up.

  46. Well whose volunteering? And where will they be tommorrow? This is a major inconvenience. And notice that I have to pay my 50 up front. Whereas you expect to not have to pay your $200.

    So clearly you didn’t want a bet in the first place. I admit the odds are on your side. Because I expect a great deal of third party leakage from the McCain camp.

    Its just not worth it if you are determined to put me through all this trouble. Yet you don’t want to hand over the cash yourself. I don’t live in the city anymore. This is all a big hassle. What with the lying and the childish comments I don’t seem to get any analysis of my threads anymore. Its all about this bogus bet that you never wanted to make in the first place.

  47. How you going with that thesis that you had caught Drudge lying?

    You didn’t want to pay up on that bet either.

  48. Will you pay up if you lose?


    YES OR NO!!!

  49. coward




  50. No, not true. I’m sure z would pay his bet. in fact I would pretty much bet my life on the fact he would do so.


    Fact is that you said Obama will lose but you still give him and 80% of winning the election.


    Isn’t that silly?


  51. Bird
    you idiot, you don’t need to track down anyone in the city. haven’t you heard of paypal or electronic banking?

  52. Man you are just making it up off the cuff. Who has paypal? Who is he suggesting? I can make a transfer tomorrow. Thats no real problem. But the fact is Z doesn’t want to make the bet.

  53. Look Jason. You are just going to have to live with it that JohnZ has wimped out of the bet.

    No different than the last time. You can pile on like a roomful of Stalinists if you want. But the fact is he tried to set it up as a onesided bet.

  54. Looks like you have to get out of fantasy-land Jason. I just went to my email and the fact is there is no bank account number there. No email from Cato. So what is all this fantasy-talk about?

    “Jason Soon Says:
    November 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
    Bird is so medieval he thinks he has to go down to the CBD, track down Cato and physically hand over the money for the bet to proceed.”

    And that business of money being gold and silver coins is in opposition to the socialist money that you favour. Your position is against all reason. Your support for socialist money goes against all knowledge of government and understanding of economics. And you are arrogant about your ignorance here. Determined to stay arrogant and support compulsion money as if it were the most important religious belief there was.

    You have to accept that you have the ass-backwards hat on and that Z has wimped out of the bet. He has said outright he won’t pay up if he loses.

  55. I’ve seen it Z.

    If you don’t wish to bet forget about it.


    Its not a bet if you won’t pay up if you lose.

    Now are you going to pay up or not. $50 is not a lot for me to lose. But its a lot to have stolen off me. And a one-way-bet is stealing.

    Now are you going to pay up or not?

  56. This is a stupid game you are playing mate. You are acting like a ten year old. A ten year old faggot at that. This is the second time you have wimped out of a bet and pretended it was the other guy.

    But I only would stand to lose 50. So its not even credible despite your socialist cheer-squad.

    You have to promise to pay up if you lose.

    Thats what a bet is.

  57. Fucking hell. Aren’t we dealing with such idiot-children here?

    If you don’t want to make a bet call it off. I keep checking for a bank account of some third party. Its not there. Clearly if you make a bet you cannot promise not to pay if you lose. Which is what you have done.

    That may be a leftists version of a bet. But its not a real bet.

  58. These believers in ponzi-money are also believers in ponzi-bets. Only bets where you don’t have to pay up if you lose.

  59. “Graeme you dopey chook, last time we tried to bet I transferred the money to cato’s account, and you wasted our time by failing to do the same.”

    No no. Thats not what happened. What happened is you sussed it out that there was no possible way I could win the bet and be paid. Just the same as this time. Barnes sent his money to me. But you wore everyone down because you didn’t want to pay up. You didn’t want to come up with any evidence that Matt Drudge had lied. And yet that was what you were betting about.

    Now you refuse to pay up. You are point blank refusing to pay up.

    Its not a bet unless you intend to pay up if you lose.

  60. piss or get off the pot Graeme. email Cato yourself and transfer the money.



  61. You have not nominated anyone. YOU ARE LYING. There is no-one I can send this money to.

    I don’t see any account in my email. You are supposed to be Catos friend. You suggested him. Then you said he wasn’t available.


    You are a fucking juvenile idiot mate. You are a moron.

    I suspected you were never serious about the bet in the first place just like last time.

  62. I would like to volunteer to be the arbiter of the proposed bet between JohnZ and Graeme, assuming that I would be acceptable to both parties.

  63. You are in Edwards.

    Fucking hell man. Have you seen the idiocy I’ve had to put up with just to have JohnZ piss or get off the pot?

    And how is Jason Soons form hey? Twisting matters in the pretense that its ZED that isn’t wimping out of it.

    Right ZED. We have an honest broker volunteer. Now are you in or not?

  64. What on earth is this idiocy about a charity bet all about? Look what I’ve had to put up with these idiots? Like Z simply doesn’t want to pay up so he invents a new scam.

    Z you dirty little faggot. Are you in or not?

  65. Where did this preposterous idea of a charity bet come from Jason?

    We are dealing with idiots here.

  66. Edwards you have my email right?

    Send me your bank details. But don’t expect Z to transfer the cash. He’s been angling for a onesided bet all this time. This charity idiocy being just one more example of it.

  67. Lets make this very clear. It is Zed who Welched on the bet. He refused to pay up in advance JUST LIKE THIS TIME. Though to this day he had no evidence that Matt Drudge had lied.

    He’s a bet-welcher. So we don’t expect him to transfer money to Steve Edneys account at all. The gentleman is such a pathetic little faggot. Look what it has taken just to tee up a bet.



    “JC. Says:
    November 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
    Yea but Bird isn’t the only one walking away from a bet. His twin has also walked away.”

    I haven’t been able to get him to TAKE the bet!!!! Do you understand that you stupid lying cunt?

    What is wrong with you man? You are acting like you have Alzheimers. If this little faggot refuses to pay if he loses obviously it is HIM that refuses to take the bet. Or did you not get that far in school.

    Everyone is waiting to see if Z is capable of finding another excuse to run away from the bet just like last time.

    You’re are an idiot Cambria.

    A dropkick.

    A fucking fool.

  69. “
    “Graeme ….last time we tried to bet I transferred the money to cato’s account, and you wasted our time by failing to do the same”

    Thats not what happened. What happened is you made it very clear that under no circumstances were you going to pay up. And you haven’t backed down on your accusation against Drudge to this day.

    So its just the same as this time. You want to make a bet. But you don’t want to pay up if you lose. And this despite that fact that both of us think the odds are with you???????

  70. Edwards is fine by me as the escrow, I’m happy to transfer the $200 immediately. If I do a bank deposit now it will clear by tomorrow morning which is prior to Nov 4th in the States. PayPal will clear immediately.

    Does anyone have Edward’s email so we can get this process started?

    And Graeme, you’d better be serious about this bet as I don’t want you wasting our time by not transferring your share.

  71. Ha Ha. Looks like you are out of excuses. You ought to post your email so that Edwards can get hold of you.

    Hey Edwards. You’ve got my email. Post me your bank details.

    I’m ready to roll as soon as you email me your bank details.

  72. “Mark Hill Says:
    November 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 am
    Edwards backs the deal and Graeme squibs.”

    Now there’s a retard for you!!!!! JohnZ welched out of the last one since he refused to pay up under any circumstances. Its pretty hard to see how he can back away from this one. Though good lord he did try hard.

    Only Edwards can allow him to back out now.

  73. oops i meant to write graeme what’s your take on the congestion charge issue

  74. You guys will not be emphasising the importance of getting rid of excise taxes, the carbon cap-and-kill and anything else that gets in the way of driving. So you take a good idea and make it an attack on the motorist.

    If congestion tax is going to pay for all the roads everything else has to go. The gasoline tax. Barriers to liquified-coal and nuclear. The whole lot. Otherwise its a malicious attempt to destroy truck-drivers and the economy and to hurt motorists more generally.

    The congestion tax has to be raised city-wide. But the revenues may be distributed locally if the locals are best able to give rates relief to business affected. You cannot have the London system which is just a disgrace. You cannot have a system where the congestion tax goes to fund the rail.

    You see you’ve got to be on the lookout for greenie extramism and general thieving.

    But the congestion tax is absolutely necessary given all those caveats. Since how can you otherwise have rational city layout without zoning?

    We don’t even know whether our big cities are viable or not. To me it would probably be better to have bursts of high-rise surrounded by countryside, and semi-rural living, and each burst maybe only 40 000 people or so. But we don’t know for sure whether these big cities are a function of fractional reserve land inflation combined with non-user-pays infrastructure. Fractional reserve directs funds to where the land is likely to rise in price. So it could be whats pushing this move to bigger cities.

    Congestion taxes ought to pay for ALL the road infrastructure. And not leave over anything to subsidise the rail. These assclowns keep wanting to funnel all-of-state funding into the big city. So now we are up at 4 million. We can never know that these big cities constitute free enterprise and I’m pretty sure that they don’t.

    With sound money, no height restrictions, no zoning, and nothing but congestion tax we would likely have a move towards more aesthetically beautiful living spaces. And a move towards greater logistical viability.

    But all efforts must be made for this to not just become more thieving.

  75. Graeme – is your email still the “@mac” one?

  76. Bird, you goon, what barriers are there to liquefied coal, you fucking idiot. No one is stopping you from liquifying any coal other than the fact that no one wants to buy that crap.

    This is not just another example of how stupid you have become the other one is the silly bet you took.

    Why on earth would you take that bet when sporting bet had McCain as a 4:1 one shot.

    No wonder you live in a parallel Martian universe.

  77. I got your email Edwards.

    Cambria you should learn more and talk less you stupid wog. What do you think a cap-and-kill system is? Thats a barrier to liquifying coal. Or the existence of this global warming fraud. That too is a constant threat to investment.

    Or what about the restrictions on nuclear production? These are a dual barrier to liquified-coal. Since nuclear can crowd out coal-electricity and nuclear heat can be used for the liquification process. On top of that off-peak nuclear electricity can be used for the hydrogen.

    Don’t assume you know anything fool.

    You are ignorant. You know nothing.

  78. “Why on earth would you take that bet when sporting bet had McCain as a 4:1 one shot”

    You’ve lost the plot you dumb guinea. My own odds are four-to-one.

  79. chop chop Graeme.

    ZED has fulfilled his end of the bargain. you will be exposed as a coward now if you don’t meet your end

    JohnZ Says:
    November 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm e
    Confirming that I’ve transferred $200 to Steve’s account.
    It should clear by tomorrow and Steve can confirm that I’ve covered my liabilities.
    The only terms I have are:
    – Graeme must also have transferred the money by tomorrow morning, unless Steve is willing to cover his liabilities.
    – The bet is settled when both parties agree, or if there is a delay in announcing the result we settle according to the equivalent InTrade election contract.
    Thanks for helping out Steve, we’ve done all we can. Let’s hope Graeme doesn’t welch on us now, like he did last time.

  80. Just attempt to THINK before you start typing Cambria you moron. You keep typing cheques that your brain cannot cash.

    Imagine you wanted to buy farmland out at Picton to put up a nuclear power station with a coal liquification plant (also using nuclear heat) besides it.

    You don’t think there would be red tape involved with that? They would nail you on zoning for starters.

  81. Its late in the day for me to find a bankwest. I’ll find it first thing in the morning and put the 50USD in in cash.

  82. How is a cap and trade only a barrier to liquid coal, you blabbering dope. How is it a barrier when all the rest are priced under the cap too, you idiot.

    Seriously, you’re too stupid to even take out membership with One nation.

  83. err graeme do you know how banking works?

    you can do it through your own bank

  84. Whats this “ONLY” business you moron. I said you ought to THINK before you TYPE you fucking moron. Its not ONLY a barrier to liquified-coal. But its a barrier to liquified-coal as you yourself recognize you stupid dim bulb.

  85. “err graeme do you know how banking works?”

    You never used to be able to. I’ll give it a try.

  86. yeah you don’t have to find a bankwest, you should be able to write a cheque addressed to Edwards and give it to your bank and tell them to transfer it,

    they’re all in collusion with each other remember?

  87. Fucking hell. Cambria is running with a string of idiocy, one post after another. Its like he’s barely scratched the surface when it comes to withdrawals from his personal idiot-bank.

  88. what would you do if you met Cmabria now Graeme? Give him a good talking to?

  89. You remember when I showed up? He was hyper-reasonable and getting flak from idiots like Chris Shiel, Fyodor, Nabakov et al. He was copping it from all sides. But he was faultlessly reasonable. Now he’s just being a jerk bigtime. He shoots off at the mouth. Never thinks. He got told off by Robert Higgs.

    The fellow has just got to take two step backwards and start looking at methodology, and not coming to pre-emptive conclusions.

  90. graeme
    on the bet, don’t you have Internet banking?

    This is what JohnZ emailed me:

    See if he has internet banking and make sure he doesn’t write a cheque – it will take far too long to clear. Even if he does direct deposit it will take until Wednesday morning to clear. If he can send it now it should ensure the money is clear by tomorrow morning.

  91. No I’ll just go to a branch. Look at this fellow. Trying to welch out of it with every alternate step.

  92. Hi Graeme,

    Just letting you know that JohnZ’s $200 has arrived in my account. Over to you.

  93. Give me three hours.

  94. Remember Graeme, it needs to be deposited today and to have cleared by tomorrow…

  95. Don’t worry. I’m onto it.

  96. Graeme
    have you deposited the money?

  97. btw graeme the rba has cut rates again
    more ponzi money

  98. This is to announce that the $50 from Graeme has arrived in the account. I’m off to the Bahamas! (just kidding, Birdie)

  99. Yes, the RBA rate cut will be excellent for Graeme’s financial situation. Perhaps another bet is in order?

  100. Good stuff Graeme. I hereby withdraw my comments about you being chicken. I never thought you’d be up to it but you’ve pleasantly surprised me.

  101. Thats just ridiculous Jason. Its like you fall for your own propaganda in a fit of tribalism. What I had to put up with last time. The thread of doom treatment. Over a BET. And never any evidence has emerged that Drudge was lying or that Zed would in any circumstance have paid up for that one.

  102. “btw graeme the rba has cut rates again
    more ponzi money”

    Yeah its pretty atrocious since its stealing and handing money out to the banks. Since they are the only ones who get the wholesale rate.

    Much better would be a cash injection and a setting of the RAR such that the cash injection doesn’t cause money supply to overshoot.

    Better still you want to increase demand while REDUCING the ponzi-money. Which implies both pretty big cash injections and pretty quick rises in the reserve asset ratio.

    They ought never subsidise the banks. If we were under the American Constitution this ought to be interpreted as a violation of our EQUAL PROTECTION. That is to say everyone thats not a bank. All their rights are violated.

    Its just appalling that we have decided to subsidise these people. It ruins our investment markets.

    We saw that principle with the guarantee didn’t we? The general principle that a guarantee warps the financial industry.

  103. I just cannot see where this anti-Palin bigotry is coming from. I guess she is not the candidate for house-niggers. I cannot find a solid argument for it at Catallaxy. Her not being Reagan is no valid analysis. Who stands up to that comparison? Not many people. And she is more experienced then Reagan was at her age.

  104. “JC. Says:
    November 4th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
    I really don’t think the issue of experience comes into it all that much, Cl.
    A dude either has it or doesn’t. there’s no job that will offer the experience necessary. Sure the governor’s job helps but Lincoln didn’t get the job by being a governor. every single one of these guys had to grow in the job or they failed.”

    This is all dumb dumb talk. Palin is the experienced candidate. She has more of most of the relevant experience than all other three candidates put together. She is the quality candidate here. Whats wrong with you people. You’ve gone mad.

  105. hey Graeme
    are you calling Steve Edwards a house nigger?

    Steve Edwards Says:
    November 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm e
    Speaking of the election – anyone who is interested in minimising the amount of future damage to the United States (that’s MINIMISING, not reversing) is faced with a no-brainer – McCain is a dangerous fool who is completely in bed with Flat Earth lunatics.

    No thanks. I’d rather take my chances with the leftist Messiah, as authoritarian as he may be. At the very least it might force conservatives to give up on military fascism for four years, and get them to think real hard about how they got to this predicament.

    The idea of a disastrous McCain-Palin administration bringing complete discredit on the federal government DOES appeal though. But who knows how much physical damage will be done before we get to that point

  106. He’s not perfect. And he’s somehow bought into this anti-Palin idiocy. If he looked into a bit closer he would realise otherwise. Hiding behind an infrequent Edwards lapse in judgement is not a valid cognitive strategy.

    There are electricity blackouts in the works in the US. Its a pre-South Africa sort of deal. We are stretched here also. People don’t realise it. Maybe Costa is one of the few that likely knows this. So when the brownouts come he wants to be able to say he did what he could.

    But America is in trouble energy-wise. Thanks to 35 years of effort the left has finally got America in a hard to retrieve energy situation. Palin is the only one out of the four who is even a little bit sound on energy.

    By the way the looming energy crisis is a much worse thing then these bank troubles. In fact the shit hitting the fan with the financial side of thing managed to stave off the energy problems.

    Obama and Biden are set to actively destroy the American energy system.

  107. “JC. Says:
    November 4th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
    Yea Cl and i don’t think that if he were the gov. of Mass before he was elected to the presidency it would have changed a thing.
    one has to grow in that job and use their wits as the decisions need to be made.
    My sense is that Obama is a decent and thoughtful man if a little inexperienced. ……”

    Where is this stupidity coming from? I’ve got infinitely more experience than Obama. I’ve run a small business and worked for a living. What has he done? Public speaking alone.

    Experience does matter. And Obama has none except those related to actually GETTING the votes. Not doing the job. Getting the votes. Its EXTRAORDINARY AND UNPRECEDENTED his lack of experience. And it does matter.

  108. What are they in trouble about?

  109. Its like the zombies dawn of the dead. Palins the only one with the real world experience. its a dead field really. McCain has the insider experience as does Biden. But not the real world stuff.

  110. energy wise, that is…

  111. They are in incredible trouble economically/energy wise.

  112. Could you make a specific prediction?

  113. I respectfully disagree with Graeme about the merits of Palin. She’s not a particularly intelligent woman at all, and I can’t understand why people are taken by her. Has she had any coherant thoughts about any issue you can name? As for McCain – has there ever been a more despicable enemy of free speech in the history of the Senate? McCain is a dishonest scumbag (and possibly a Hanoi Manchurian Candidate – which I’d like to elaborate on another time) who built an entire career out of stabbing conservatives in the back. I see no reason to favour McCain/Palin for these reasons.

    On the other hand, the fawning over Obama is completely unwarranted. Obama is a totalitarian, has spent his entire life mixing and working with totalitarians, espouses a collectivist ideology, and has created a cult of personality around him that could spin dangerously out of control. Pro-Obama public officials have shown that they are willing to break the law in order to hound his political opponents.

    However, the future dynamic of US politics will either be a four-year lame duck McCain administration, betraying conservatives – who won’t protest because “their man” is in the White House – and checked by leftists at every corner, or an Obama administration with conservatives and libertarians in vitriolic opposition to everything he does. I think the second dynamic is preferable to the first.

  114. Graeme should check out this blog –

    Not a phony “Pro-Obama conservative” who fawns and writes love-poems to the object of his fantasies (like Andrew Sullivan, the phony conservative who shills for Obama), but who nevertheless believes that “Worse is Better” for this election cycle.

  115. “Has she had any coherant thoughts about any issue you can name?”

    Yeah she’s good on pretty much everything and particularly good on energy. She got off to a very bad start.

    You guys think that Katie Couric is just some dumb broad. But she is a sly evil bitch. A succubis. And evil commie-whore that used to be so cute that you would not have been able to live with yourself if you had slapped her face and made her cry like she deserves.

    She sussed it out that Palin was the real deal. And that it would be hard for her to answer questions on matters where her instincts went against McCain.

    So thats where her apparent bad showing is coming from. Having to fall in with McCain. I can accept this as an opportunity for someone to back a third party. But not to actively back Obama.

    Rethink you history here:

    “….or an Obama administration with conservatives and libertarians in vitriolic opposition to everything he does. I think the second dynamic is preferable to the first.”

    Dude you are thinking about the good things that happened in 1994 under Gingrich. But the Republicans have been turned to whores in the interim. You and I may not be unqualified supporters of Gingrich but it must be understood that 1994 was twenty years of demonic work in the making. From when Gingrich got behind Reagan for President and a lot of effort right up until then. What happened in 1994 was pretty unprecedented Its not something you can rely on. It didn’t just happen as some sort of automatic electoral dynamics.

    Its a good time to vote for Chuck Baldwin. But you can never actually ask for a disaster in order to get the adaptation from disaster.

    I’ve seen this idea before. Its like thinking that the Brits hardened up as a result of repeated attacks by Vikings. But you don’t invite the Vikings upriver to rape your sheilas on the idea that this will bring helpful adaption. Thats inviting collapse that sort of thinking. And there are very many things that are pushing towards collapse.

  116. “Senator John McCain has proposed the building of 45 nuclear power plants. His Vice-Presidential choice, Governor Sarah Palin, has worked vigourously toward the development of Alaskan hydrocarbon energy.

    He still is deluded by the myth of human-caused global warming. But she disbelieves this myth. Their opponents Obama and Biden offer only increased government tyranny. Obama has even promised a major role in his administration to Al gore.. We cannot afford 4 years of increased oppression.

    For the next four years, we will support Ron Paul and McCain-Palin.

    Amercia cannot wait 4 years before beginning to build the energy capacity she needs.”

    Thats says it all right there. Just from an energy-economics point of view Obama is not a luxury anyone can afford. We are all slipping towards the capital-energy vortex. France and China almost alone excepted.

  117. Think of what Ron Paul would do with defense compared to Obama.

    They would both slash defense right? But Ron Paul would do it pulling back bases and bringing people home. Not recruiting many more ground forces and letting them drop through attrition in all likelihood. Thats my bet. But he would strengthen missile defence, close the borders and maintain and increase naval and airpower supremacy.

    Obama will keep the bases and rip the guts out of the naval and air supremacy and trash missile defense. He’d keep the fat and trash the blood and bone. The opposite of Ron Paul.

    This Marxist is not to be underestimated. His coterie will lock us in for globalism in measures that will be extremely hard to reverse. Think of his appointment of judges. It will be on the basis of might is right and not originalism.

    The only thing worse then losing is winning all the time. So its good to lose the Presidency to the other side now and again. But think of what this fellow could do in four years.

    Lets see what Judge Bork has to say:

    Its not the issues that Bork is talking about so much. As his suggestion that the wrong President right now can lock in implications that will stand for 20 or 30 years.

  118. For the love of God Jason. Can you get these jihadist death-worshippers off your site. Chop chop man. This is what happens when you support a Marxist with a middle name HUSSEIN for President. The forces of death and disaster grow confident.

  119. dude Cato runs the IT side. he doesn’t wake up early far as I know.

  120. Dude. You’ve got to reform yourself. How is it that they get every technical thing wrong and STILL I have to support the anti-congestion tax crowd.

    Not one of you saw this as a reason to get rid of all these taxes and get behind nuclear/liquified-coal.

    Its like economic expansion is no longer your goal. You lose track of what it is you are after.

  121. what the heck are you talking about Graeme? I’ve always been pro-nuclear but that’s a separate issue.

  122. Its not a separate issue. Your thinking has gone haywire if you think its a seperate issue. If you want to put that sort of burden on transport you have to take away a lot of other burdens. And cheap liquid fuel is part of that.

    How can you say its a different issue?

    You are going to cripple commercial activity with that sort of thinking.

  123. hey graeme
    Obama won New Hampshire easily
    have the ‘live free or die’ people turned commie?

  124. Won the whole thing easily.

  125. Wow. Shares will fall. Gold will rise.

  126. Now Jaaon. You are not to tell idiotic lies on this blog. Particularly not racist motivated hate-speech.

    You’ve never been able to explain your hatred for Palin.. Not once. So its just leftist hate-speech to do with her being white, pro-capitalist, and fundamentally working class. Which you associate with trailer trash.

  127. For fucksakes Jason. Reagan wrote that speech. Why imply he didn’t right that speech. He wrote his first speech as Governor and his first Inauguration speech as President as well. He’s the best speech writer since Lincoln. Why imply that he didn’t write that speech. That was his standard General Electric speech.

  128. “Unless Raegan was 90 years old in 1964, he probably studied neo-classical economics instead of classical economics. ”

    Bullshit Humphreys. The new stuff doesn’t take over everywhere immediately. Reagan would have studied the Austrian/Classical superior stuff. Terje has it right. He would have at least studied an economics unpolluted by Keynesianism.

  129. so why delete my praise for mccain?

    you really have it in for patriotic soldiers don’t you?

  130. Because of your racist bigotry towards Palin. I’m not a fan of McCain. But he’s not an ignorant Marxist idiot like Obama.

  131. Hey ust wanted to give you a quick heads up and let you know a feew of the images aren’t loading properly.
    I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and both show
    the same results.

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: