Posted by: graemebird | November 29, 2008

The Conclusion Is To Sell Everything Off To Chinese Communists.

Its painful watching neoclassical dimwits at work. Because they call everything by the wrong names, advocate things that have got nothing to do with free enterprise or liberty, and then  tell everything they are for free enterprise an liberty.

Here’s Humphreys:

“In the Aus-USA FTA we agreed to increase the threshold at which FIRB review was necessary. According to the modelling, that provided one of the bigger benefits of the FTA.

There is no reason this cannot be extended to all trading partners.”

A free trade agreement is a misnomer. Free trade is a local decision. We have crony-socialist government-to-government arrangements but they are in no way free trade arrangements. They are bureaucracy-establishing schmooze-sessions that sell out our sovereignty.  

Now just in passing look again at what Humphreys is saying and let us ask ourselves a question: HAS HUMPHREYS EVER NOT!!!!!!!! FALLEN FOR A COMPUTER MODEL?????

“In the Aus-USA FTA we agreed to increase the threshold at which FIRB review was necessary. According to the modelling, that provided one of the bigger benefits of the FTA.

There is no reason this cannot be extended to all trading partners.”

All down the line Humphreys is a complete dupe when it comes to computer models. Computer modelling is a waste of time really. But its just downright dishonest if they don’t make their assumptions transparent. Humphreys is such a dummy he thinks referring to a computer model that none of us know anything about, is some sort of evidence that selling all our strategic gear to Communist China is a good thing.

Make no mistake about it. The only thing that would satisfy the neoclassical zombies who feature in this Catallaxy thread is to sell all our strategic gear to communist China. Thats what the entire argument is about. And it isn’t about anything else.

Here is the Stephen Kirchner Quote that kicks the name-calling article off. Its an exercise in pure name-calling and it isn’t anything else. Jason Soon decided to call the article ““Capital xenophobia  

 

This is a giveaway but once you know these people you don’t need a giveaway. Because the conclusion is always to sell everything off to communist china. And its got to be vital strategic assets. Or it just doesn’t do anything for these guys. 

Now lets go through this and I’ll make a few small comments. We don’t have access to the full pdf yet. And what Kirchner (a hopeless economist by the way) appears to be in accordance with standard theory BUT ONLY ASSUMING A CAPITALIST ECONOMY. It is absolutely central to these leftist neoclassicals that they interpolate conclusions from a purely capitalist scenario onto our non-capitalist relations. Hence they graft capitalist benefits onto a socialist scenario. This is the key for their ability to advocate long-term strategic sellouts in return for alleged theoretical short-run benefits.

I’m going to make a bunch of small and probably annoying comments within Kirchner’s spiel just to jog peoples thinking into what’s going on here.

“Foreign direct investment, along with foreign investment more generally, provides important economic benefits for Australia.

(this is standard economic theory under capitalism. Its not known if Kirchner has proven this under our interventionist setup in practice.)

FDI increases the domestic capital stock, results in more efficient (impossible to know what he means by EFFICIENT here. Neoclassicals have many odd ideas about EFFICIENCY) ownership of that stock, and supports long-run improvements in productivity, laying the foundations for future economic growth and rising living standards … (all standard stuff and broadly true under capitalist theoretical scenarios).

Yet, on a range of measures, Australia is underperforming in terms of FDI inflows.

 

(Now this is bloody interesting!!!! Because we seem to have trade deficits no matter what happens. We seem to have them locked in. And Kirchner reckons we are underperforming in getting FDI happening? How so? One must wait to read the rest of the article. But this is alarming unless it supports my contention that our banks throw us into trade deficit largely by borrowing off foreign banks, not for sound investment but in and idiotic and futile attempt to support their liquidity since they don’t have a reserve asset ratio. But I will suspend judgement on this matter until I see the rest of his article. The thing with Steve Kirchner is that no amount of a trade deficit is ever enough for him.

 

“The most likely explanation for this underperformance is Australia’s relatively restrictive FDI regime.”

RELATIVE TO WHAT??? I mean I’m interested. But I’m skeptical. This would seem to be a very dubious claim. That we aren’t attracting foreign direct investment and also that we have these really restrictive policies.

But I suppose when you are in a white heat to sell all our resources off to communist China the barriers are always going to be too onerous for you.

“This includes outright statutory restrictions on foreign ownership, as well as sweeping bureaucratic and ministerial discretion to reject FDI proposals based on open-ended criteria thatare inconsistent with the rule of law, increasing uncertainty for foreign investors and Australian residents selling domestic assets.”

How often is this exercised? We are really only talking about really deep pocket undertakings right? And how would this affect things on the computer models? Why would they think they know that restrictions on some of the really big resource rich investments or the infrastructural investments would so terribly reduce our economic performance? Surely this cannot be sustained. Not if you think that economic performance is a matter of big business coming out of powerful small business success.

“… concerns have been raised that state-sponsored entities may pursue political or strategic rather than purely commercial objectives.”

 

This is what its all about. Kirchner is not the least bit interested in small players being able to come here to use Australia as a new business incubator. He’s not the least bit interested in a Botswanan businessmen setting up a local base. Or in some capital goods manufacturer from Holland setting up a manufacturing plant here.

ITS ALL ABOUT FLOGGING OFF NATURAL RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURAL GOODS TO COMMUNIST CHINA.

“However, these concerns need to be put in perspective. Experience with SWFs and SOEs suggests that they are mainly motivated by commercial considerations and maximising returns on investment. To the extent that they pursue other objectives, the costs of such activity are mainly borne by the state-owned entities themselves rather than host economies.”

Well yes if you take a short-run perspective and have no notion of sovereignty whatsoever. Make it very clear. These guys fall almost comatose when you talk about extending more access to private businessmen from countries who cannot hope to get a strategic foothold here. They just get so very weary about us extending this sort of courtesy to businessmen in countries that are no strategic threat.

“Foreign-owned businesses operating in Australia are subject to Australian law. They cannot engage in behaviour that is not already available to Australian firms …”

Canberra is very sensitive to Chinas wishes. They are always attempting to pre-emptively surrender our gear to her. This is just silly talk. There is a pretense that business and politics are in no danger of influencing one the other.

“In relation to the FDI approval process, there are at least two major options for reform. The first would abolish the existing process altogether, extending full national treatment to foreign direct investment. Instead of regulating FDI at the border, the focus for policy would be on regulating foreign-owned businesses in Australia in the same manner as domestically owned firms …

If FDI is to be regulated at the border, then reform efforts should focus on further liberalising and improving the existing FDI approval process. The thresholds for review of FDI proposals should be raised to reflect recent trends in bilateral free-trade agreements.”

Don’t be fooled by this clown. He’s not wanting some character from Leichtenstein to come over here, buy a small business and sell it as a medium-sized business. He’s wanting a Chinese commie front organisation to buy up our resource economy and our infrastructure and call all the shots.

I don’t know WHY these people think like this. I only know that from bitter experience they do.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. its hard to work out whether its stupidity or malice which motivates these neoclassicals

    except in the case of HILL

    now that’s one dumbfuck

  2. “The point is Graeme you are worried about imaginary problems and strategic enemies whilst using dodgy economics.”

    No its your crowds economics that is dodgy. Its crony-communist changeling economics. Your economics is crap. There is not a great deal to be gained by freeing up airports, ports, natural resources and roads to be sold to strategic military competitors and those who might try to influence our policy and our elections.

    Economic theory DOES NOT SUPPORT the idea that there is much gains to be made in that department. Rather the gains are to be made by finding good ways to make infrastructural markets more competitive and abundantly-supplied such that they are no longer strategic resources.

    Coming from another angle we say that the gains are to be made NOT by flogging what we have off. But RATHER by sorting it out that we have people CONFIDENTLY BUILDING THE NEW STUFF.

    When we look more closely at the Kirchner article and the thief-economics consensus we will find that its all about flogging off the old stuff and nothing about developing pseudo-property-rights leading to the confident building of these goods by people and companies of middling wealth and size..

    We will find that there is no emphasis at all at making this country a SMALL BUSINESS START-UP PARADISE that people all over the world will come to take advantage of. Rather we will find that you, Jason’s, Humphreys, Sincliars and Kirchners emphasis will all be about flogging off stuff WE ALREADY HAVE to the deepest of pockets.

  3. OK. I will proceed to prove what I have said above by analysis of the comments of the culprits on the website catallaxy.

    STEVE KIRCHNER SEZ:

    If FDI is to be regulated at the border, then reform efforts should focus on further liberalising and improving the existing FDI approval process. The thresholds for review of FDI proposals should be raised to reflect recent trends in bilateral free-trade agreements.

    STEVE KIRCHNER IS BUSTED. CRONY-COMMUNIST EMPHASIS. HE’S ONLY REALLY INTERESTED IN THRESHOLDS FOR THE DEEP-POCKET BIGSHOTS. THIS IS NOT THE FOCUS OF ECONOMIC LIBERTY. ECONOMIC LIBERTY WOULD BE FOCUSED ON MAKING US THE NEW BUSINESS STARTUP CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. AND ALSO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME TO BUY A SMALL BUSINESS, EXPAND IT AND SELL IT. PEOPLE FROM ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE. BUT NO WITH THESE GUYS ITS ABOUT THRESHOLDS FOR OUR AIRPORTS, OUR AIRLINES, OUR PORTS, OUR COAL, OIL, URANIUM, IRON ORE, COPPER, DIAMONDS, GOLD, AND ALL OUR NATURAL GAS RESERVES.

    NOTE ALSO THEY ARE NOT THE LEAST BIT INTERESTED IN SMALL COUNTRIES LIKE BAHRAIN, TANZANIA, SINGAPORE, PARAGUAY, OR A PROVINCE IN JAPAN. OR THE CITY OF CHANG MAI. ITS BIG COMMIE CENTRAL THAT REALLY TURNS THESE GUYS ON. THRESHOLDS. WE MUST RAISE UP THE THRESHOLDS. WE WANT BIG VOLUME. THEY WANT BIG CORPORATE COMPANIES FROM GIANT SOCIALIST COUNTRIES. THEY WANT BIG BOYS AND DEEP POCKETS. KEEP ALL THE POLTICIANS BRIBED AND ALL THE CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED.

  4. CAMBRIA QUOTES AN ARTICLE;

    “A QANTAS bid to convince the Rudd Government to lift overall restrictions on foreign ownership appears to have foundered.

    But the airline may get concessions that will make consolidation with another airline easier.

    Sections of a draft copy of the federal Government’s aviation green paper, obtained by The Australian, suggest the Government is looking at making some concessions to Qantas but not the main break for which it was lobbying.

    The draft copy says: “The Government will maintain the legal requirement for the majority of Australian ownership of Australia’s international airline, including Qantas, to ensure a strong Australian-based aviation industry continues into the future.

    “It may, however, be timely toconsider whether the additional ownership restrictions currently imposed on Qantas are appropriate.”

    The Qantas Sale Act limits overall foreign investment in the airline to 49 per cent.

    However, it also restricts any foreign “person” to a relevant interest of no more than 25 per cent and says other airlines cannot own more than a combined 35 per cent.

    Eliminating those requirements would make Qantas a more attractive investment

    target.

    The green paper was initially due to be published in September, but is now due to be released at the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday.

    SPEAKING OF THE LABOUR PARTY CAMBRIA INTRODUCES THIS ARTICLE, THAT HE APPEARS TO THINK IS DEEPLY OFFENSIVE, BY SAYING:

    “Remind me next time I give any of these fuckers an even break to go have a cold shower club myself into a coma”

    APPARENTLY CAMBRIA FINDS THE ABOVE POLICIES SELF-EVIDENTLY PUTRID. AS IF BLOCKING THE MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF OUR NATIONAL CARRIER IS AMONGST THE MOST-OFFENSIVE, RATHER THAN AMONGST THE LEAST-OFFENSIVE, FORMS OF INTERVENTIONISM.

    CHANGELING LIBERTARIANS. IN SOBER FACT LEFTIES AND CRONY-COMMUNISTS. INTERNATIONALISTS. NOT LOYAL TO THIS NATION.

  5. MARK HILL GIBBERS ON.

    AFTER CONGRATULATING CAMBRIA FOR HIS DEEP CONCERN WITH US KEEPING MAJORITY OWNERSHIP OF QUANTAS HE DITHERS ABOUT AND THEN SAYS:

    “Inflows are tricky. Often, FDI is seed capital and capital is raised in local markets and a lot of reinvestment is made.”

    WELL THATS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PEOPLE ARE FOCUSED ON AUTHENTICALLY FREEING THINGS UP. BUT ITS NOT CLEAR WHAT MARK IS TALKING ABOUT. IS HE TALKING ABOUT KENTUCKY FRIED AND MACDONALDS. IF HE IS THEN HE’S LIKELY QUITE RIGHT. BUT THAT IS NOT WHERE HIS HEAD IS AT. BELIEVE ME I KNOW. HE NOT INTERESTED IN THESE GUYS COMING HERE FOR SEED CAPITAL. HE’S DOING A BAIT AND SWITCH AND TRYING TO APPLY THE ADVANTAGES THAT COME FROM SMALL BUSINESS FREEDOM TO FLOGGING OFF STUFF WE ALREADY HAVE.

    This infers not a lot of investment in new ventures is being made.

    IT INFERS THE OPPOSITE. BUT THIS MIGHT BE JUST MARK NOT WORDING THINGS WELL ENOUGH. HE’S TALKING ABOU THE REAL STUFF THAT WE WANT. THE NEW BUSINESS INVESTMENT. THE NEW SMALL FACTORY START-UPS. OR EXISTING FACTORY EXPANSION. THE HANDS-ON SMALL STUFF. AND NOTHING TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. NOT THAT WE CANNOT SORT THAT DOWN THE TRACK BUT CLEARLY THE IMPLICATIONS OF FREE MARKET MODELS CANNOT CURRENTLY BE GRAFTED ON TO GOODS OF AN INFRASTRUCTURAL NATURE OR THOSE TYPES OF FIRMS THAT LIVE AND DIE ON THIS INFRASTRUCTURE….. (FOR EXAMPLE AIRLINES AND SHIPPING).

    (This of course makes it difficult to gauge the impacts of FDI to both the host and investing country).

    With onerous restrictions and uncompetitive pricing……”

    BUSTED RIGHT THERE. UNCOMPETITIVE PRICING. HE’S TRYING TO GRAFT FREE MARKET MODELS ONTO FLOGGING OFF INFRASTRUCTURE. WHAT ELSE COULD HE MEAN BY UNCOMPETITIVE PRICING.

    “…………, I think the lack of Greenfield investment hints that we should liberalise regulations surrounding investment in real estate for starters.

    YOU KNOW AT FIRST THAT SEEMS SENSIBLE. BUT NO REALLY ITS MISSING THE POINT. ITS NOT FOREIGN INVESTMENT DOLLARS BIDDING UP OUR LAND PRICES THAT ARE GOING TO DO ANY DAMN THING.

    SO NO HE’S BLOWN IT. ITS ABOUT THE EASE OF STARTING NEW BUSINESS OR BUYING AND EXPANDING EXISTING SMALL BUSINESS THAT COUNTS. AND ALSO WE WANT TO LEARN HOW TO GET BY WITHOUT ZONING OR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDINGS EVERYWHERE. SO MARKS TOTALLY BLOWN IT HERE. THE OUTCOME OF HIS FOCUS WOULD BE PASSIVE INVESTMENT BY FOREIGNERS. RATHER THAN PEOPLE COMING FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD TO START A SMALL BUSINESS HERE. OR TO BUY A MIDDLING BUSINESS AND EXPAND IT.

    People will stop dreaming up bogeymen when you tell them the bogeymen might make their rent cheaper.

    SEE HOW HE BLOWS IT? PASSIVE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT WOULD LIKELY JUST BID UP OUR LAND PRICES AND IF ANYTHING INCREASE, RATHER THAN DECREASE OUR RENTS.

    NOW IF HE HAD HIMSELF SOME FOCUS AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BUYING FARMLAND TO PUT NUCLEAR-COAL-LIQUIFICATION PLANTS ON THEM WELL HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A GOOD POINT. BUT IMAGINE IF HE WAS THINKING OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HE THEN, ALMOST AS IF HE HAS BIPOLAR DISORDER, SKIRTS ACROSS TO STANDARD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT. BECAUSE NOTICE HE’S TALKING ABOUT RENTS GOING DOWN. SO HE LOSES THE POINT OF HIS ORIGINAL THOUGHT (BEING CHARITABLE) AND THEN GRAFTS A BOGUS INFERENCE ON IT BY FOCUSING ON THE PHRASE HE HAS USED (IE “REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT”) RATHER THEN THE THINKING HE HAD ALIGHTED ON TO DO WITH “GREENFIELD” INVESTMENT.

    “….This also infers our resources are tapped out……”

    A COMPLETELY BULLSHIT INFERENCE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT MARK IS THINKING ABOUT HERE. AND IF HE LEFT IT FOR A WEEK HE’D FORGET HIMSELF.

    “I don’t think this is true, i think the restrictive regime has more to with this….”

    HE’S JUST FUCKING LOST IT. HE’S THINKING ABOUT WHAT SOME OTHER CUNT SAID. SOMETHING HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND.

    “Personally, I think on costs and several other “push” variables that affect vertically integrated firms have been ignored in the literature.”

    IT WOULD BE OK IF HE KNEW PRECISELY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

    “We have very high personal and corporate tax rates, capital gains….taxes were ignored for a while in the literature…..”

    I don’t THINKso! I think people have dealt quite well with capital gains taxes IN THE LITERATURE. I think he’s could be right about HIS DOPEY PROFESSORS in regards to corporate taxes. Since I found myself writing an article or two about how taxing profits ought to be outlawed. It ought to be a really bad sin. Amongst the most stupid tax imagineable even from an enlightened thieves perspective. Really stupid stealing. We ought NEVER tax profits. But I doubt Mark is endorsing my essays here, so its hard to know what he is talking about.

    “…………………(transfer pricing seemed to eliminate the significance) but their importance is being rediscovered in the last decade and paticularly in the last few years.”

    Transer pricing would not make taxing profits seem less significant…. unless…. Unless….. UNLESS!!!!! UNLESS YOU WERE TOTALLY FOCUSED ON BIGSHOT MULTINATIONALS who can avoid taxes by shifting their profits and losses around. And this IS-IN-FACT Marks focus. And so he imagines that perhaps transfer pricing made people ignore the company tax and so forth. Well yes. His crowd would. Because Marks crowd works for crony-town.

    “Inflows might start going up again if we don’t have an overvalued dollar, but an undervalued dollar (in relation to long run real effective exchnage rates).”

    THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. BECAUSE THE INFLOWS WOULD THEN OVERVALUE THE DOLLAR. HE’S CONFUSED HIMSELF AGAIN.

    “It would be interesting to see if inflows are less due to a slowdown in international labour migration to Australia – recent research suggests that FDI/capital follows workers.”

    I’D WANT TO KNOW THE START AND FINISH DATES TO WHAT HE IS CLAIMING HERE AND TO HAVE THE DATA. INFLOWS WILL HAVE SLOWED LATELY BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

    YOU CANNOT REALLY BUST MARK TOO MUCH ON THIS ONE POST FOR HIS CRONY-COMMUNIST, CHANGELING, THIEF-ECONOMICS, FOCUS. NOT IN THIS SCREED ANYHOW. BECAUSE ITS SUCH A FUCKING DOGS BREAKFAST. HE’S ALL OVER THE PLACE LIKE A DRUNKEN SUICIDE BOMBER.

    “….But our outward FDI is increasingly rapidly. We could just be heading towards the final stages of the investment development path….”

    CRIKEY? WHAT IS THE SILLY FUCKER TALKING ABOUT HERE? THE END OF DAYS? THE FABLED SINGULARITY? DUDES GOT ALL THESE BOGUS ECONOMICS IDEAS JUMBLED TOGETHER WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION IN HIS DISORGANIZED BRAIN.

  6. Check this out Adrien.

    I SEZ OF MARK:

    “THAT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. BECAUSE THE INFLOWS WOULD THEN OVERVALUE THE DOLLAR. HE’S CONFUSED HIMSELF AGAIN.”

    CAMBRIA SEZ OF ME:

    O my lord. He’s back to the 70’s thinking that resources development crowd out other forms of investment.

    HOW THIS FUCKING DUMB WOG CAME UP WITH THAT BURST OF WISDOM I WILL NEVER KNOW.

    ALZHEIMERS IS SUCH A TRAGEDY. YOU KNOW YOU OUGHT NOT BE ANGRY AT THE STUPID WOG CUNT BUT YOU CANNOT HELP YOURSELF.

  7. MARK HILL SEZ:

    “Somehow Graeme, I think John Dunning knows more about economics than most other qualifed eonomists and academics…let alone you.”

    I knew it. That stupid cunt was relying on scraps of stuff from various punditti THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND. Thats why his little chat was all over the place like a dogs breakfast.

  8. http://www.unhistory.org/iac_res/dunning.htm

    Here’s the Professor that Mark Hill is failing to understand this time around. He fucking doesn’t understand any damn thing. He skim-reads all this stuff. Then he hides behind these people.

  9. I met a kid the other day. Hip to the Austrians and knew his stuff, economics pretty dumb on politics. He reckons there’s gonna be a rush back to gold when the Greenback slides into shit about two months from now.

  10. “Well my start and finish dates were 1983-2005. I suggest this idiot get a copy of Prema Chandra Athukorala’s book on the Asian Crisis and FDI. Basically FDI doesn’t get impacted much because it is fixed capital.”

    Well thats a bullshit statement right there as well. You’ve got to take responsibility for your own bullshit statements Mark Hill. There is no-one to hide behind. You always misunderstand people anyway and you have to defend YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING. Not someone elses.

  11. “But if he’s in office he’s recognized as the Prez so he can be impeached. If he’s barred from office (for why again?) then he won;t be protected. Or are the Secret Service leftists like the CIA?”

    No because the guys who will say he’s an usurper will be wrong-footed. For them to impeach will amount to recognition of his Presidency. So that if their motion to impeach fails then his Presidency will bipartisan be held to be valid.

    You see the President and his retinue in the 1800’s might just have swords and muskets at best. So a Congress could send over some Marshals with a piece of paper and no sweat. But now its just unimaginable that you could send a couple of people over to arrest him.

    Look how this prick is groomed for all this. What was his main field of study to help him wreck the constitution? He was a Professor of constitutional law.

  12. “I met a kid the other day. Hip to the Austrians and knew his stuff, economics pretty dumb on politics. He reckons there’s gonna be a rush back to gold when the Greenback slides into shit about two months from now.”

    You know for sure its going to happen. You don’t know for sure what month.

  13. Nice Bowie link Graeme. Why is it that you think Obama’s so dangerous exactly?

  14. Well I’ve got a lot of material here Adrien? Which part of it don’t you understand? Apart from being too lazy to re-read?

    Why have non-democratic republics got the worst record of all Adrien? As opposed to a constitutional monarchy during the valid reign of a good King?

    Its because they lack legitimacy. Thats why there is never a benevolent dictatorial takeover because in those situations the dictator cannot quickly lay down roots to claims of legitimacy.

    Of course in those cases wherein the regime is utopian-eschatological then the bodies pile up in the millions and not just the thousands.

    The closest thing we’ve had to a benevolent dictator in the last few decades was probably Pinochet. And he wasn’t any sort of angel.

    Hence with a long-legged mac daddy in the White House the country will become a lot more like the leftists used to accuse it of being.

    You leftists are pretty sick you know. You hear about the Choir-Master and school teacher being slaughtered in his apartment and you laugh it off and bring down all the social pressure you can muster to stop being from saying that there is any due diligence that needs to be done here. You are pretty sick and nasty people.

    But you see its that sort of sickness that will descend on the place.

    Orwell had that deal about the memory hole. But we have all the information here. It doesn’t get taken away or sent to the furnaces below. What Orwell didn’t realise is we could have all the information and we just wouldn’t care.

  15. Here is the detailed explanation of the Alinsky method to bring down the country.

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=89Sq-XCbej0

    Everything going exactly to play book mapped out in advance. The last person to try and bring down a nation planned years in advance like this was Reagan. But not his own country.

  16. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KWAR9PO1qaU

    My knew Pastors Saturday service just came online this minute.

  17. Look at these two dumb cunts Mark Hill and Cambria go off in a tangent making up more and more shit that I’ve never said.

    ““CAMBRIA SEZ OF ME:
    O my lord. He’s back to the 70’s thinking that resources development crowd out other forms of investment.
    HOW THIS FUCKING DUMB WOG CAME UP WITH THAT BURST OF WISDOM I WILL NEVER KNOW.”
    Really Graeme, you think resource development crowds out other investment? Were you going to build several mini-malls in the wilderness of the Pilbara were you?”

    Mark you fucking drooling idiot cunt. I never said any of that shit. That was Cambria, who was making it up on the basis of stupid shit you said.

    This is the two of you just making any old shit up because you are morons.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: