Posted by: graemebird | January 31, 2009

FOCUS FUSION:The Absolute Joy In Watching A REAL Scientist In Action.f

BROUGHT TO THE FRONT MARCH 2009. I’ve brought this one to the front largely because I now know how to imbed these videos. But also because this one fell on deaf ears the last time and I think I know one of the reasons why.

FUSIONS MARKETING “PRESCENCE”

You see Fusion is associated in peoples minds with clean-but-pie-in-the-sky. Whereas Fission is associated with some people as being dirty-and-dangerous but a winner. And with others as being dirty and dangerous but being expensive in terms of tangential costs. With me fission is clean and cheap. Because I’ve investigated the matter and I try and work by REASON and not osmotic mental association.

Well I’ve got to go with the flow. And so I must tell you that it is totally arbitrary that this process is called FUSION. It could just as well be called FISSION. Technically speaking we’d be better off calling this proposed process FUSION-FISSION.

Now there is another thing. This is not Fusion. But I always thought of fusion as being a loser. I never imagined that it could work and it never played any part in my thinking. Until I first heard about Helium 3. Helium 3 would be an easily controllable fusion reaction if we had access to a good source of helium 3.
But helium 3 aside I always thought of FUSION as a loser. Not worth worrying about. You’d never get the return. And there were a number of reasons for that. And then I stumble across this fellow and he systematically supercedes all of these ideas I had about this FUSION being a loser.

Now why do I call this business FUSION-FISSION? When this brilliant man is calling it FUSION?

Well here is what the process involves. You shoot a proton (ie an Hydrogen-Ion) at this Boron atom (at maybe 1 billion degrees celsius) and it briefly becomes an unstable Carbon atom and then it splits into 3 Helium atoms.

One of many supercool things in this story is that the energy produced is not heat-energy, as in a hydrogen bombs fireball…. but rather a straight electrical charge…. Now can you see how this is DIFFERENT? How this is by no means anything like trying to tame a hydrogen bomb explosion for commercial purposes?

This will be old hat to some people. But as a business idea, the above point is BUT ONE overcome objection in a string of objections that I originally had for fusion generally. So you might say the idea of the energy produced being a straight electric current…. is the commercial point I’m directing at the laity. Who may not have known about this before. But its about one astounding difference in a dozen that this fellow came out with.

I hope I’ve done a better job of selling this fellow, and his idea, than I did the last time. I want you guys to take this all seriously. And particularly some of you deep pocket guys, and you guys who can pull a few strings in Canberra….. You know for a tax exemption… never for a subsidy. They are not the same thing you know and a subsidy is never acceptable.

JANUARAY 2009. THE ORIGINAL THREAD.

I thought I better restore some balance here, after spending months beating up on dumb science-workers.  Just watch this magnificent fellow in action. The absolute confidence. The clarity. No attempt at evasiveness. And the wonderful introduction showing the MORAL REASONS!!!!!!! why we need to produce (AND!!! consume) vastly and stupendously more energy then we currently do.

I must confess my suspicion that plasma physics has to be about the most exciting science that is out and about there.  Surely a rock star in the making.  It hasn’t got the hardened arteries of some of the old stuff.

MARCH 2009. BUGGER IT. I CANNOT SEEM TO IMBED THE VIDEO AS I THOUGHT I WOULD. ITS A GOOGLE-VIDEO DEAL, AND NOT AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE. I’LL HAVE TO JUST LINK IT.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&ei=BmXJSfHcOofGwgPp-dCMDw&q=Focus+Fusion&hl=en

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Graeme, did you see this ridiculous article?

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24987962-421,00.html

  2. There is just too much appalling stuff around now isn’t there? Things took a marked turn for the worse the day that Paulson started talking about stimulus packages.

    There is no non-inflationary way to save the housing market. Since if you steal off people to boost the house prices you are stealing off the renters who would be the demanders of those houses and the people who would pay the loans. And its utterly perverse in the first place since good policy ought to achieve cheaper living and working space. These same ass-clowns will be turning around and clicking their heels and in the next breath be crying crocodile tears for the poor and the homeless.

    Housing prices ought to come down. But failing that I own a house, and have a great debt attached to it. If they were to come up and my gamble to pay off I’d want it to be because of good policy leading to Australians being more powerfully productive.

    We are really getting as mad as the countries we used to look down on. The Iranians, the East Germans. About that crazy. About that unhinged.

  3. Everything for the banks, nothing outside the banks, nothing against the banks. You lend me money at bargain-base interest rates thats a subsidy. So here we are and the Reserve Bank lending these parasites money at bargain basement prices. And yet this is powerfully ineffectual monetary policy. In the debate between which is better out of fiscal and monetary policy to boost activity two things are forgotten.

    1. There is no such thing as fiscal stimulus.

    2. Monetary policy varies widely in terms of effectiveness and fairness depending on what that monetary policy is. Nothing is faster at restoring spending then retiring debt with new cash. In fact thats the only thing that can reliably restore spending…….

    …… Hence it gets back to the sort of Hoppean analysis. We choose interest policy even though it is slow, hard to judge in its effects, unfair, and comparatively weakass…… In comparison to debt retirement with new cash….. which is immediate and powerful and if a reserve asset ratio is also part of the picture……… the effects would very soon be predictable and quantifiable.

    And why is this? Why the stupidity? Well I think it is wrong to view the banks and government as separate and distinct. Thats barely been true since the Medicis. Its all about Govybank and Bankyment. And moreso now since Paulson hit town.

    Its just the pull of parasitism. The government and the banks sharing the same racket.

  4. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=A2LwXPmMPpg&feature=rec-HM-r2

  5. I’ve been arguing for yonks that fusion will be the future energy source. They are already building a commercial prototype plant in Europe. It is the way of the future my friend.

  6. Yes but I’d never seen anything that made sense before this fellow. The commercial prototype in Europe…. won’t it turn out to be a white elephant? I mean how does that system work?

    This one makes sense since the heat is so focused and the energy drained of is electrical.

  7. “Heath G – I can’t help but think that the “GFC” is going to be for ’social democrats’ what the ‘war on terror’ was for Bush et. al – a pretext to introduce a whole bunch of laws that aren’t really needed (just make it easier for the govt to control people instea dof people controllign the govt) alongside some laws and changes that are genuinely needed.”

    Fucking Heath G and Adrien are compulsive liars are they not? This isn’t ancient history. The two of them lived through this time. And already the relentless lying has started up in an attempt to rewrite history. Laws that come in motivated by reasonable people are already likely to be fucked up in the form at which they are finally passed. And as well will far outlive their usefulness. But already they have a cartoonish and utterly false version of Bush plotting to control every cunt and seizing on 9.11 (in Heaths crap truther view of history) to shunt people around mindlessly.

    And immediately the idiot Adrien agrees with this bogus history.

    Bear in mind that Heath G famously claimed, after not finding any evidence, that “CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL”. He’s a stupid cunt is Heath.

  8. Mr Bird
    I have decided to follow your lead while I have time left on this earth

    http://winchesterquartermain.blogspot.com/2009/02/test.html

  9. Bird

    Have you seen Quiggins latest anti- economics rant on ” trickle down”. Fact is that no right winger has ever said that.

    Now if you were some sort of economist you’d be giving this intellectual shambles a real serve. Show some balls.

  10. Well of course that is anti-economics on Quiggins part. The history of economic thought records no doctrine of trickle down. There is really not much more to say about the matter.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Terrific news Winchester. I will look forward to this blog of yours.

  11. http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/02/01/refuted-economic-doctrines-5-trickle-down/

    Here is the link that you are talking about. No reference to the history of the doctrine, since there is none except to the mention of a politician or two and one of their minions who holds no importance in the history of economics. Unlike if it were an actual econonmic doctrine (let us say the doctrine of the “wages fund”) then it could be possible to track its development. So its a straw man on Quiggins part. But its a two-sided racket as well. On the other side he’s trying to conflate it with the issue of the financial meltdown. Which wasn’t caused by deregulation since there never was any deregulation. But was rather caused by fractional reserve and Keynesianism, both of which Quiggin tends to agree with as far as I know.

    But it does show what damage you Catallaxians have done. By failing to see that this disaster was coming and to admit that it is a disaster of fractional reserve, you are allowing people like Rudd and Quiggin to make leftist ground.

  12. Doesn’t this nut ball deserve a through hiding with a special thread. He brings economics into disrepute.

    Drum one up and leave the fractional reserve out for a change.

  13. Yeah thats great Winchester. Keep it up. From my point of view it highlights the conversations and not just the main threads and brings out your point of view more. Good stuff.

  14. Well there is just not much more to say about it anti-bird. Its non-economics. Its nothing. Its such obvious nothing that we’ve just covered it.

  15. What are you talking about Bird? I am very directly critiquing Quiggin’s and Rudd’s ideas there.

  16. Graeme – check out this speech from Vladimir Putin lecturing the Western leaders on the evils of socialism, funny money, etc. It’s the best speech I’ve read from any world leader in years:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    The Communists have taken over Washington while the free market guys (assuming Putin means what he says) seem to have a foothold in the Kremlin!

  17. Actually Mark. Some of the stuff I’ve read of yours lately has been very good. But you failed to systematically get your head around the building blocks of monetary theory and follow the implications through. But definitely some very good posts I’ve been witnessing. Yet if you guys cannot get your head around the fractional reserve issue then we will always be stolen off until the end of time.

    Quiggin may have been trying to ease the pain over Rudds idiocy as a sort of career move. So that every lefty in the country keeps mouthing that he’s a genius.

  18. “Doesn’t this nut ball deserve a through hiding with a special thread. He brings economics into disrepute.

    Drum one up and leave the fractional reserve out for a change.”

    But its every bit about fractional reserve. You guys betray us on this issue and you give the other side a free kick. If you simply explained that fractional reserve is fraud and that it leads to an uncompetitive and subsidised financial system, and that without doubt at all it always winds up in monetary disasters, poor resource allocation, and even more ostentatious bailouts to the finance industry well then the laity would have a clear and true explanation for our woes.

    So its really your fault for giving the marxist left (as opposed to your crony-left tribe) a free kick. You guys beating up on me and creating one thread of doom after another is what leads to these free kicks for the left. Its all your doing. Truth and righteousness is the victim, and you have to be tripping, smoking crack and PCP if you can isolate daylight thieving of trillions for the banks from the general zietgeist of things.

  19. I want to congratulate Winchester Quartermain on his new blog. I urge you all to read it at a time when you are free to leave off from the reading and look into the distance, or pace about the room to take in the full richness of it all, and thinking tangentially, in your own mind, about the ideas it will spark within you. The ideas and implications. The ‘consequences and repercussions’ (Murphy).

    I think Mr Quartermains blog will serve as a force multiplier for what we are trying to do at “A Better World.”

    You hang on in there Quartermain. You look after your health as well as keeping “your gunpowder dry” as it were. You want to see the influence I’m sure your blog will help sow. You want to hang out long enough to be proud of the younger Australians again.

    Plus as well as Winchesters blog can I recommend for you the astonishing blog of the geologist and polymath Louis Hissink.

    http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/

    An authentic genius. And I may as well point out now that all of us have been reading the wrong sheet music when it comes to science. Not any particular science but science more generally. We need to all get comfortable with Plasma Physics to really have a handle in science in any area. This is the conclusion I’ve finally come to, somewhat kicking and screaming.

    Actually I think Edney studied this subject. But he was never for the sciences anyhow. And he’s probably better off as banker while that fractional reserve racket still lasts.

    Now why did I bring up Plasma Physics? Well the brilliant insights of Louis may often seem crankery if you have not grasped and really hammered in a lot of the fundamentals of this plasma physics. The thing is that the orthodoxy in astro-physics…. and in those areas which give everyone the mainstream picture of the universe, of the sun, and even perhaps of the earth have not done so. And the orthodoxy has hardened and grown deaf to knew ideas.

    Van Flandern is never deaf to new ideas. But even he, great epistemologist that he is, might be wanting in this crucial area.

  20. Look you guys. Cambria. Humphreys et al. You are smart guys in your own stupid way. Or at the very least you are capable guys. Me I find it very hard to do concentrated work in 8 hour blocks and would need a siesta and an exercise session, and flexitime, to be really productive in mental work. Under those conditions I’d probably be outstanding in this regard. But no employer will hire me on that basis. You guys don’t face these handicaps.

    So you don’t need this monetary inflation and instability, to make bucketloads of cash, by what amounts to being better than the others, at pass the fucking parcel. You don’t need that advantage from here on in.

    Take the monetary growth and instability that got you where you are today, as a nice sort of launch-pad, to ease your act to first base. You don’t need it any more and you ought not wish for it. And even if you are a bit lost in your investing strategy without that crutch, dummy, hand-holding, subsidy, and ultimate “PUT” ….. still you ought branch out and learn new tricks.

    You ought to learn new tricks, in a better world, where your interests accord with everyone elses, and a million dollars made by you, is ten million showered on the community. Because thats how capitalism (properly considered) works despite what the Beard II says about capital gains taxes.

    You don’t need and you ought not wish for fractional reserve. I’m relying on the better angels of your nature here. And I might have to come around and beat you with the clue stick until the dumb demons masking those ‘vocies from the sky’ (Rogers-Nelson), are made to stop crowding the good stuff out.

    When I was in my early teens, the Reverend Moon was most prominent. And I always did fantasize (being a radical atheist at the time, as opposed to the admirer and well-wisher of Christianity that I am now) about becoming a moonie deprogrammer as a daytime occupation. In a way thats what I’ve become and I will not bore you with that old Goethe quote.

  21. Thank you Mr Bird

    I have recently completed another piece for posterity

    http://winchesterquartermain.blogspot.com/2009/02/sodomite-economics.html

  22. Prof Hans Hermann Hoppe once made a similar point about the link between sodomy and time-preference. Of course, he nearly lost his chair due to agitation by censorious sodomites.

  23. Did you ever go to the irresponsible poopy-pants-persons website? Man that was an eye-opener. Something in the water.

  24. Of course the Catallaxians were all a disgrace. Baiting homer about the 30’s yet not one of them advocating fiscal triage in the here and now. Jason Soons response was “what’s fiscal triage.” Sinclair’s whole attitude can be summed up as “Ho ho don’t panic ho ho spend the money well ho ho.” He didn’t come out for no carbon tax or mass-spending cuts. It is these traitors that are letting us down. And Cambria wants me to waste time attacking Quiggin when he himself came out in favour of bank executive subsidisation. Like I got to put up with hearing this announcement of 42 billions in new spending knowing that these gutless types never came out in favour of the right side of the argument.

  25. Bird:

    Will you pease settle down about this fusion stuff. There are 1,000s of things going on that don’t amount to anyting.

    How the fuck do you morph Louis’s picture about fusion. Louis is a geologist, you nong.

  26. Right. I didn’t say anything else. But still I may take the picture away. There are thousands of things going on. All a waste of money until this one. But still you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference right?

    What exactly is your point?

  27. my point is that you seems to get all excited about stuff you really don’t understand. mars for example

  28. The $42 billion dollar “rescue” package is a blatant attack on our childrens’ future. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

  29. “Also hard to believe that people like Nicolas Gruen are all wrong. He looks like a reasonable fellow. Funny argument but…”

    This is just depressing. Why do people like Jason, Cambria, Sinclair and others even go on the internet in the first place. They just confuse people. If any of that crowd weren’t speaking with a completely forked toungue 80% of the time how could boris fuck it up like this and even so much as imagine that Nick Gruen isn’t a total moron.

    I’ve made a point of watching Sinclair and some of the others. And its like some clubby lawyers arrangement where they refuse to call out abuses of economic science. Cambria is particularly galling at the moment. Triangulating by rubbishing Homers Keynesianism as it relates to the 30’s and then advocating Keynesianism in the here and now.

  30. You are lying again Cambria. I do understand it. What is more I’ll understand it a great deal more after my textbook on plasma physics arrives. What is your argument about Mars? You’ve never come up with anything about it. And you didn’t have a point. But you made a point just the same due to your dimwitted nature.

    I’ve always been a fusion skeptic. But this is different. Your point is you read the word “fusion” and you went on the basis of near mindless word-association. You didn’t even watch the video prior to making your dim bulb comment did you? What did you find unconvincing about the presentation? And don’t say something general about “fusion” you dumb bootnigger. Because thats really not the point of the story. The point of the story was even cheaper energy then uranium-nuclear. Which is very good, safe and cheap and we ought to get it started. But this was a story about even cheaper energy then that. And its an important issue dopey. Surely you can comprehend the importance of such a thing if you really try.

  31. There is something very telling about the response of institutional-man-Cambria to this thread. A parade of CO2-Bedwetting unscientists without so much as a pinch of evidence parades in front of the dumb bootnigger and he takes them seriously, and has steadfastly advocated a carbon tax, though no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming has emerged ever. None at all. Then when I show him a real scientist with an important and earth-shattering proposal its a big fat yawn from chucklehead-Joe….

    Science-Fraud….. Well hell yes lets turn our entire industry upside-down on the basis of leftist lying…..

    Authentic Science with cheap proposal for energy……….. Joe just cannot get interested. He’s getting tired already. Past his bedtime.

    No wonder this fellow cannot get a tiny stipend to patiently develop the technology. There are too many dimwitted institutional men around the place. Who cannot tell science fraud from the real thing.

  32. “I’m still not happy Tim Geithner got confirmed. It is just plausible that he didn’t know what he was doing when he did his tax return the first time around, but that he somehow forgot all the earlier work he’d also done for the IMF after he was caught the first time?!

    V unlikely.

    Not to mention that he was at the top of the NY Reserve Bank while the pieces of the current financial crisis were put into place.”

    Stop getting distracted Kodjo you dumbass. You are supposed to be an economist. Set Nick Gruen straight on this matter. Is there or is there not such a thing as fiscal stimulus…. YES-OR-NO!!!!

    Yes……. Or ………. No….

    You fucking economists mate. You are just so fucking useless. Here it was your job YOUR JOB!!! to defend economic science against the depredations of the Paulsons,Gruenzez, the Leighz and the Satanz of this world……… and you weren’t able to head off a 42 billion dollar vandilisation package, and give us massive spending cuts instead. You blew it. You cocked it up.

    You screwed up too Kodjo. Like looking the other way when some girl is getting carved up with a knife right there at North Sydney station and plenty of men around but no-one unfreezes.

    That goes for all of you guys. This tragic, absolutely criminal splurge of parasitism, when the taxpayer is struggling and the economy needs a boost. And you, by your negligence let the leftists kick taxpaying Australians while we were down and hurting. Where are the mass bureaucracy closures? Where are the tens of thousands of taxeater firings? Where are the tens of billions of dollars in cuts? Thats what your foray into public debate ought to have provided for us.

    Not only are the Canberra politicians making vital cuts. But thanks to the negligence of you gutless(get-along-to-go-along)wonders (soon, davidson, Cambria, Spiv, Kodjo, Heath, )the Canberra dolts are actually doing just the fucking opposite.

    Too gutless to criticise the ideas of a dead homo. What is the matter with you people? Stop voguing about with this professional-courtesy-to-thieves act …….. and start naming names. Start going after the idiotic core ideas.

  33. Stutchbury is criticising the hardest in the mainstream. Good on him. But not hard enough. Not going right for the throat of the baseless pathetic sodomite-economics (as Winchester perceptively calls this short-termism).

    But Stutchbury is after all the economics editor of the nations only national paper. Maybe he cannot risk going too much harder. The lesser known among you have to get right out there and tell people in no uncertain terms about the idiocy and fundamental illogic of trying to use fiscal policy to increase spending.

    For one thing it doesn’t work, only monetary policy does. And for the other thing deficits come straight out of the newly collapsed business-to-business spending. Out of the very spending that must repair the economy.

  34. Fiscal policy CAN’T increase spending. It’s contractionary by definition. What are these economic lunatics playing at?

    • Right. At the very least it isn’t going to increase nominal spending. Except perhaps by sheer serendipity.

      There is some talk about tax cuts being capable of greater stimulus than spending increase. This is bullshit and bloodsucker-centrals loyal opposition talk. One cannot be more stimulatory than the other since neither are a stimulus. The mistake here is that these guys never define whether they are talking about nominal or real spending and then stick to it. And they confuse themselves statistically by using GDP and not GDR as the key metric. The other thing of course is that whoopee-do about increasing spending. Nothing is easier and quicker in the world to do. All that is required is direct cash injection to reduce debt from newly created cash. So imagine the level of dumb required to think that fiscal measures will increase spending when it won’t. And to think there was something special to increasing spending which is the easiest thing to do in the world. Whether warranted in the circumstances or not there is no doubt whatsoever the ease at which spending can be increased under fiat currency.

      The discrepancy with their bogus claims about tax cuts being more stimulatory comes when they forget one second they were talking about nominal and the next they were talking about real spending increases and only with GDP as a metric. Obviously there is a price level change deflater going on here to change from one to the other. And since the tax cut allows for reinvestment and doesn’t reduce business-to-business spending so directly and damagingly as the spending increase, and when subsequently the price rises aren’t so strong as they would be under spending increases……. then the central bank more confidently expands the money supply, either that or prices don’t tend to rise as quickly and may actually fall………. and walla……… the myth of tax cut stimulation is with us.

      Of course tax cuts are preferable to spending increases thats not the point. The point is a technical one to do with fiscal measures versus direct cash injection. Only the latter can immediately increase spending.

  35. ““But why follow people into a river over the cliff.” I am not suggesting we should. But I think when 95% of the economists say one thing, Rudd does not have much choice. And neither he will be judged over this, because the public basically hears the same econimists.” So sayeth Boris.

    He’s bit soft-headed in attitude rather than mental capacity. He’s not an idiot and I’ve talked to him about these subjects before. So which house-nigger has been confounding his thinking? Who has been bamboozling him? Jason Soon? Sinclair?

    All of you are to blame. Because you have not spoken, clearly and with one voice to, in the strongest terms possible, rubbish the spending multiplier and explain why you deal with a recession by going into fiscal triage.

    Malcolm has stalled the 42 billion dollar wrecking ball. But we know how this works. The normal course of events is he’ll do a big song and dance and then they’ll wind up with slightly less spending, slightly more on the tax cut side.

    Now that Malcolm has bought us time its time for everyone to pin their ears back and flood the ether with explanations as to why it is massive spending cuts that are needed to deal with a recession. Massive spending cuts, exhortations to SAVE not spend. Exhortations to defer dividends, cancel bonuses, accept wage cuts to get a new job. Put off going for pay rises and instead accept the increase in the tax free threshold.

    The taxpayers and their families deserve a full-blown non-stop campaign to crash tackle this 42 billion dollar increase and to turn it around into a 50 billion net spending cut.

    All you people who have gotten yourselves economics degrees? You had your degree subsidised and if you are using it now you are living off the public tit in nearly all cases. Including economists in the subsidised banking industry. You owe the public to do the right think and completely swamp, this one time, your lunatic colleagues. Swamp them with some sort of fucking pride in your field of study. Swamp them with ECONOMIC SCIENCE.

    This is an absolute disaster that just when the taxpayer is truly struggling along come the Keynesian lunatics and the politicians to increase their burden. To pump up the volume of the parasitism that lead to the problems in the first place.

  36. Fucking hell. I’m just watching the television and this wrecking-ball of anti-economics has been passed by the house.

    Still this changes nothing above. The sort of mitigating effects that the Senate may have on this absolute fucking disaster ought not be underestimated. The campaign ought to continue non-stop. Its time to kill that homo-ghost of Keynes once and for all.

  37. “It’s business borrowing I’m worried about Rog.

    Boris, even gittens is lukewarm about the stimulus, saying that these things take a long time to take effect.”

    Part of the problem is that business, as well as consumers, are in too much debt thanks to the previous excess monetary growth. Pedro counsels for them to get into more debt. SPENDING NOT LENDING. Spending not lending. Remember that. And not any other spending but private business spending. Thats what we have to worry about and we don’t have to worry about anything else. Being as that is the case the 42 billion dollars in spending is 42 billion dollars ripped out of the guts of the very spending we want to bounce and flatten.

    We have to stay focused. Yes its true that to restore business spending this may imply a return to further lending. But don’t let the dog wag the tail. That just amounts to the banking end of the govybank racket stooging you for a subsidy.

  38. JC why are you jumping all over the unemployment benefit all of a sudden. Yes if you think you couild reduce that a bit I suppose a small cut could be made there. But how did you get that fixated in your thinking.

    As to what I mean by spending cuts, the question is odd. Kevin is just pushing for a 42 billion dollar spending increase right? Well spending cuts are kind of like the opposite of that.

  39. NO JC YOU DO!!!!!! I REPEAT DO!!!!!! CUT SPENDING.

    Thats the whole point I’m making you moron. Crikey you are an idiot. Why would you suddenly cut the dole out entirely when jobs are hard to come by? You might reduce the dole if you think the unemployed wouldn’t all starve.

    But the idea is to DEFINITELY cut spending in a recession. What an idiot you are to focus on the unemployment benefit when you have dozens of departments that can be axed.

  40. There is no such thing as a fiscal stabiliser you dummy. Hoover didn’t cut spending. Why are you saying all this rubbish Cambria.

    Do you understand that Hoover didn’t cut spending? If you are going to tell lies obviously I’m going to have to wipe all your posts you twit.

    JC spends his whole time criticising Homer over the 30’s yet in the here and now he’s a Keynesian. Exactly the same thing as his foolishness with Lambert and the carbon tax.

    • Not only do you cut spending Cambria, you schizophrenic Keynesian nitwit. But you do so as a matter of urgency. And in the tens of billions.

  41. So I just get through explaining why you must cut spending in a recession. And Cambria puts on his Keynesian hat, asserts outright, without counter-argument that you don’t cut spending in a recession and then precedes to lie about Hoover.

  42. JC – Why is a spending cut such a problem? Your position accepts the underlying assumptions of Keynesianism, without openly coming out and embracing it. Obviously, Keynesianism is a filthy con, and we should pay no attention to it at all.

    The government should cut public sector salaries by 10%, effective immediately. After that, in the depth of the recession, we should sack about 1/3 of all public servants and freeze the minimum wage.

    • Cambria. MAKE A FUCKING ARGUMENT YOU MORON. You are not coming here to display your ignorance without making an argument. HOOVER DID NOT CUT SPENDING YOU TWIT. He did not cut spending. Have you got that straight now you fuckwit?

      Hoover did not cut spending. And he tried desperately to keep wages and prices up. Hence the Great Depression.

      I’ve just explained why you must MUST cut spending in a recession. There is no use coming here and simply gainsaying me like a fucking moron, without making a reasoned argument. Where is the occult knowledge you think you have coming from Cambria you stupid bootnigger? You only find things out by reason and evidence. You don’t just blert out the first wrong thing that comes to you and expect that to conform to reality.

      • “The government should cut public sector salaries by 10%, effective immediately. After that, in the depth of the recession, we should sack about 1/3 of all public servants and freeze the minimum wage.”

        Exactly Fisk. Or drop the minimum wage. Force these guys to accept tax exemptions rather than redundancy so they have to go to work right away, thus forcing wages for the new guys down, bringing down costs for business, prices, the cost of living, all the way down the line. If the former public servants are all forced to enter the workforce bidding eachothers wages down then the reduction in costs will be what restores profitability without recourse to too much monetary inflation.

        Meanwhile for those already in the workforce, who have now been released from the burden of supporting these public servants and their parasite-in-training kids…….. well the government can afford to lift the tax free threshold and all moral suasion ought to be used to try and convince people not to push for higher before-tax wages. But their after-tax wages will likely increase, at least at the bottom end and then the other gains made will be a combination of improving our trade deficit and reducing our cost of living.

        The idea is definitely to convince everyone to save and reduce prices. Retain dividends, put off bonuses etc. Without recourse to inflation you are attempting to release as much resources to the spending category of “business-to-business spending” in the context where the environment is one where BUSINESSES HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO SPEND IN ORDER TO CUT COSTS.

        Spend a lot now in order to reduce recurring costs later. One might think of this as “business-refurbishment” or “business renovation”. And the resources to renovate and refurbish businesses and the resources needed to allow them to cut costs need to come from somewhere. These resources can hardly be used to renovate businesses if they are being squandered on campaigns to increase consumer spending or government largesse.

        Frank Shostak would refer to these resources as the “pool of funding”. In the 19th century you had the doctrine of the wages fund. About as good a doctrine as any in economics. The cuts should have been four ways. Fast hard deep and continuous.

        Look at how Cambria takes a mystical notion of matters. How is this ongoing parasitism and gifts helping the economy? He’s a Friedmanite when it comes to the past and a Keynesian when it comes to the here and now.

  43. Oh for fucksakes. Why didn’t the Americans let all the Russians starve after world war I. Why did Beria poison Stalin, all it meant is that Stalin didn’t get to finish what Hitler started with the Jews. Of course I don’t mean any of it. What I’m saying is that Boris has his stupid hat on. And is powering away with non-arguments like people do when they talking global warming:

    “On the TV and in the mainstream media I see all of them support the stimulus, although there is some disagreement about the size and structure of individual packages. Your second link is an example of this.”

    Boris you fuckwit. THATS NOT AN ECONOMIC ARGUMENT. THATS A NON-ARGUMENT. Somebody slap him, he’s being hysterical. Poor ice water over him and demand that he prioritize.

    Boris you are supposed to be a scientist. Ask proper economics questions and stop diverting to non-arguments. Its 360 degrees Gresham’s law. Bad arguments drive out the good. And non-arguments drive out both.

  44. Consider the occultism in what Cambria is claiming. Stealing all that money off us and squandering it on mindless vote-buying and investments in taxeater ego must, if Cambria is right, be doing us a net service of some sort. It must actually be helping business.

    But how could that be? How could it be that us having to carry the taxeater, and his family……… well this must in some way be making the machines run better or something. Somehow it must be making the shift go more quickly. The paypacket larger at the end of the week and the prices at the shops less than they otherwise would be. That we are carrying these people must be making all our tasks and deadlines less arduous. If Cambria is right then these things must be true, but Cambria will not explain how.

    Many hands make light work. And if almost all the public servants suddenly have to get work in the private sector, in the context of business finding itself in a situation where it is both willing and able to spend large now, to cut recurring costs, then those many hands formerly employed in the public service, will be turned to the task of our living costs going down every quarter.

    Now there are some worries, and legitimate worries, about nominal wages not being downwardly flexible enough for these sorts of policies to work. Good policy in a monetary crunch leads to increasing real wages but reducing nominal wages.

    This may seem counter-intuitive so I think its worthwhile highlighting the matter:

    GOOD POLICY IN A MONETARY CRUNCH LEADS TO INCREASING REAL WAGES EVEN AS NOMINAL WAGES ARE REDUCED.

    This is no joke. Real wages ought to INCREASE if prices are downwardly flexible in a recession.

    This ought to be obvious since if people are saving more, and a greater proportion of spending is in producer goods…….. if people are cutting back on consumption………. still just as much consumer goods will be produced. More even. Less will be demanded and more produced and increasingly so, since we have devoted a greater proportion of gross domestic revenue to producer goods.

    Hence the generation of extra savings and retained earnings leads to an immediate increase in real incomes at the bottom and CONTINUING increases in real incomes thereafter. Our job is to try to get pretty close to that ideal with policy.

    It is unrealistic right now to get perfectly flexible prices downwards for the moment. But we can do our best and come pretty close……… to a sort of “something-for-nothing” increase in real incomes. We can achieve this but we just cannot achieve it as well as in the idealised model. We can muddle through and get somewhat close to this ideal. Good enough for positive results.

    It is my contention that the policies advocated in the thread below, will promote some downward flexibility in wages costs to business, will get businessmen thinking about employing all sorts of people, and will throw enourmous resources into what I’m calling “business-renovation.”

    The policies described should also allow us to CUT our welfare overhead, and it ought to allow us to cut our welfare burden right in the middle of a recession.

    A lot of you may have seen this thread before but I think its worth reviewing:

    https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/raiding-the-sick-blind-lame-old-the-solo-mums-and-the-aboriginals-for-manhours/


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: