John Humphreys is not the only prominent pro-market writer to argue for a revenue-neutral carbon tax….”
For the love of transplanted Martians who just showed up in town on the back of an old spaceship carrying only turnips. The idea is old and obvious. A small child could come up with it. I came up with it in 1990 myself before I had heard about it from anyone else.
But its a stupid idea, without even the slightest pretense to a justification. You and Humphreys are idiots because there is no economic or scientific reason for this sellout scheme and thats the end of the story.
But its worse then one stupid treasonous idea. Its two stupid and treasonous ideas rolled together.
“John Humphreys is not the only prominent pro-market writer to argue for a revenue-neutral carbon tax….”
You and John are actually arguing for revenue neutrality. That we go to all the trouble to change things in such a way as to be neutral towards stealing and not reduce it.
And so we see that all you traitors lock in the oppositions stealing as sacrosanct. Just as Cambria tried to tell us that spending must be locked in during a recession, now you and that other traitor Humphreys, try to tell us that we must be revenue-neutral when we make a tax change. We must never be revenue-neutral when we make a tax change except if the foreign soldiers were landing on the North-East Coast.
What is your actual argument traitor? Its no use posting Laffer. He’s a practitioner of voodoo economics despite being right about tax cuts. He is no economic authority at all. Just a fellow who had a couple of good ideas.
So what is your argument?
And if you cannot find an argument can you at least shake Humphreys down for one?
That Martian Humphreys acts like he invented the idea on his own. He acts like its the best idea anyone’s ever come up with and he is totally obsessive about it. He simply refuses to justify this idea and he won’t let go of it. He clearly is possessed by the stupid demon and needs to be beaten up with the clue stick.
The government is borrowing money from foreigners and transferring it into people’s bank accounts. Once we have spent that money (which will do nothing to raise productivity and future economic output), we must then raise taxes to pay the interest on it, reducing future consumption.
In short, it ranks up there as one of the worst government policies ever implemented – all because of some stupid Dead White “Male” who believed in magic pudding multipliers.”
Exactly right. And yet Sinclair, Hill (well forget Hill he’s got serious mental problems) Soon, Cambria ARE ALL BELIEVERS IN THE MAGIC PUDDING MULTIPLIER.
It simply doesn’t exist. Its simply a case of the spending being robbed from business-to-business spending and producing more spending is dead easy anyway if that is in fact what you want.
Its a horrible travesty of mass stupidity. And its often easier for outsiders to see it then the stupid people in the business.
“For once Homer is right – the December retail numbers are out. The increase over November was 0.2543, the same increase for 2007 was 0.2093, for 2006 0.2172, for 2005 0.2364, for 2004 0.2352. So it was slightly higher than the last 5 years. It will be inteesting to watch the January drop-off this year compared to the last five years when that figure comes out.”
Why wouldn’t Homer be right? There is no doubt that expansionary fiscal policy will steal money out of business-to-business spending, where it can help us recover, and it will push that spending into government expenditure and consumer spending…. categories that cannot help us recover.
At the same time expansionary monetary policy will tend to increase ALL SPENDING CATEGORIES but in hard to predict ways.
So Homer is likely to be right. Apriori stimulus policy will increase retail spending. But it won’t increase spending. It will simply rob business-to-business expenditure and splurge that spending on retail.
You see Sinclair, Cambria et al really have no idea. Thats why you end up getting beaten up by vandalising girly-men like Gruen.
As soon as you started promoting this idea, thats when Clive Hamilton and Quiggin made their move and released that 76 dropkicks petition. They said that a carbon-tax could be used to reduce other taxes. They just said that as a bait and switch. You ought to have known they were not interested in a carbon tax or in reducing spending.
You simply were being pimped by those guys. You were promoting their act. And look at how that reducing other taxes is panning out? Look at how revenue-neutrality is panning out?
These same lunatics are pushing massive fiscal irresponsibility. They’ll take your carbon-tax, morph it into a cap and kill and throw in a wrecking-ball splurging package as well.
The fact is you were compromising with lies. With unscience. You were promoting unscience and you still are. There is no way you can support a carbon tax without lending weight to this science fraud.
No look Murray. You are just defending your own pathetic views. But you cannot defend them. Hence the leftist projection. I’m not putting up with that crap. You are acting like you’ve put up a reasoned case and I have been blind to it. I’m not putting up with that sort of dishonesty.
The point is, Bird, no Australian carbon “schemes” will make any difference and are driven solely by religious hysteria. Why on earth are libertarians trying to redeem this irrational sacrifice to Gaia with a pro-market parlour game? That’s the kind of fumbling dumbness one would expect from Fredo Munn.
I cannot understand it CL. I’ve talked to Humphreys and Soon about it and its something weird with the kids. They simply do not feel like they need to justify their beliefs. I don’t think that people need to justify their religious faith. But Soon, Humphreys and those guys simply think that everyone can have public policy opinions and no-one needs to have reasons for them. Its a weird sort of egalitarianism. Any idea, no matter how harmful, is fine. Humphreys will argue it at one step, you’ll counter, then he’ll disappear. If the heat from the backlash is getting too much within the party, he’ll back off a bit, and then he’ll be at it again.
He even got in an argument with Gerry Jackson about it. Jackson kicked his ass but Soon and Sinclair reckon it went the other way which is ridiculous but it just shows how little Soon or Sinclair actually understand economics. It was a strange argument since neither Humphreys, Soon, Sinclair or all the other rebels against economic science ever displayed that they understood Austrian capital theory. They simply ignored the entire point. Sinclair bluffed his way through trying to keep a straight face as he described Jackson as at best a gifted amateur. Sinclair had protested against the Pigouvian taxing of negative externalities. Now here was a positive externality and he would not rule out taxing a positive externality. So he basically sold out and showed himself to be full of shit.
The other thing that is bizzare about the kiddy epistemology is that it contains no heirachy. So if they say they’ve got to get to Ireland before they can plan their County Cork holiday. Then they have all these threads on County Cork holidays right. But supposing you found out it was impossible to go to Ireland. In their view you would be changing the subject by mentioning this if they were talking about the County Cork holiday.
This may be a bad example. But I’ve never seen such lunacy in my life. The fact that Humphreys doesn’t have any evidence on the science side of things does not seem to prevent these guys from charging ahead and fucking up the economics as well.
So we find that CO2 doesn’t warm. That if it did this would be a net economic gain, and that CO2 itself increases plant yields and makes the biosphere more robust. This doesn’t matter to them in their wrong irrational and superstitious epistemology. Sinclair included. Its fine for them to run the computer models which show a medium scenario where more CO2 costs 10 trillion dollars and an extreme scenario when its 100 trillion dollars, and they will say the science is not their job. They are highly irrational. This goes for all the economists you know from catallaxy without exception. Its something weird about institutional man and the decades long pull of parasitism and how this affects the field of study itself. Something weird at how the Keynesian-Neoclassical consensus has morphed into one big THIEF-ECONOMICS with two wings that are barely distinguishable on a technical level.
SO THAT MEANS IN THE INTERIM YOU MUST HAVE FOUND SOME EVIDENCE RIGHT YOU STUPID SCOTTISH FAIRY CUNT?
NO YOU HAVEN’T FOUND ANY EVIDENCE?
YOU SHOW UP AT MY PLACE AN LIE ALL THE TIME CUNT YOU BETTER HOPE I DON’T RUN INTO YOU. I’LL BREAK YOUR STUPID LYING CUNT NOSE AND KICK YOU IN THE RIBS WHILE YOU ARE STILL CRYING.
NOW MAKE GOOD WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU LYING ASSHOLE.
YOU WERE AFTER EVIDENCE FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC WARMING. EVIDENCE FOR THE IDEA THAT A LITTLE BIT OF HUMAN-INDUCED WARMING IS A BAD THING IN A BRUTAL AND PULVERISING ICE AGE. AND EVIDENCE FOR ANY NON-NEGLIBLE INDUSTRIAL-CO2 WARMING AT ALL.
YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT I HAVEN’T FOUND ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE ABOVE. NO-ONE HAS. YOU ARE AND IDIOT ADRIEN. YOU WERE NEVER UP TO GROWN-UP TALK.
Oil’s back at $40! Feeling pretty silly after your peak oil?
NOT AT ALL. IT WAS PAULSON AND BERNANKE THAT ALLOWED BUSINESS SPENDING TO COLLAPSE. NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OIL PREDICTION WHICH WAS SOUND.
ACTUALLY THEY DID MORE THAN SIMPLY ALLOW SPENDING TO COLLAPSE. THEY ACTIVELY COLLAPSED THE COMMODITIES MARKETS AND NOT EXCLUDING OIL. THIS WILL HAVE DISASTROUS RESULTS IN THE LONG RUN.
WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT EVERYONE AND HIS MOMMA ALL AROUND THE WORLD WERE SHORTING FREDDY MAC AND FANNIE MAE AND OTHER BANKS. SO WHEN THEY STARTED ANNOUNCING THESE BAILOUTS AND RADICAL STEALING PLANS, THE LIKES OF WHICH THE WORLD HAD NEVER SEEN OR EVEN IMAGINED BEFORE, EVERYONE AND HIS MOMMA HAD TO OFFLOAD ANYTHING TANGIBLE AND REAL THAT THEY OWNED AND BUY USD SO THEY COULD COVER ALL THEIR SHORTS.
NO-ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED THIS RADICAL IRRESPONSIBLE MARKET MANIPULATION. SO MY OIL CALL WAS GOOD. I HEARD THAT THE INVENTORIES WERE FINALLY RISING AND SAID THERE WOULD BE A HIATUS IN PRICES FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. AND THATS PROBABLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEIR WEREN’T INCOMPETENTS AND LUNATICS IN CHARGE.
“EVIDENCE FOR THE IDEA THAT A LITTLE BIT OF HUMAN-INDUCED WARMING IS A BAD THING IN A BRUTAL AND PULVERISING ICE AGE. AND EVIDENCE FOR ANY NON-NEGLIBLE INDUSTRIAL-CO2 WARMING AT ALL.”
How much warming is a “little bit”?
A LITTLE BIT WOULD BE NOT ENOUGH TO OVERCOME THE DOWNWARD TREND INTO GLACIATION. BUT PERHAPS JUST ENOUGH TO EASE THE RATE OF CHANGE IN THE CLIMATE.
BUT YOU TELL ME IF YOU FIND THE EVIDENCE. A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA WARMTH IN THE WINDS THE SWEEP AGAINST SOME MOUNTAIN OR OTHER IS NOT GOING TO AMOUNT TO MUCH. TO BE CUMULATIVE THE EXTRA JOULES MUST BE ABLE TO OUTLIVE A WEAK SOLAR CYCLE. IF THE JOULES CANNOT DO THAT THEY CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE WARMING AND THEREFORE IN NO WAY CAN BE PROBLEMATIC OR DANGEROUS.
Not for nothing and we all make mistakes. However Z does have a good point. Your oil call at the top of the market was quite possibly the worst call I’ve seen.
ACTUALLY IT WAS A VERY GOOD CALL. AND YOU OUGHT NOT BE MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH THIS 200 USD UNLESS YOU HAVE THE CONTEXT. FIND THE LINK. IF IF SAID 5 YEARS TIME THAT WAS PROBABLY A GOOD CALL UNLESS WE CAN DEFEAT THE GREENS SUBSTANTIALLY WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO. IT WILL EASILY GET THIS HIGH UNLESS WE GET A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE TO CARBON AND NUCLEAR. BECAUSE WE NEED THIS DIFFERENT ATTITUDE TO EXPAND THE SYNTHETICS AND THEN GET A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF INVESTMENT IN FAR DEEPER DRILLING AND ESPECIALLY DEEP DRILLING AND EXPLORATION IN ANTARCTICA AND THE OCEANS. THERE IS BOUND TO BE UNIMAGINED RICHES IN THE DEEP OCEANS. BUT THATS NOT GOING TO OVERIDE DECADAL PEAK OIL WHICH HAS BEEN MANIFEST SINCE 2005 AND HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED IN THE SLIGHTEST BY THE FALL IN PRICES.
Not even Goldman Sachs that predicted $200 was as bad as you as they at least conceded they were wrong and basically apologized. However all we’ve heard is silence from your normally rude and garrulous self.
WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BEAT THIS 200USD. AND WE WOULD DO IT BY GETTING THESE MINI-NUKES OUT IN THE FIELD AND USING THEM FOR HEAT APPLICATION TO GASIFY SEAMS OF COAL AND REPROCESS THE SYNGAS INTO DIESEL EQUIVALENT. HUMPHREYS SUPPORT FOR THE SCIENCE FRAUD OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL DETRACT FROM THAT. JUST AS THE SUPPORT OF THIS RACKET BY ALL OF YOU HELPED GET PEOPLE KILLED IN VICTORIA. NEVER COMPROMISE WITH EVIL AND UNSCIENCE.
MY OIL CALL WAS A VERY GOOD CALL. I’M NOT EXPECTED TO ACCOUNT FOR CENTRAL BANK INCOMPETENCE. HOW WAS I TO KNOW THAT PAULSON AND BERNANKE WERE FUNDAMENTALLY USELESS AND SO ALLOWED A MELTDOWN?
BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS SPENDING WORLDWIDE HAS TANKED. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE IMF TOLD US THAT LAST QUARTER INTERNATIONAL TRADE WAS COLLAPSING AT THE RATE OF 42% ANNUALISED. SO WHILE GDP WAS PRETTY STATIC IN MOST PLACES, ACTUAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY COLLAPSED. AND THIS WAS AFTER MY “OIL CALL” AS YOU PUT IT. PEOPLE THINK THE MARKET IS HARD TO READ. I THINK ITS PRETTY EASY TO READ. ITS THE FELLOWS IN CANBERRA AND WASHINGTON THAT ARE INSCRUTABLE.
NOW THINK IF PEOPLES SPENDING IS DROPPING AWAY FASTER THAN 10% EVERY MONTH. BUT THE NATURE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY IS SUCH THAT THEY KEEP PUTTING OUT THEIR 73 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY IN OIL FROM TRADITIONAL SOURCES AND 12 MILLION ODD BARRELS IN SYNTHETICS. THERE WAS NO BUBBLE PRIOR IN OIL PRIOR TO THE GENERAL BUST. THATS AS MYTH. BUT TOTAL SPENDING HAS COLLAPSED AND OIL SUPPLY HAS STAYED THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THAT SCENARIO IS THAT PRICES CAN COLLAPSE.
MY PREDICTION WAS FAR MORE RATIONAL THAN YOURS CAMBRIA. BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T PREDICT A COLLAPSE IN GENERAL SPENDING. NOR DID YOU PREDICT A COLLAPSE IN DEMAND. YOU FLUKED THE PRICES ISSUE ITS TRUE. BUT YOU IMPLIED THAT THE PRICE WAS GOING TO GO DOWN IN THIS WAY ON THE BASIS OF EXPANDED SUPPLY. WHICH IS SIMPLY DELUSIONAL. SUPPLY CANNOT EXPAND WITHOUT A WHOLE NEW GENERATION OF CAPITAL GOODS.
Oil was at $150 when you called $200. It is now $40.
Lucky you don’t work on a trading desk or your fat sorry ass would be right out of a job – without a bonus.
BULLSHIT. I’D BE MAKING A FORTUNE. BUT YOU ARE NOT TELLING THE WHOLE STORY. THIS IS LIKE WHEN STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU CLAIM ITS WARMING. NO TIME FACTOR TO MAKE YOUR CLAIM VALID.
THE PRICE OF OIL WAS ON ITS WAY TO 200USD. AND WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THERE WITHIN 5 YEARS. AND IT WILL PROBABLY STILL GET THERE WITHIN 5 YEARS. THE DIFFERENCE NOW IS THAT THE CHINESE ECONOMY HAS FINALLY CRACKED. AND ITS TRUE I WAS NOT ALLOWING FOR ANY SUCH THING.
MY CALL WAS GOOD. EXCELLENT IN FACT. CAMBRIA WAS BEING A LUNATIC. HIS REASONING WAS TOTALLY IDIOTIC. AND HE’S BEEN PROVEN WRONG SINCE SUPPLY HAS NOT INCREASED.
Don’t be so quick. I said that’s what they are thinking…. believing. There actually is a multiplier effect. It’s less than one. Mark Hill believes it’s .8”
You idiot Cambria. For there to be a multiplier fiscal policy needs to reduce the demand for money for holding or lead to an increase in the money supply. Why do we need to steal or splurge to affect either of these and are you saying that the money supply is suddenly in the FISCAL??????? policy domain?
Its the central bank that looks after money supply. So the contention that there is a multiplier must be to do with reducing money balances. Well why would you want people to do that in the first place? If people are desperately and futilely attempting to build their cash balances we can reduce the time it takes for them to do so with extra cash.
But the fact is that there is no multiplier. Its irrational to think that there would be. Since extra splurging might increase or reduce peoples propensity to hold higher or lower balances but only basically by SHEER SERENDIPITY.
Hence the mutiplier will be non-existent or tiny-negative or tiny-positive and therefore something to disregard entirely. As just a sleight of hand. Mark Hill is a real dummy. How can you conjure a mutliplier on his sayso?
If there was a multiplier not only would it be less than 1. It would be less then one and negative or positive. It might be negative 0.1 one year and positive 0.1 the next. And either way it would be entirely irrelevant since there is nothing easier in this fiat world to do then to create more spending.
History knows no occasion where fiscal policy was going in one direction and monetary policy going in another… and where monetary policy didn’t win that tug of war. But it is no tug of war in the first place. Because fiscal policy is simply neutral to nominal spending. Only monetary policy affects nominal spending and we can have any spending level we want.
The mulitplier is just stupidity. Try and THINK you dumb wog. And if you think and brain misfires and you still think that there might be a multiplier ask someone for the evidence.
I’ve noticed something also. The unreal multiplier crowds out in peoples mind the authentic multiplier of bank-cash-pyramiding. It seems that few people who have been stooged by the multiplier really get their head around the way that banks create new money with their bank-cash-pyramiding.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SOON. THE CALL ON OIL WAS GOOD AND STAYED GOOD AND IS STILL GOOD NOW AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN PROVE ME WRONG IS BY SHOWING THAT YOU PREDICTED THE SUDDEN MELTDOWN.
WE MAY BE ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PATH NOW BUT THEN AGAIN MAYBE NOT. IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHETHER WE CAN DUMP THE CAP-AND-KILL AND DISCREDIT ENVIRONMENTALISTS MORE GENERALLY.
THE DESTRUCTION OF B-TO-B SPENDING MAY HAVE BOUGHT US SOME TIME AND ALLOWED TIME TO PASS AS FOLKS GOT THEIR SYNGAS AND LIQUIFICATION TECHNOLOGY TOGETHER.
WE WERE HEADING TOWARDS 200USD PER BARREL PRIOR TO THE MELTDOWN, AND WITH ONLY ABOUT A TWO YEAR PAUSE. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT AT ALL.
AND IF WE CANNOT START MAKING INROADS ON POLICY AND CHANGE THINGS RADICALLY FROM WHEN I MADE THAT CALL WE WILL SEE THAT 200USD AND NOT TOO FAR AWAY AT THAT.
BUT TO POINT THINGS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION WE HAVE A STRING OF SMALL-CAP COMPANIES IN THIS COUNTRY THAT COULD BE POISED TO APPLY THIS SORT OF TECHNOLOGY. ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE RADICALLY UNDERVALUED. IF HUMPHREYS AND THE REST OF YOU RETARDS COULD ONLY TAKE OFF THE THREAT OF CARBON TAXES AND START SUPPORTING THESE GUYS.
THEN THE SHARE PRICES INCREASE……..
…….THEN THEY CAN RIGHTLY HAVE NEW SHARE ISSUES AND RAISE A BUNCH OF CAPITAL………
…….. THEN THEY CAN START APPLYING THE SORT OF INVESTMENTS THAT WOULD INDEED MAKE A MOCKERY OF MY FORECAST.
ITS UP TO YOU JASON SOON. CAN YOU AND HUMPHREYS CHANGE? CAN YOU LEARN ABOUT THE CAPITAL MARKETS AS THEY WORK IN THE REAL WORLD AND UNDER AUSTRIAN CAPITAL THEORY.
CAN YOU CHANGE YOUR HEART AND MIND JASON SOON.
FOR IT IS WRITTEN BY THE PEN OF REAGAN THAT WE MUST ALL ACT AS THOUGH THE OUTCOME OF THE CONTENTION WAS UP TO OUR EFFORTS ALONE.
I MADE A GREAT CALL ON OIL AND THERE IS NO GAINSAYING THAT. SINCE THE PRICE CAME DOWN WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN SUPPLY AT ALL.
WHICH PROVED I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG.
A LOT OF DYNAMICS HAVE SHIFTED EVEN SINCE THEN. THE MONETARY CRASH GETS RID OF BAD INVESTMENTS AND SOMETIMES IN THE WIDER SENSE. THIS CO2-BEDWETTING MAY HOPEFULLY BE WATERED DOWN NOW THAT THE STIFFER MONETARY CONDITIONS HAVE SET IN.