Posted by: graemebird | February 22, 2009

NATIONALISATION IS FREE ENTERPRISE……… (not).

Sinclair Davidson on Catallaxy has decided that nationalisation of our resources is a great thing. Magnificent and in accordance with free enterprise. I take a different point of view. I think that having the goods in private hands is free enterprise.

Sinclair perhaps is like Jason and thinks that government to government sovereignty-reducing-haggling is free enterprise. He probably thinks that government-to-government deals haunted by the interests of only the MOST MASSIVE CRONIES is a free trade deal so long as you call it a “free trade deal’. I differ. I think that unilateral free trade is free trade. I don’t think government haggling can magically be turned into individual businessmen trading just by calling things stupid names that they are not. I think that our government must see to our liberty and stay away from haggling with thugs who always will come out on top of negotiations.

But I forgot to mention something. Sinclair believes in nationalisation its true. He believes that nationalisation of Australian resources is liberty and free enterprise. But ONLY IF THAT NATIONALISATION IS BY CHINESE COMMUNISTS. He’s such a queer fucker that he reckons that the Chinese communists are cool to nationalise our gear but not our own government subject to the electorate.

Well I don’t think our own government ought to nationalise our gear. And I don’t think our gear ought to be nationalised by the Chinese government. And most of all I don’t think that bigshots ought to be able to change the rules on the fly.

I want Rio’s gear to be sold off at bargain basement prices to our own small-caps. That way Rio goes bankrupt and we lose the debt and we keep all the gear.

There are probably nearly 7 billion people in the world. Or at least by the time there are that many people I suppose that we could have reformed our extraction industries and make our local industry open to any one of these individuals AS INDIVIDUALS.

Thats freedom and liberty to me.

If our extraction industries have no taxes or charges to them but royalties…. If no-one pays income tax on these industries and no company either… and only royalties…. Well then this is an even playing field and anyone who can plausibly stake a claim here just like in the Klondike… just like in the California gold rush. They can stake a claim, employ Australians, and develop intensively their own little spot and thats theirs and it belongs to them. And they are loyal to it and by extension to our country.

It doesn’t matter where they come from. It matters that their interests are our interests too and they are loyal to us because of the work they put into their property.

And this vision doesn’t include the Chinese communists and never could do.

Sinclair is not alone in his error and wrong-thinking. This is how bad things have gotten with the modern thief-economics. This is where the economists are taking us and one of the worst aspects of it is that they don’t understand economics. Not really they don’t.

Look at this hear Limey. It would be in our interests to take a million more like this if they are ready to come here as individuals and start a small business. I’d have them come from Botswana and Taiwan and Estonia if they come here to start a small business. Because thats free enterprise to me and having the attitude to ones work and property like this LImey has is what life is all about.

http://www.brr.com.au/event/47237/crc-the-gold-coast-resources-showcase-presentation-mr-peter-van-der-borgh-md

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “Good point, Sinc. We have no problem with them buying our bonds, but think they can remove a hole in the ground. China is madly diversifying away from the US dollar at the moment and we should help them.”

    Wrong on all counts Cambria you dope. And why on earth would we want to sell China BONDS????

    I cannot think of anything more dopey then selling the Chinese our bonds. Because there are few things more stupid than running deficits in the first place.

    You guys are nutters and you are completely lost. Justifying communist nationalisation by recourse of the unjustifiable stupidity of getting in debt to communists.

    So what is it for your next trick?

  2. “A lot of otherwise sensible people are vaguely uneasy about the Chinalco – Rio transaction. We’re being told that any takeover isn’t in the ‘national interest’, but the Rudd government would be brave to knock it back. On Insiders this morning George M said Australia is a capital importing nation and we couldn’t afford to annoy foreign investors; ”

    Who the fuck is George M? Think for yourself Sinclair. Whoever George M is he has got cause and effect ass-backwards and if if it were true that we depend on foreign investors, rather then merely benefit from it, then we would have to shake that dependence.

    BRAVE TO KNOCK IT BACK. Thats a bit telling right there. Sinclair appears to be saying that they are not in control of the situation.

  3. Perhaps Sinclair can justify selling the communists our government debt?

    After he has justified our government having debt in the first fucking place? Of course if Sinclair is stupid enough to believe in the multiplier he probably has no clue why I would question us ever having government debt.

    It really does pay to learn economics.

  4. But I forgot to mention something. Sinclair believes in nationalisation its true. He believes that nationalisation of Australian resources is liberty and free enterprise. But ONLY IF THAT NATIONALISATION IS BY CHINESE COMMUNISTS. He’s such a queer fucker that he reckons that the Chinese communists are cool to nationalise our gear but not our own government subject to the electorate.

    I must say, Graeme, I’m struggling to get my head around this too. I mean, both you and I agree that many Catallaxy types are not exactly the most brilliant strategists around, and this occasionally leads them to take stands (in support of a Leftist or Crony Capitalist measure) that will invariably destroy free enterprise in the long-term, even if it looks good on paper. But the support for the Communist takeover bid has totally blown my mind. They are so out to lunch that I’m coming to suspect that liberty isn’t really their main purpose – it’s breaking down national borders and merging governments into a World State that really motivates this crowd.

    RIGHT. ITS MANY YEARS OF SLOPPY DEFINITIONS AND A PERVERSION OF THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE GOING INTO THIS ONE. THEY’VE AT LEAST FALLEN FOR THE ZEITGEIST OF THE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE CROWD. THEY HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO USEFUL IDIOT STATUS IN THAT MOVEMENT IF NOT TRUE BELIEVERS. AND BEAR IN MIND THAT HUMPHREYS AND SINCLAIR MAY DAYDREAM ABOUT BEING BIGGER THAN AUSTRALIA INSOFAR AS PROMOTIONS ARE CONCERNED. THINK OF THE GIG THAT STERN GOT FOR EXAMPLE. YOU GET THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THAT SITUATION AND ALL THEIR ECONOMICS CONCEPTS GET NUDGED IN THE DIRECTION OF DISASTER.

  5. I think another example of self-defeating “libertarianism” would be the attempt by the indigenous Land Councils to takeover the Northern coastline. This had nothing to do with “private property” as it simply involved transferring a massive tract of land to a corrupt government agency, while locking away resources for the future. If it was really about free enterprise, then all they needed to do was transfer land ownership to indigenous family heads.

    • Well you bet. We are way behind on having people intensively develop and homestead small sections of sub-surface ocean territories. You cannot develop the full spectrum of ocean-based industry needed unless you have started the process of incremental capital accumulation at sea. This amounts to an emergency since while the environmentalists have their make-believe crises, real environmental crises are developing such as overfishing of the ferral fish.

      With this careless giving away of blanket ocean territory to a collective who did not individually homestead that territory, that wipes out virtually any chance of us getting things right in the department of oceanic property-development.

      By the way I’m not fond of any notions of of horizon to horizon private ownership of oceans. And if we could go back in time we might do things differently on land as well. But we really want to get started with the homesteading of small intensively developed patches.

  6. “I hear what you’re saying Steve but don’t agree with the analogy. The government are/might be telling Rio shareholders that selling to the Chinese is not in the national interest while at the same time hoping to sell the Chinese lots of bonds. Is that in the national interest? (Actually yes, both are – mind you selling part of Rio to the Chinese might not be in the shareholders private interest but that’s none of our business).”

    No you are wrong on both counts Sinclair. Natioinalisation by China of our national resources is not in our interests and neither is deficit spending let alone being in debt to the communists.

    Now you have got to stop being a fucking stooge, idiot, and economics incompetent, and justify these dumbass assertions or admit you are wrong.

  7. “I’m not fond of any notions of of horizon to horizon private ownership of oceans”

    Communist!

    THIS IS CLEARLY JASON SOON. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS FISK. AT JUST HOW SCARY SOON IS. HE WANTS THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS TO BE ABLE TO BID FOR BOTH OUR ROADS AND OUR OCEANS. THE GUY IS BASICALLY A COMMUNIST. I SHIT YOU NOT. HE REALLY BELIEVES THIS AND HAS ARGUED IT INTO THE GROUND. HE WOULD WANT THE BRITISH TO HAVE AUCTIONED OFF THE ENGLISH CHANNEL TO BISMARK. YOU MIGHT NOT THINK I’M TELLING THE TRUTH. BUT HE HAS ALWAYS INSISTED THIS AND HAS NEVER BACKED DOWN FROM THIS. AND ANYONE WHO OBJECTS TO THIS COMMUNISTS NATIONALISATION IS A COMMUNIST IN HIS LEFTIST-PROJECTION WORLD.

    YOU MAY THINK THAT THIS IS HYPERBOLE GONE WILD. BUT THIS IS A CONSISTENT THEME WITH JASON SOON THAT HE HAS NEVER EXPRESSED A DOUBT ABOUT. ITS WITH MARK HILL AS WELL. AND WE SEE SINCLAIR THINKING ALONG THESE LINES AS WELL.

    SO THIS IS WHO WE ARE NAIVELY RELYING ON WHEN WE THINK THAT THERE IS A BATTLE BETWEEN THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT IN OUR ECONOMICS FRATENITY. THE LEFT ARE LOONY TOONS AND THE RIGHT ARE HARDCORE TRAITORS.


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: