Posted by: graemebird | February 23, 2009

Inviting Jason Soon To Either Back Down From Or Justify His Pro-Communist Nationalisation Editorial Policies

As we have seen Jason Soon and his contributers have settled in favour of arbitrarily altering our rules for the benefit of Rio Tinto bigshots and in order to allow the nationalisation of our resources by the Chinese communists. Is it necessary to point out here that China is our key strategic threat? And the most likely country to undermine our sovereignty by direct influence over Canberra politicians? Why is Jason in favour of nationalisation? And being that this is the case why is he in favour of nationalisation specifically by the communists? Specifically by the one band of cutthroats, student-mincers and organ-snatchers that ought to be at the top of our resistance list?

We see that other cuckoo-baby leftists like Sinclair Davidson, Kirchner, John Humphreys and pretty every idiot in the treasury, are also in favour of this hand-holding between crony-town and communist-nationalisation. This is a no-lose situation for the bigshots. They can buy a string of leases, outbidding the small-caps, and if things go wrong they can change the rules on the fly and then our gear is nationalised. Not by our government but by the Chinese communists. This is akin to a local property-developer who can get an unearned capital gain by manipulating the council to change zoning laws.

Supposing that these people aren’t merely traitors or lunatics and have just been taken in by poor definitions, well we have done our best on this forum to get the definitions right and show that this is not privatisation, or free trade, but is nationalisation by the Chinese.

So its at this point that we ask Kirchner, Sinclair, Soon, Cambria, Humphreys and others to back away from this anti-sovereignty, anti-economics idiocy, after having given them time to think about it.

The ideas of these people are treasonous. But what really is driving it is their near total non-understanding of economics.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Can you please add me to the list of “cuckoo-baby lefitsts”. Thanks.

    THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING HUMPHREYS. NOTICE PEOPLE THAT BOTH DAVIDSON AND HUMPHREYS COME FROM MUGABES PART OF THE WORLD. AND TEND TO FOLLOW HIS VIEW OF ECONOMICS.

    “It’s hard to be 100% certain about something in this relatively young science, but I can’t see why people wouldn’t lean towards believing that humans are contributing towards global warming. That seems to be where the balance of information takes you…”

    You see Humphreys. You are a failed analyst. In both economics and elsewhere. You cannot justify the above statement. If anything we are a cooling influence via dimming. Which we know has an effect. And if we were a warming influence that would obviously be a good thing. Now you have been an imbecile about this long enough and its time to get it right and stop charging about doing damage.

  2. CAMBRIA ALSO SHOWING HIS SUPPORT FOR THIS ANTI-ECONOMICS TREASON BUT FAILING TO GIVE A JUSTIFICATION.

  3. Notice Humphreys that your wicked attempts to promote a carbon tax have failed in their alleged purpose and that all you and Sinclair have succeeded in doing is to further lock in anti-CO2 lunacy as a faux-bi-partisan issue.

    If you cannot stop yourself being a harmful traitor every time you type just stop typing.

  4. “We’ve seen warming. There are two potential causes: natural sun-based variability & greenhouse gases. With the first we should see low & high temps going up. With the second we should see the lower temps go up more than the high temps. In the warming since the 1970s we have seen the second.”

    Another completely untenable inference by Humphreys and highlights his incompetence in both economics analysis and elsewhere.

  5. More failed economic analysis but this time by Cambria. But no doubt John in his utter ignorance agrees with this as well:

    “You could actually have all the cake and eat too, mark.

    Do all the things you say. Transfer part of income tax to carbon and it would actually place GDP potential on a higher trajectory. I really don’t see why this is even a hard.”

    Its not hard at all. Its easy to understand. Which is why we can see how wrong it is.

  6. Aw c’mon Graeme. That title is misleading. In fact it’s contradicted by the first sentence of the post.

    NO THATS NOT RIGHT YOU ARE LYING. LYING IS NO WAY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT.

    Jason is arguing against ‘nationalisation’; or rather, he isn’t arguing about nationalization – the public acquisition of private property – at all.

    YES HE IS. ITS THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS BUYING PRIVATE PROPERTY. AS YOU YOURSELF DEFINE MATTERS THATS NATIONALISATION. He’s just saying the govt shouldn’t stop the Chinese investing in Rio Tinto.

    I’M CHARACTERISING THE ARGUMENT PROPERLY EVEN BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION YOU ANTI-LOGIC SHIT-FOR-BRAINS. HE WANTS OUR RESOURCES NATIONALISED BY THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS. THE ORGANISATION IS A CHINESE COMMUNIST CORPORATION.

  7. Anyway it’s not fucking nationalization. YES IT IS. ITS NATIONALISATION BY THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS. If you nationalize a form you make it public property. NO YOU DON’T.

    NO THATS NOT RIGHT. WHEN YOU NATIONALISE A COMPANY YOU MAKE IT GOVERNMENT OWNED AND TAXEATER CONTROLLED.

    If the Aus govt blocks investment in Rio Tinto it’s not nationalizing it.

    THATS RIGHT.

    If a Chinese firm invests in Rio Tinto it’s not nationalizing it either.

    IF ITS A CHINESE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT OWNED FIRM WELL THATS AKIN TO NATIONALISING IT TO SOME DEGREE.

    IF THEY BUY THE ASSETS THATS NATIONALISING THE ASSETS. THATS THE COMMUNIST CHINESE NATIONALISING AUSTRALIAN ASSETS. IF ITS A FOREIGN MILLIONAIRE BUYING A SMALL MINE OR ONE OF OUR SMALL-CAP COMPANIES BUYING SOME OF THESE LEASES THATS NOT NATIONALISATION.

  8. AS YOU YOURSELF DEFINE MATTERS THATS NATIONALISATION.

    No. I define nationalization as the conversion of private property to public property.

    THEN WHY DID YOU TELL ME NO? BECAUSE THE CHINESE TAKING OWNERSHIP OF AUSTRALIAN ASSETS IS THEREFORE NATIONALISATION. DON’T FUCK AROUND. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION JASON IS ADVOCATING NATIONALISATION. BUT NOT BY OUR GUYS. INSTEAD BY THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS.

  9. I CANNOT ALLOW THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU’VE MADE A TRUNCATED QUOTATION IN A MISLEADING WAY. HERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT COMMUNISTS BUYING SHARES BUT NOT TAKING CONTROL OF THE ASSETS DIRECTLY.

  10. You see so far you haven’t been able to show that it isn’t nationalisation. And there is a good reason for this. It IS nationalisation. The control of the assets are then shared between two governments. There is no private control of the assets once the goods are nationalised by the Chinese Communists.

    Nothing exists to justify this in economic theory, or from the perspective of libertarian ethics or from the strategic necessity to always put sovereignty first.

  11. Adrien do you know what logic is? You just defined nationalisation. And so by your own definition Jason is advocating nationalisation.

    There is no point saying NO redoing the definition and pretending that what Jason is suggesting isn’t nationalisation.

    If a government takes control of formerly private property thats nationalisation.

    Public ownership simply means GOVERNMENT OWNED. Thats what public ownership is. Are you claiming that the Chinese communists are setting these assets aside as wilderness or something? Or making it that we’ll all be able to use them?

    Just fucking get your act together mate.


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: