Only economic ignorance. Jason Soon didn’t offer an economic argument in the first place. So it amounted to treason for its own sake. He effectively just accused Costello of having some sort of fear. Some sort of phobia. He talks about Capital phobia. But in fact Jason is so ignorant its not clear that he knows what capital is.
Sinclair didn’t come up with an argument. Sinclair just seemed to say that if selling bonds to the communists is bad how is it that them nationalising our gear is bad. I say both is bad. Sinclair says that both is good. So we await Sinclairs justification for deficit spending as well as for nationalisation. All we really see is economic ignorance here. Sinclair hid behind someone else claiming that we were capital-dependent. This is something that is only a feature of the internal workings of Sinclairs feeble mind. The inflow of loan-money creates the trade deficits and not the other way around. This is ignorance on Sinclairs part and nothing grave would happen if the borrowing was reduced. Cambria came up with some motives why the Chinese were doing this and substituted this for an argument as to why we ought to change the rules for the benefit of Rio and the Chinese. This didn’t amount to an argument in favour unless we are making policy for Chinese communists rather than Australian taxpayers.
So in fact there is no argument made be these guys. If someone can find out where there argument is then do let me know.
Jason seems to feel that an argument isn’t necessary and that counterarguments can be neutralised by quoting.