Posted by: graemebird | March 6, 2009

War Crimes Trials: The Interview To See If Mark Bahnisch Is Criminally Culpable

It may come to this if the anti-economics fascist stimulus packages continue:

You little pussy-whipped neoclassicals…….. Let it be on your head.

You too Sinclair. A little bit in the right direction is just a fucking far site too little and too late.



  1. It may seem to you that I’m kicking you Mark. But that aint the case. What I’m trying to do is talk to you. Talk to you and all those villains up in the Reserve bank. And all those villains up in Canberra.

    And what I’m trying to say to you is that THERE IS NO FISCAL MULTIPLIER

    And you wouldn’t want to be coming down look for any of it even if there was.

  2. Sinclair manages to lose an argument with Nick Gruen. This despite two salient factors that ought to make Gruen easy to beat.

    1. Nick Gruen is a lunatic.

    2. Nick Gruen isn’t arguing back.

    Sinclair starts by beating himself up in the first sentence:

    “I think we can all agree the December stimulus package has failed. The money wasn’t spent, it was saved. Now, of course, there is nothing wrong with saving but the policy objective was never for households to increase their savings, it was for households to spend.”

    So right there Sinclair appears to be saying that the deficit spending on the part of the government would have been OK if it had lead to splurging, but that it failed since the people out there used it to cope with their debts.

    Instead of attacking the ludicrous idea of the Keynesian multiplier outright he acts like a complete coward and sidesteps the need to do this as if he were granting idiots lunatics and homosexual ghosts a professional courtesy. So he sidesteps this matter and instead tries to frame this as a commonsense issue. Well it is a commonsense issue sure but we hardly need Sinclair for that. We need him to debunk the Keynesian idiocy. Because if a Professor is too gutless to do that then who will do it? I can do it easy enough but Sinclair is there for his extra credentials. Having done a few more papers.

    Then Sinclair matches Gruen one for one on irrationality. They think they are talking about the irrationality of people with credit card problems. In reality it is their own irrationality on display.

    Credit card problems aren’t to do with irrationality. They are to do with inadequate discipline, earlier monetary inflation. indebtedness more generally, and unmet expectations…. things going wrong, overtime suddenly drying up.

    Nick scornfully and idiotically suggests that such credit card problems can be fixed by a couple of tight months. They could be fixed by a couple of tight months its true. If the couple of tight months were Nick, Sinclair, and thousands of other useless taxeaters having to find a real job in the private sector. That way the rest of us could have a much higher income tax free threshold and we could pay our credit cards off while these dummies are doing useful work for the first time ever.

    The subtext of all this is that Sinclair believes in the multiplier. Or he cannot quite find the intellectual capacity to escape the logic of it. Or the moral courage to oppose it. Just like pretty much anyone who got their economics degree in this country where the profession is quite ill.

    Virtually every economist in this country is intellectually incompetent. They take a “subprime” view of epistemology. They take the view that building with great technical elegance on ludicrous logic can make a bad theory good. So stupid people talk about the subprime crisis as being about the miscalculation of risk. Making the same mistake as the lending institutions themselves. Since if you lend to someone who cannot pay then you won’t get paid and if you sell the loan this is fraud. But the subprime mental handicap says that if you do a lot of maths on top of the problem with risk analysis mathematics that can somehow fix the underlying problem. Hence fullblown morons like Edney can be heard to say things like “Well clearly there has been a mispricing of risk” or other mindless crapola coming straight from their subprime mentality.

    Subprime epistemology tells you that even though there is not a single scientific study in existence that can convincingly make a causal link between extra-CO2 and warming that notion can be shown by weight of evidence if enough maths and computer work is done where this wrong allegation is simply assumed in the models.

    Subprime thinking is basically the entirety of Neoclassical thought. A menace of a school of thinking. The only people that can make Keynesians, who are complete lunatics, look plausible.

  3. The ultimate social outcome of Keynesian stimulus packages. This is where Bahnisch, Gruen and their crowd are pushing us towards:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: