Posted by: graemebird | March 12, 2009

We Need Two Wings In A Re-Industrialisation Alliance/’Heavy Metal Don’t Mean Rock And Roll To Me’.

Not all of my threads are rambling. But this is a rambling thread. There is really no doubt that this is a rambling thread. Yet I want every last person to read every last rambling, repetitive and self-referential word of this thread, since this thread has already become the subject of horrible lies and distortions as I knew it would. The ultimate disaster would be if people were mislead by Quisling-economists, crony-town advocates, banking welfare queens, and parasites more generally…. The disaster would be if good people were mislead by others lying about this thread.

As we know, the key to avoiding disasters is to set up a series of filters between the potential for tragedy and the actuality of it. Well it would be a great tragedy is it were the case that this thread were misunderstood by even one righteous man. So we see that the rambling is actually the affore-mentioned filters. And If you read every word twice over, with great care….. then go to see what the compulsive liars are saying ……………. well hopefully the rambling and repetition will be enough for you not to be taken in by sundry zombies, quislings and traitors.

I have to spend less time on the net and so of course I employ a bit of corner-cutting to get my advocacy out there. I think I’ll turn a comment into an open letter to the “economists” of Australia, who have let us down horribly. Worst of all they aren’t even technically correct in their interpretation of the doctrine of comparative advantage.

I was only 19 when a fellow from Wellington phoned me up about a possible job as an economist. I had to tell him I already had plans to go to Australia. But perhaps I would not have learned as much as I did about the subject as a taxeater. Perhaps I would have become a real jerk.

Look you Australian “economists.” I’m sick of it. I’m just so sick of having to defend zero tariffs with you assholes undercutting me every step of the way. Undercutting me with your confirmation-in-error that this need necessarily mean deindustrialisation.

I say the reindustrialisation is more important than ideological purity when it comes to tariffs. So I advocate mass-sackings of taxeaters, good money and tax policy, and the closure of most government departments. All this as a way to shoot for powerful capital formation.

No more taxes on reinvested income. TAXATION OF PROFIT IS SIN. I’m not talking just for bigshots here. But for your sole trader subcontractor. If he keeps his business accounts and his personal accounts separate, let him not be taxed until he pulls funds out of the business. This is what leads to wealth creation and nothing else. Reinvestment. Not consumer-spending but BUSINESS-RENOVATION. Business gearing up. Call it what you want. But its internal business spending, with a view to reducing recurring costs and/or increasing revenues, that will be the key to allow us to outcompete allcomers, as the most energy-and-capital-intensive production-hub that there is.

That reasonable people now see that there is a need to halt the loss of heavy-metal production activities, from leaving this country, is no fault of my own.

And that these same people often think that tariffs is the long-term way to stop the bleed and advance our productive power is not my fault either.

Thats what the misrepresentation of economic science that you guys are responsible for has acheived. I’m sick of feeling that insider-pressure that requires me to gainsay people who are merely being reasonable and patriotic. There will be a mega-wave of protectionism and no doubt most of you incompetent-economists will ride it. And its about all I can imagine doing but to try and have a wing where we show other ways of going about reindustrialisation.

And in the end I don’t CARE about these thief-economics rorts where one violation of the free market is suddnely placed above all others BY STINKING LEFTIST FAUX-LIBERTARIAN POSERS.

Reindustrialisation and sound money are amongst the valid goals of liberty. Less tariffs is not the only thing there is. If there is a perceived conflict one to the other than obviously less tariffs must lose out. I don’t see that there is a real LONG-TERM conflict. But the taxeating economists advice has been so bad that we are really losing our industrial base pretty quickly. And we are getting into more and more debt. Less tariffs IS MASSIVELY IMPORTANT sure. But I cannot keep a straight face anymore trying to defend tariff reductions when you guys sit still for the collected governments of Australia spending 1 billion dollars a day….. And when you guys don’t seem to understand anything about how monetary and tax policies are hollowing our economy out.

It is the incompetence of the economists who have created the (afterall commonsense) view that our economy is being hollowed out by the reduction in tariffs and by low-wage-country competition. This is the commonsense point of view since like all disasters (firearms accidents, industrial accidents, diving accidents, high death rates from fires, the sudden outbreak of war, the ruining of a production run, the death of a highly skilled SAS member during a low-level skirmish) there tends to be three or more contributing factors. Or thats one way of looking at it.

You can look at it from the point of view of the long arm of co-incidence, reaching across to screw us up when disaster strikes. Or alternatively you can look at it from the point of view that we failed to throw in a series of filters between ourselves and disaster. Think of this idea of a series of filters in relation to the bracketed examples I’ve given. Specialists in each area, were they at some sort of seminar, could easily fill in the blanks of this conceptual idea, to find three filters to all the constituent activities that make up the wider activity so bracketed.

Yes its true that an individual business might go offshore if it is the case that tariffs are reduced. BUT IF ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE WORKING IN OUR FAVOUR then that will be just one business here or there. It won’t be a headlong real-capital (in the sense of heavy-metal and activities were advanced trade skills are necessary to keep matters running).

I don’t try to back losing arguments. If the tariff reductions are THE PROXIMATE CAUSE of the absolute disaster of deindustrialisation, then if a friend comes around with a six-pack and suggests that we ought to have tariffs until such time as we have the capital formation policies in place…. well how can I argue with that? I cannot prove that he is wrong. And given that tariff-reduction IS INDEED A PROXIMATE COURSE of this utter disaster……… well I would be going against my ethos of always going with the evidence if I was to try and slap such a person down.

About all I can do in this situation is to explain the other more important causes. The long-run courses. And then get some sort of compromise-in-principle going that if the tariff-reduction is put on hold that the legislation to do that also comes with an automatic reversal once certain nationwide metrics in the trend to capital-intensification and debt-reduction are met.

We must reindustrialise one way or another. And let no thief-economics advocates get BETWEEN good brothers where this vital goal is at stake.

I’M ON THEIR SIDE. I’m not on your side anymore. That is I’m on the side of anyone in favour of Australian reindustrialisation, and I think an alliance is the point regardless of disagreements as to the method.

Reindustrialisation is the goal and its got to be a united effort to trash those who would go against this.

I would theoretically stop short of allowing into this alliance of people who disagree…. anyone who is in favour of either subsidies, tariff protection for individual firms that is not industry-wide……. or tariff protection for any industry that does not have a built-in-trigger to automatically lock in the end of that tariff-protection when certain national trends are put into reverse and we can see that the new trend is unstoppable.

My experience with Australian economists is that they are compulsive liars. And that they interpret the above to mean that I am in favour of medium-term tariffs. If anyone says that they are lying. Simple as that. I’m talking about setting a framework for an alliance of people who disagree over some matters but agree about tariffs.

My position is clear. I want mass-sackings, massive spending cuts, the closure of bureaucracies by the bakers dozen…. leading to the long-term tax-exemptions, tax-removals, and improvements in monetary policy that will make this nation pay down debt and re-capitalise at the same time.

I’m on the side of anyone, within the afforementioned limits, who wants Australia to reduce its debts and reindustrialise, and my only contribution, since our pathetic Australian economists have reneged on the job, is to show how this reindustrialisation can be done achieved, with or without tariffs, and with some dispatch.

We can stop the bleed now and lock in tariff reductions for later when certain reindustrialisation metrics have been met. This quote was misrepresented elsewhere as me being in favour of tariffs. I respect many people who ARE in favour of tariffs since their position is a logical reasoned position. I’m not in favour of tariffs since tariff-reduction is only one proximate cause of the disaster and I’m in favour of getting rid of the more systemic, insipid, furtive and long-run causes of this disaster.

I’m in favour of mass-sackings of taxeaters and the closure of bureaucracies by the bakers dozen, leading to spending cuts, monetary and other policy reforms. which will lead to reindustrialisation. Thats how I’d stop the bleed were it up to me. Its not up to me. And its important to form an alliance against these lunatics in the treasury, Australian economists more generally, and their fellow Quislings who come in all shapes and sizes.

This repetition is important because already the compulsive lying has begun. John Z has started this lying as I knew he would. Jason Soon as chimed in. The welfare Queen Joseph Cambria is there on the spot. Fatfingers is also there posing under a new name. And all of them are lying, either as themselves or in a bewildering variety of internet identities. There are so many of them in the same way that demon-possession is said to involve legions of these hell-hound interlopers in the one poor earthbound individual.

So the repetition is about overcoming the lies of these Quislings.

John Z has done a marvellous job of lying about what I’m saying here by the selective clipping of quotes. I’m supporting people who often support tariffs. Since I share common cause with these people in terms of wanting us to reindustrialise. So that is the basis of an alliance with two wings. If you share common cause thats the basis of an alliance.

Now that Australian economists have cocked this matter up its simply a matter of proving to the skeptical that we can reindustrialise with or without tariffs. And that it would be better to do so without tariffs, if we were able to push the necessary bureaucracy-triage through.

I have talked to many people and they do not believe this. I’m not readily able to convince people that we can stop the bleed and reindustrialise without tariffs.

And it occurred to me that I was being counterproductive. Since the main thing is to stomp the Australian economists whose zietgeist appears to be for us to lose our ability to make or grow anything. A lot of people don’t like this idea of Australia losing its ability to make or grow stuff. I’m saying smart people. Logical people. Because the contrary idea is total lunacy. Only an idiot, And Australian economist, or some other nutball working in Canberra could possibly imagine that this was an OK thing.

And the reason that smart and logical people often do not believe that we can powerfully reindustrialise without tariffs, is that our economists in treasury, crony-defense, subsidised-banking, and in the universities are telling them implicitly THAT THE LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE POWER IS THE GOAL OF THE EXERCISE.

Non-economists are not stupid. And if you thief-economists and sundry parasites are going to be promoting these anti-economics ideas then that leaves a situation impossible for sane people to unravel.

“We can stop the bleed now and lock in tariff reductions for later when certain reindustrialisation metrics have been met.”

The Quisling and parasite JohnZ has quoted me saying this as some sort of indictment. He has cribbed the quotes in quite masterful fashion actually.

Well thats the point. The tariff reductions MUST BE LOCKED IN IN ADVANCE. What I’m advocating is mass-sackings, allowing tax exemptions, allowing the immediate abolition of taxes on reinvested profits, and a host of other measures. Thats what I’m after. But the water has been muddied on this score. And the important thing is to get the spending cuts and lock the tariff reductions in, so that they immediately kick through when certain conditions are met. I would want the tariff reductions immediately but we’ve got to prioritise here. Stomping the economics leftocracy is the order of business.

Just to prove my sincerity to do with this call for mass-sackings, and with my PERSONAL opposition to tariffs, rather than my support of many allies who go in for the idea of tariff-protection………. I will reproduce my pre-election platform from 2007. I say pre-election platform, since once the election was called I briefly removed the platform, in deference to the party.

Graeme Bird: The Cheap Energy Candidate.
Watching with horror I see that our Greens have been picking up a lot of extra votes. This is the result of people not standing up and calling the global warming racket out for the delusional fraud that it is. Its farcical in theory. Its proven wrong insofar as the empirical evidence is concerned. And yet almost no one will point this out.

This is serious because it takes years to put up coal liquification and nuclear plants and when we finally come to our senses with an oil price of 120USD per barell and rising……. When we finally come to our senses we will still have to go for years if not decades with seriously expensive energy.

I am the cheap energy candidate for the next election. And now that the voting in NSW seems to have closed down I am at liberty to repost my DEMANDS. You see I didn’t want to jeopardise Terje Petersons chances for the Senate. So I took my radical proposals off the net a while back. Now that the votes are in I can put them back:

The following list of demands are non-negotiable.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 1.

Immediate sackings of any civilian defense department members who can be identified as having opposed the purchase of the Raptor Stealth Fighter. The steady replacement also of anyone who was working beneath them at the time and anyone closely associated with these miscreants.

Likewise with the recent warship purchases. Any civilian in the defense department who pushed for the choice of the Spanish over the superior American warship must be sacked immediately. And anyone thought to be closely associated with such lunatics should be sacked over time.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 2.

For the Australian parliament to declare the current hysteria about Industrial-CO2-Release, to be an obvious scientific hoax. And for any measures taken on the basis of this obvious hoax to be immediately abandoned and reversed.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 3.

For all (non-banking and finance) corporate welfare to be ended at once, and replaced with sunsetted tax exemptions. By sunsetted tax exemptions I mean that the corporation formerly receiving the corporate welfare…. be exempted from paying the corporate income tax AND AS WELL THEIR EMPLOYEES be exempted from paying the personal income tax from wages and salaries paid to them by this corporation, and as well any subcontractors, be exempted from any taxes relating to income paid to them by this corporation.

By “CORPORATE WELFARE” I mean any subsidies and tax rebates that the company now gets for any reason. But I do not include tax deductions under “Corporate Welfare.”

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 4.

For the banks to be taken out of the welfare system through the immediate adoption and implementation of a planned phase-out of any such welfare. Bank welfarism includes the ability to borrow from the Reserve Bank, the ability to practice fractional reserve banking, the taking on of debt by government authorities (State, Federal or Local) and most of the current banking regulation.

Wresting banks from out of their state of chronic welfarism must be done via a phase-out rather then a straight abandonment of such welfare. This is due to complicated matters relating to the esoteric subject of monetary economics.

As in the case of ending other corporate-welfare, the banks ought to be given a tax exemption taking them and their employees totally out of the income tax system, for a sunsetted period, as described in my 3rd non-negotiable demand.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 5.

(a)Rental income on living and working space(b) taxes on interest earnings (c)stamp duties on the buying and selling of realestate and (d) payroll taxes …………

These four taxes are to be abandoned immediately. The first is a federal tax. That ought to be abandoned in order to encourage high-rise building. Only land value tax has a plausible enough excuse to be retained in this regard. All other taxes getting in the way of vertical development must be abandoned. The other three taxes are State taxes. But they are taxes that the State governments had undertaken to cut when they were given the GST.

They have reneged on this sacred understanding. This is a most grievous offense, and the Feds have wiped their hands of this matter.

But in considering the situation it must be understood that all these entities are rampant thieves, and they ought to be considered part of the same unbelievable racket.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 6.

It must be recognised by the Australian parliament that height restrictions on buildings are always and everywhere an anti-social and unacceptable act and that steps ought to be taken, where possible, to make such loathsome restrictions illegal.

Whilst restrictions to horizontal development can sometimes be plausibly argued for, we should look to getting rid of most of them as well. Out of some sort of regard for our fellow man and for a concern for the health of our economy and society.

But its the height restrictions that are an anti-social abomination. Clearly wicked and against the interests of man and nature.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 7.

That the CSIRO must be disbanded immediately, both to reduce the robbery that government spending represents, and as well as punishment in their role of spreading the industrial-CO2-release science-hoax.

Independent scientific research companies and institutes may properly be taken out of the tax system for a sunsetted period in order that scientific research within Australia be maintained and enhanced after the CSIRO is abolished.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 8.

That all aquaculture be taken out of the tax system in the way described above. This measure is mandatory from a commercial and environmental-sustainability point of view, as a way of relieving the stress placed on the worlds fisheries. It is also a good way of helping bring down the basic costs of food for our fellow man. Out of my non-negotiable demands so far this one relates most directly to the electorate of Dobell.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 9.

That Diesel excise duties be immediately abolished and that the abolishment of any tax on diesel be guaranteed for at least 50 years. That this guarantee also apply to liquified-coal.

This is also mandatory from the view of ecnomic sustainability since as the known oil-wells become more depleted we find that the oil left is of a heavier sort more condusive to the seperation of diesel then petrol.

On top of that whereas the daily production of oil from traditional sources has peaked, we have very large supplies of coal to hand and liquified-coal can readily be used as fuel for diesel engines.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 10.

That property rights rules be so clarified as to make it a practical fact that no community, protestors, or branch of government, have any say whatsoever as to the placement of energy-generation facilities INCLUDING NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 11.

That all energy production activities be taken out of the tax system entirely in the way described in the above demands….. the taking of extraction-royalties alone excepted.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 12.

That all taxation be recognised as robbery, thievery and stealing, regardless of any belief or feeling that some small fraction of the current unacceptable level of stealing be necessary, in either in the long run, or more plausibly the short run.

ITS STEALING EVEN IF WE CANNOT DO WITHOUT SOME OF IT IN THE MEANTIME.

Its always stealing justified or not. To say otherwise is quite obviously to lie.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 13.

That as a consequence of the fact that taxation is blatant robbery, that those citizens, neither in the Police or armed forces, nor themselves directly elected, whose incomes are gained as a result of this stealing…….. that none of these citizens (old age pensioners alone excepted) should be allowed to vote.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 14.

That we move quickly to a situation of unilateral free trade AND AT THE SAME TIME that we chart a course to be typically running strong trade surpluses in peacetime.

NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 15.

That the Reserve Bank stops this irrational targeting of interest rates, consumer-price-inflation and GDP growth… and instead concentrate on the metrics of “Gross Domestic Revenue” and “Productive Expenditure.” Its mighty silly if you cannot even get the metrics you are supposed to be targeting right.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. The tariff wing and the mass-sackings-hard-money-and-tax-exemptions wing. And don’t come here if you are going to be dishonest.

    The tariff wing also tends to be more free enterprise then you will ever be, and its our economists fault that they have made tariffs look like merely common sense.

  2. Its just extraordinary how mentally handicapped neoclassicals are.

    Jason Soon habitually equates manufacturing with Stalinism. Mark Hill also. Truly these are very very stupid people.

  3. “Reindustrialisation and sound money are the goals of liberty.”

    You are confusing ends and means Birdy.


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: