Posted by: graemebird | April 18, 2009

Australian Rightest Economists/Most Of Them Are Mentally Deficient.

Taxeater Sinclair Davis now declares that everyone ought to pay income tax. It would be great if he quit his taxeating job and started paying it. But this is a totally untenable idea. What with family payments to wipe out, and old age pensions to wean over time, nothing could be more stupid than this concept.

You can take the man out of Africa. But can you take the Africa out of the man? Sinclair sticking up for his tribe rather than voting for good sense here. We need to abolish the company tax but get rid of the personal income tax by various tangential exemptions but basically by lifting it straight up from the ground. Thats the only way to take the whole population with you. People will understand if its all about mass-sackings of taxeaters and the closure of bureaucracies by the bakers dozen. Sinclair doesn’t see this because he’s not a serious free enterprise economist, and has a more static view of the situation.

The static view is that the people who aren’t paying the taxes will thereby vote for more government since they are lead to believe that won’t have to pay for it. There is some truth to this idea, but its basically a kindy version of public goods theory 101. There is room for leadership and communication here. For individuals to try and educate the public. But Sinclair is so unsound where public education is concerned that he refuses to trash the idiotic Keynesian multiplier (thats if he isn’t stooged by it himself). And he will not talk about mass-sackings and the slashing of government spending.

So he isn’t serious. His lack of seriousness is what has lead him down this cul de sac of everyone must pay.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, or so one hears, but the problem with the idea that everyone ought pay the income tax is that there IS NO overall strategy behind this notion. Its reminiscent of the supply-sider idea. That tax cuts can lead to greater government revenue. Well so what? What then? You’ve just created more parasitism without a further step to matters. One-step thinking. There is no sense of time, justice or strategy in the ideas of even mildly rightest Australian economists.

Just wondering about the mental deficiency of people who fall for the Keynesian multiplier. Just the same mental deficiency as all those who have fallen for the global warming fraud. They simply cannot lock in two things in their mind at once. Or lock in one thing and then build a further implication on that.

With the multiplier it never seems to occur to people that increasing spending isn’t all that often a crash-hot thing to do in the first place and its INFLATING matters. Then you have to overlay that with the knowledge that fiscal policy CANNOT increase spending except by serendipity or by the government debt acting like a sort of money substitute or partially so… then you have to overlay that with the knowledge that if you want to do this cash would actually work…….

… by the time you get that far an idiot like Cambria, just for example, will be accusing you of wanting inflation, years long assurances that you are in favour of growth-deflation, to the contrary not-withstanding. I’ve encountered this same idiocy so many times it really amounts to a mental defect in the person, in that they are simply not cut out for economic science. So it appears on the face of it, that Sinclair and the others were never up to the study. Because they do not have the facility of mind to lock in and overlay these assumptions. (Whereas someone like Rafe Champion would have been a natural and had the good sense to notice the genius of Hutt when he discovered him.)

Which is why of course every last one of these allegedly rightist dummies, Cambria included, (though he isn’t an economists book-holder), has fallen for the global warming hoax. You start off pointing out that warming would be a good thing if indeed it was possible. But by the time you’ve moved onto the next constituent part of the reality of the situation they’ve lost that first overlay. So Cambria, Sinclair, Humphreys et al are simply not capable of coping with the controversy, lacking that ability to understand something, lock the assumption in, and move to the next part of the argument.

As soon as you get to the part where CO2 does not warm the globe except perhaps by some tiny amount they’ve already lost the first understanding that they were supposed to overlay.

As a result of these mental defects absolute leftist lunatics are always beating these tribal rightists in public debates. Sinclair once went so far as to imply that the real problem with Nick Gruen trashing the first 11 billion of other peoples money to the direct detriment of the economy…… was that the fuckwit Gruen hadn’t done the requisite computer modeling. Here Sinclair is with the advantage that he’s closer to the right position policywise (in that he would have wanted to trash the fiscal situation less) and in the position where he is critiquing an ignorant lunatic like Gruen….. and he pisses away his dual advantage.

Guys like Sinclair and Humphreys don’t appear to know how much harm they do. They may as well be working for the other side.



  1. This is a classic example of a Leftist arguably being right on the facts (I haven’t checked this out entirely, so we can’t yet be sure if he is correct or simply lying) but completely stuffing up the conclusion, or even reaching no conclusion at all.

    I will take Johann Hari at his word when he claims that certain Western shipping companies have been dumping nuclear and chemical waste off the coast off Somalia, causing people to become very sick. Nor will I contest his claim that Whites are also stealing Somalia’s fish stocks (except that his attempted racial angle is wrong, because Asians have been apparently doing this too). And I won’t make much of the obvious contradiction between his two arguments, which imply that the Westerners are eating seafood that they themselves have deliberately contaminated.

    On the basis of these given facts (which I will accept without contest), Hari is trying to imply, without saying so openly, that any action against pirates would be immoral because the oppressed Somali population support the pirates as a “protective coastguard” against foreign predators.

    The obvious problem is that Hari has provided no evidence that the seized Saudi supertanker, for instance, was even remotely connected to these alleged crimes against the Somali people. Nor has he provided any evidence that the dozens of cargo and merchant ships (from all over the world) that have been seized have in any way been connected to the chemical poisoning of the Somali people. Which means that the pirates are not merely “coast guards”, but systematic predators who are looking to make money off innocent third parties.

    In other words, Hari’s moral “point”, if there is one, is that Group A (the merchant ships or any third parties) are not morally entitled to fight back against Predator C (pirates), because of the crimes of Group B (the polluters and fish-thieves). And the only evidence he can provide to “connect” Groups A and B is the assumption that they are drawn from the same race, or continent, and are, by that fact, implicitly responsible for each other’s actions. Needless to say, Johann Hari abhors “racism”!

    Of course, Hari’s broader point could equally be made (and in fact has been made) regarding domestic law-and-order. So long as there is any social inequality or injustice against minorities or police brutality or whatever, it is immoral for the state to take any positive action to defend persons and their property from harm, because the state actor has already been “tainted” by its previous associations and is morally prohibited, by that fact, from doing any potential GOOD on the rare occasion it might be so inclined. This is particularly true where the state may be drawn to “defending privilege”, i.e. defending property owners from predation by the violent underclass.

    In other words, UNTIL every social injustice in the world is redressed and UNTIL the “imbalances” of the “global system” are ironed out to the satisfaction of Johann Hari, nobody is really entitled to any protection of their life and property because that would be an immoral defence of “privilege”, even if they aren’t personally responsible for the original injustice. Which in practice means that we are forced to bear massive anarchy and violence against vulnerable people, and a collapse in living standards, on “social justice” grounds no less. So we must in effect dissolve civilisation.

    This intellectual advocacy of barbarism is inevitable and unavoidable, it must always and everywhere occur, whenever the moral presuppositions of Leftism are allowed to stand.

  2. Its interesting isn’t it Fisk. What we are seeing here would seem to be a textbook example of the formation of predatory government. After all the hostage-takers might be seen as a crude and under-resourced customs department.

    And for all me and you know the complaints are genuine. Just as the complaints that lead to the formation or justification of a gang of formalised and moderated looters and bully-boys (ie a government) are also genuine, but may not be unsurmountable problems to overcome without government if we all worked hard enough.

    My own view is that the only justification for government is the time-pressure factor. We just don’t have enough time to educate everyone, suss out trans-spatial property perogatives, convince people that fractional reserve is an inevitable death-trap for liberty, and drum into people that the possession of land entails a gentlemanly responsibility to invest in land substitutes….. and so forth…..

    Its interesting what you are saying. Because whereas people at Prodeo or Catallaxy might dismiss these claims outright or believe them fully or turn a blind eye or just go numb…….. in accordance with their tribal fidelities….. you know that you coming here and repeating this case here… means that neither you nor I know whether these claims are true, false or exaggerated.

    And we just don’t know.

    We cannot know these things yet from our living rooms.

    And thats just the way it is and the nature of knowledge. Which isn’t unattainable as the cheap Philosophy-boy 101 one-sided Hume-nukers would have it.

    Its not unattainable but one must be able to separate what one knows from what one does not know, from what one can be rightly certain about yet still knowing that his understanding can be totally bowled over from out of left-field.

    Excuse me while I log a post from elsewhere right here:

    Just this once I’ll affect to trust everyone’s judgment in the first instance and see if this one-sided truce gives people the opportunity to lift their game.

    And I’ll ask you this question. Its a real question because back in 1989 or whenever I didn’t try to find out what the controversy was about. So can anyone explain to me what they think was meant by “Cold Fusion?”

    What I mean by that is that I’m aware that there are atomic fusion/fission reactions that have an electric current as their main energy output. But in these cases it usually takes powerful heat input to get the reaction to start. So is it a simple misnomer to call such a thing “cold fusion”?

    The other thing is that if you are using some sort of fusion/fission reaction whose energy output isn’t an electric current then you have to harness that energy via steam and a turbine in order to convert the heat energy into the electrical energy that we need commercially. How could this be cold fusion?

    I’ll take abuse for ignorance on this one. I suspect a simple misnomer. The closest thing to cold fusion that I could imagine would be helium3 fusion. And even that would have substantial heat output that would need to be harnessed, and so I cannot imagine what these people could have been talking about.

    I will purposefully remain ignorant on this subject to condescend to you people and see if you can put your brains into gear for something other than filibusting. I make no apologies for this condescension or for this blind spot in my general knowledge. After all the only way to look at leftists is downward.

  3. If these complaints are valid a near-Rockwellian compromise could be made that the Americans only shoot dead those who take Americans hostages and otherwise stay out of it. And that the Somalis make a list of people they think that are committing these crimes and then allied governments might not act to free hostages should nationals of those countries be taken so long as some reasonable and not outrageous ransom is extracted.

    So that for non-offending nations it would be zero tolerance. And for offending countries whose nationals didn’t take measures to defend themselves, then rules of engagement would be somewhat akin to medieval aristocracy ransoms.

    Of course if they killed a hostage a fearful price would have to be extracted.

  4. Its interesting what you are saying. Because whereas people at Prodeo or Catallaxy might dismiss these claims outright or believe them fully or turn a blind eye or just go numb…….. in accordance with their tribal fidelities….. you know that you coming here and repeating this case here… means that neither you nor I know whether these claims are true, false or exaggerated.

    The claims might be true, and I won’t dismiss them out of hand, but the problem for Leftists is still one of methodology – their factual premises do not support the conclusions (assuming they actually have any) that they are trying to advance.

    A lot of the same appalling methodology was going around after 9/11, where one particular “argument” against hitting the Taliban was that the United States overthrew the Allende regime (or “insert historical crime here”)…”therefore” they have no moral right to destroy the Taliban.

    If the Left really believe this, then they have no business supporting “prisoners’ rights”, for example – if a convicted murderer doesn’t have the right to lash out against a gang of rapists or would-be killers in jail, then he has no rights at all (and accepting that, certainly there is no basis for future opposition to the death penalty).

  5. Right.

    I was just checking out what you were saying here.

    “Obama’s latest Israel policy is a serious problem as he has now endorsed the Saudi-sponsored “peace plan” which calls for the Palestinian “right of return” into Israel. Which necessarily means the destruction Israel, for “peace”.

    So American foreign policy is now an existential threat to Israel.”

    I’ve seen absolutely not one shred of evidence going against the thesis that this guy is an eschatological-utopian millenarian, who is trying to bring about the new millenium via mass-slaughter up front. Every move he makes is systematic in this regard when its not simply politics.

    Before he is done he will particularly have signed the death-warrant of tens of millions of black people. I’m convinced he hates black people. Whereas Malcolm was ashamed of the whitey within him Barry is the other way around in my best guess.

    I see him as being particularly genocidal towards Africans.

  6. There are a lot of things that are particularly troubling about this man. I don’t know if he will be hateful towards Africans or not. One key issue that he could take up, in opposition to black genocide, would be the provision of weapons to the South Sudanese. Apparently, the Somali pirates successfully intercepted a Russian arms shipment destined for the Southern rebels – clearly they have come into some money in recent years. Obama should be prepared to provide adequate technical and military advice to the South Sudanese, as well as all the necessary hardware, so that they can reverse the situation on the ground and even threaten President Bashir himself.

  7. “There are a lot of things that are particularly troubling about this man. I don’t know if he will be hateful towards Africans or not.”

    Its not a matter of speculation Fisk. Candidate Obama helped turn previously civilised Kenya into an abbotoir and cess-pool of tribal hatred.

    Are the SOUTH Sudanese Christians? If so he’ll be seeking their corpses on the sly.

  8. There is a significant Christian element in South Sudan, but the vast majority of people there are animists. I wouldn’t be surprised if Christianity becomes the majority over time, though.

  9. Well so non-Muslims. Watch for corpses under Obama’s overlordship. This is Barry-Land we are talking about. And if there is one thing that Barry hates more than all else is non-Muslim black people. His own two beautiful girls and few else excepted. At least thats my take on his character. He’s going to be hell on wheels for Africa and there is nothing that he won’t try on.

    Just look at all the things that he’s flagged even before he was supposed to have authority!!! Since he’s a fake-ass criminal for starters he had to keep the hoax running by hoarding all the air-time with his unprecedented in 230 years fake-ass office of the President-elect.

    Already in that office he had fielded energy-rationing, slavery-lite, destruction of the Republic through debt-overload and the whole nine yards.

    He is brazen enough to surround himself with a whole lot of retreads, each and every one with a scandal, such that all of us who vigilantly hunt down scandals will be divided in our efforts and the most simple matter of tossing an obvious and transparent criminal fraud out of office will be thwarted by divided efforts. This has already happened in the most explicit fashion by the appointment of Lady MacBeth Clinton to an office for which she is explicitly constitutionally excluded.

    There is nothing subtle about anything he is doing. We already have in principle trashing of the constitution as explained. In-principle slavery. In principle destruction of Israel as you pointed out this very day.

    And if it was just one outrage we could mass our forces and deal with it. But he has us beaten. And so these black people you talk about are as dead as the carcasses going through the meatworks of Morewa since when he bowed low to those Sandcrackers, he was giving them a free hand in their murder, and no niggers need apply for clemency.

  10. hey graeme what do you think of this?

  11. Yes thats fair enough. The banks charge ahead and the central bank bails them out later by two methods. 1. Stealing off us 2. Cash Injection.

    But its a bit rich acting like the central bank isn’t to blame. Because the central bank can increase the reserve asset ratio when they want to cool things down and increase cash if they want to inflate matters. So ultimately they are too blame.

    Consider this. In our fractional reserve fiat system there is always far more debt than money. Thats a rat-race.

    But notice under 100% backing. Under a 100% backing monetary system there is always far more money than there is debt. This is a happy, non-rat-race situation, with plenty of work done in advance, imbedded in that money to tide us over disastrous time period.

    We are absolutely fucked right now Jason. This is just a fact. I’ve found someone whose put the whole thing together to prove what I’ve been trying to tell you. I might put his playlist up.

    The 20-tweens will be a decade akin to the plagues of the 14th century. Akin to the advent of European smallpox strains on the indigenous North Americans.

    Its really that bad. And there isn’t even any doubt about it. Its just a matter of putting all the facts together like I have been doing for three years.

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: