People call other people who are men of reason…. they call them names. They say that they are harsh. They say that they are cold. They talk about “cold hard LOGIC”. But this is not the reality of things. They talk about cold hard CASH as well. But “Cash is warm. Its purdy. It comes in all these purdy colours… goes with anything yoh wearin.”
As with cash the same goes for human reason. Human reason is about human warmth and feeling taken in the widest perspective. But those who have the self-image of practicing it in the sphere of political economy have been told from many years back that they are harsh, cold, unfeeling and nasty. And some of them accept this fantastic and productive input and contstructive criticism (not, not and not) as part of their self-image.
But fast moves to more freedom have to be anything but harsh. We want to be kind to people. There is no use being nasty to people. Kindness is its own reward. And a public policy based around nastiness need not enter the picture. In fact to think that way is to enter into the leftist side of things. Is to enter into the idea of human sacrifice.
I knew for a fact that the Americans cost-of-living, or consumer-price-inflation figures were rigged. I just assumed that ours were rigged as well but not nearly as bad. But this suspicion may have been somewhat confirmed over the last couple of years when it came to our attention, that a lot of our pensioners, and particularly single pensioners, were living in squalid conditions.
No free enterpriser ought to have ever said “So What. They knew they were getting old…” or something like that. It became apparent that old age pensions needed to be boosted. I made this point on radio talkback. I said that with the younger blokes if we pull the rug from underneath them, or with the public servants if we sack them, well there is the opportunity to make it up to them later. But I said with some of these diggers we just don’t have the time. I said that some of them, left in squalid conditions, may be in that state for only three years and then they will die, leaving us no time at all to keep faith with them.
The last part of the conversation was the talk-show host saying “I agree.”
Now this is the thing. We need to wean off the old age pension. But that does not mean we need to leave our mates in squalor. The pension age can be increased 1 day every 2 days that passes. If thats too harsh then 1 day every 3. But if that also seems to harsh we can increase the tax free threshold for the people a bit younger than pension-age in order to allow them to save more the tide them over between when they can no longer work, and when they will get the pension.
Certainly Rudd is going down the wrong track reducing the amount that you can squirrel away for your old age without advanced thieving. We want our retirees to be very wealthy with high tax-free thresholds and we want them to be able to increase their tax-free thresholds by taking on a friend, or a relative, or a new lady, as a registered dependent. And we want the capital that these old guys have accumulated to be buying producer-goods and not being wasted on investments in taxeater-ego.
Now all these increases in tax thresholds, and double expensing of labour costs for the older guys or the disadvantaged. Or tax-exemptions for the purpose of getting prices down quickly…. all this can lead to loss of government revenue. Where do we make up that budget from?
We want all our levels of government to save up for any big purchases. We don’t want any level of government to ever borrow. Rather we want them to pay off debt.
So where is the funding coming from for these warm-hearted tax exemptions.
Well cable-guy Adrien has linked back to my earlier good works. A very long time ago I had a look at all the federal government agencies there were, and made a very quick list of all the departments you could erase tommorrow and not hurt anyone. Nobody dies. No need to be vicious. No human sacrifice.
What you want for an immediate turn-on-the-dime explosive growth and reductions in our trade deficit is to lose all these guys right away. And don’t pay them any redundancy. And if you are really doing it right, make them sign something that stops them from going on the unemployment benefit. Well some of them will take redundancy yes. Some of the older guys particularly. And some of them will not be able to cope with the idea of not having the backstop of going on the benefit.
You see you have to bribe away their payouts or their ability to gain benefits with tax vouchers. You agree on the tax voucher, they clear their desk, they get the tax voucher. We can afford the tax vouchers. But we cannot afford for them to go on bludging in the public sector or for us to be paying them out, and they only get rehired by the next government.
And we cannot let them become part of the economic DEstablizers that the non-aged welfare represents.
WELL……… how are we going to afford for all layers of government to go into surplus immediately, for the older blokes to get a bit of an income boost, for the myriad tax exemptions and increases in the tax free threshold that we need to conduct rational and kind policy to go ahead?
Well as I said cable-guy Adrien has reminded me of my list of bureaucracies, all but one or two, that we could close down right away, and nobody dies:
“If we want immediate double digit growth we could destroy the following bureaucracies tommorrow, convincing most of the newly unemployed to take tax exemptions over redundancy payouts:
(Australian Population Health Development Principal Committee
Anglo-Australian Telescope Board
ASC Pty Ltd
Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council
Australian Agency for International Development
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) (ACMA)
Australian Community Pharmacy Authority
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
Australian Competition Tribunal
Australian Energy Regulator
Australian Fair Pay Commission (
Australian Film Commission (AFC)
Australian Hearing (AH)
Australian Industrial Relations Commission
Australian Industry Development Corporation
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Australian Postal Corporation (APC Australia Post)
Australian Public Service Commission
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
Australian Sports Commission (ASC)
Australian Sports Foundation Ltd
Australian Trade Commission (Austrade) (AUSTRADE)
Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation (AWBC)
Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS)
Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics.
Centre for Environment and Life Sciences
Canberra Business Centre
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation Comcare (COMCARE)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
Cotton Research and Development Corporation (CRDC)
Dairy Adjustment Authority
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEST)
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR)
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Department of Health and Ageing
Department of Human Services (DHS MHS)
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEW)
Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS)
Department of Transport and Regional
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA)
Export Finance and Insurance
Export Wheat Commission (EWC)
Film Australia Limited (FAL) (
Film Finance Corporation Australia
Food Science Australia
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited (FWPRDC FWPAL)
Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC)
Health Services Australia
ICT Centre (Information and Communication Technologies)
Industrial Relations Court of Australia
Land and Water
Land and Water Australia (Land & Water Australia)
Marine and Atmospheric Research
Materials Science and Engineering
Mathematical and Information Sciences
Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA)
Medibank Private Ltd 1
Molecular and Health Technologies
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
Canberra Business Centre ACT 2610
National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)
National Competition Council (NCC)
National Gallery of Australia (NGA)
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
National Land and Water Resources Audit
National Transport Commission
National Water Commission
Office of Best Practice Regulation
Office of Health Protection
Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC)
Office of the Productivity Commission
Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator
Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal (PBRT) (
Private Health Insurance Ombudsman
Professional Services Review
Canberra Post Business Centre,
Questaconâ€”The National Science and Technology Centre (NSTC)
Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)
Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) (SBS)
Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC)
Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Review Authority (TFESRA)
Textile and Fibre Technology
Therapeutic Goods Administration
Transport Certification Australia Ltd
Workplace Authority )”
To force all these people out onto the workforce without redundancy and without the prospect of unemployment benefits (lest they forego a vastly higher tax exemption) would force them to get work quickly. Under fully free-enterprise conditions this would lead them to accept low earnings and depress the nominal earnings of those already working in proper jobs BUT REAL EARNINGS WOULD RISE.
REAL EARNINGS WOULD RISE since under free enterprise conditions consumer prices would fall faster than nominal earnings…. but but but…..
TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE…. the difference would be made up in terms of an improving trade balance throwing us into surplus.
I know of no situation where this is not true. Even our greater viability leading to a foreign investment boom would have resultant higher wages in comparison to consumer goods.
And we could turn this all around on a dime as people say.
Now there are plenty of bureaucracies more to slash where those came from. But on my first run through a judged a lot of the others to be needing further investigation, or to be of the sort that we need a lot of the good stuff resultant from destroying the other parasitical institutions, and making policy more generally rational, before we would be in the position to phase out these other outfits without causing real pain. There was aboriginal health and this sort of thing. Various fisheries outfits, the functions of which need to be brought under some holistic and rational management. And I didn’t perceive that we could just clear their desks right away without real human hurt.
But to keep the bureaucracies open that we can close quickly IS CAUSING and will further cause much human hurt. And if it means we cannot defend ourselves against influences pushing against our liberty then we will lose everything and for no good reason.
And yet it remains the case that we can moon-launch out of recession and trade deficit right away. We can turn everything around ON THE NICKEL in fact.