Posted by: graemebird | May 23, 2009

AA12 Shotgun With Less Lethal Rounds For Every Hardened Australian Home.

Well no we don’t want to centralise the prescribing of weapons to Australians. But I bring up the AA12 for the purpose of showing how we can come to a very good compromise that can lead to a heavily armed civilianry without too much blowback. It would really be better for home-protection purposes, if the always-lethal rounds are buried in the back yard, more in the desert, and some kept at the tax-free rifle range that is licensed in every suburb.

Yes there will be blowback from even the less-lethal stuff. But lets fast-track it out there anyway. The license for the less-lethal stuff going to anyone whose word is good and swears that he will put in the hard yards to leave a live defendant. Perhaps it ought not be the Feds that handle it. The local mayor, in conjunction with an insurance company. They say your word is good and indemnify you, well your goal is to be so awesomely powerful that you can afford to leave a live defendant.

For our shooters and for people who want to take advantage of our current requirements, I’m not advocating more restrictions, and we have to guard against that. What I’m advocating is opening up a lot more of the less-lethal stuff.

But I argue that with your stored lethal gear in the ground, in the desert, and at the rifle range, the less-lethal gear, if married with awesome firepower ………. well this mix is actually superior defense then the totally lethal gear. BECAUSE YOU WILL HESITATE A FRACTION OF A SECOND LESS.

So you are there with your AA12 shotgun and your metal-storm handguns and the rounds are designed-to, with a bit of luck, leave a live defendant. Well you have an awesome amount of power there. No question about it. And there is another reason why this is superior defense. Because under these conditions we can all be Bo Gritz and have a loaded gun in every room. We can have Granny getting about the house with her metal storm pistol holstered on her shapely hip……..

((((British readers need to know that our grannies are like they are on neighbours and still look good in a bikini.))))))…..

We can have that extra level of readiness on tap on the very grounds that the rounds are less-lethal.

With these less-lethal rounds and this great technology then who should be able to have the LETHAL STUFF??? Well all of us for storage. But the people who ought to have the more-lethal stuff on hand, ought to have sufficient expertise to try and leave a live defendant in almost all circumstances. We need to make he primacy of human life the goal.

This principle works in well with our shooters. Because our serious shooters and our shooting instructors have presumably a high level of expertise. And so they are likely to be willing to invest more in this area, and as well have a greater margin of error due to their expertise. So naturally I see no reason to curb our sporting shooters access to what they already have. We could start by talking to them. And telling them that they have a special responsibility. To act well and to help keep our rights evergreen.

The policy favouring an armed civilianry is the hardest policy option I’ve had to consider. For me it is not acceptable to but firearms policy on the back-burner.

When we consider this story we need to look at detail . And basically there are four categories of “CONCERNS” we need to consider, with armed civilianary policy.

CONCERN CATEGORIES:

1. The natural right to self-defense and to aid in the defense of ones friends, neighbours and family. As well as people that friends of yours have left in your trust. Some theorists suggest that there is no such right. I say that they are wrong. I say that this is a clear right. But there are strong arguments to compromise this natural right if the means in which you will express this right tend to infringe on other people.

2. We have the issue of DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. As well as the issue of blowback from ubiquitous arms, which I’ll group together.

3. We have the issue of THE DETERRENCE OF TYRANNY.

4. We have the issue of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Now if it is the case, not as a matter of regulation, but of common practice, that you drinking too much and YOU making a mistake and the other bloke, either feeling threatened or making a mistake…. if that as a matter of practice leads to cracked ribs, a stint in hospital, and gentlemans compensation running either way…. to me thats better than a permanent solution to a momentary problem.

In terms of defending against tyranny, to quickly have that sort of firepower in so many non-government hands……… but to have the more-lethal ordnance in reserve …………. well this means that under the duress of the threat of tyranny, the lethal stuff will be used….. but bloody hell. Even having the less-lethal stuff, with that awesome level of firepower, would really leave the Prodeo crowd a dream short. A dream short when it comes to their dreams of tyranny.

Now we come to the story of national defense. Well naturally enough if our people have ALREADY ON HAND and are familiar with weapons like the AA12 shotgun and the metal storm handgun…………. well my goodness. Even if the superpower enemy, knocked out the sharp end of our spear, you can best believe that they will prefer to negotiate with a free and armed country. Free and armed in reality and not just in principle.

Every house with pretty good security ought to marry the AA12 and the metal storm handgun with less-lethal ordnance. I have no other conclusion after going through the four categories by which we judge the DETAIL of our policy from.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “I’d just like to mention that, in good libertarian style, I suggested offering banks the alternative that they should withdraw from the prudential regulation system altogether and that governments should give a legal guarantee that they will not bail out such banks or their depositors, or allow publicly-supported banks to do so. No one much has commented on this, so I’ll do so.

    It seems likely to me that if any institutions took this offer they would be at one of two extremes – speculative fly by nighters with a short life expectancy, or highly capitalised institutions that would be even more conservative than their publicly guaranteed and regulated rivals. Any thoughts?”

    Absolutely. Its a fair enough point Quiggin makes. But why nationalise any of them in that case? The problem comes with fractional-reserve. Its a fractional-reserve problem alone. And the problem is with bank-cash-pyramiding and there isn’t a problem aside from bank-cash-pyramiding…. If there is a problem aside from bank-cash-pyramiding, it would be inherent in some sort of predatory lending that we could easily regulate against.

    You see you dumb shits on the pseudo-libertarian side of things are always going to look second-best if you cannot face up to reality.

  2. Kickass posters

    http://artofmanliness.com/2009/05/17/theodore-roosevelt-motivational-posters/

    http://www.sloshspot.com/blog/03-06-2009/Motivational-Posters-Winston-Churchill-Edition-129

  3. “Pedro, I guess I lack the mindset that sees ownership of banks as being akin to ownership of people.”

    Well we can say that about all traditionally nationalised industries. Does owning the post office mean owning people? Does owning the Universities mean owning people? And having a subsidised, cartelised banking system like we have now? Is that akin to owning people?

    Yes, yes and yes.

    Quiggin may not be coming from the same ground as us but he is being reasonable here. He is right not to see a substantial moral difference between the current setup and socialised banking. The only difference really is that in the current situation the government is acting as if it were a junior partner.

  4. Yes they are rather good aren’t they. These people may have been government activist types. But at least they were men. Thats something you don’t know about until its gone. Like I didn’t think much of these old labour union bovver-boys until the latte-leftists took their place.

  5. “Alright dude get one get out of Metromick Hell free card. I like you. I didn’t like Mickey. Mickey was a tosser.
    .
    CL is gonna be pissed at you for calling him my sidekick. ”

    Phil may be too annoying to be a real human being. We have to accept the possibility that he may be one of cable-guy-Adriens “imaginary friends.”

  6. “The ordinary progress of a society which increases in wealth, is at all times tending to augment the incomes of landlords; to give them both a greater amount and a greater proportion of the wealth of the community, independently of any trouble or outlay incurred by themselves. They grow richer, as it were in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. What claim have they, on the general principle of social justice, to this accession of riches?”

    Sinclair gets in a glancing blow at John Stuart Mill. Lets take out the offending comment “AND A GREATER PROPORTION….” and see what we have.:

    “The ordinary progress of a society which increases in wealth, is at all times tending to augment the incomes of landlords; to give them a greater amount of the wealth of the community, independently of any trouble or outlay incurred by themselves. They grow richer, as it were in their sleep, without working, risking, or economizing. What claim have they, on the general principle of social justice, to this accession of riches?”

    What can you now object to in the above? The problem with Sinclair is that he’s still basically an African. You can take the man out of Africa. But can you take Africa out of the man?

    Sinclair is fundamentally tribal. And in no way a committed intellectual.

  7. Oh Crikey.

    Lucky Phil. Adriens imaginary friend. Pulling off some Tolkien version of the owl and the pussycat.

  8. Sinclair explaining the mysterious role of risk in the macro-mancing view of wealth-creation:

    “Dave – property speculators are not doing nothing. They’re risking.”

  9. why so harsh on sinclair? you used to like his stuff

  10. I don’t always mind Sinclair. But he made the big mistake of trying to bluff his way through and pretend that Gerry Jackson was at best a gifted amateur. As if taxeaters confer economics knowledge on people by throwing them money, as opposed to someone learning the material. Well that was offensive and unacceptable.

    Then the other thing is he’s betrayed us on the carbon tax. Which is an outrage because of the absolutist approach he usually takes to Pigouvianism. This is just tribal idiocy since how can you be against taxing negative externalities and suddenly come out in favour of taxing a proven positive-externality? As well as this betrayal being in favour of this most vicious of modern fascist ideologies.

    For me he’s become symbolic of why the right loses arguments against the left in economics. He refuses to put the public before his leftist economics buddies. He will not rubbish the idiocy of the Keynesian multiplier and actually implied that there was such a thing before the Senate. But the prick cannot be drawn out to prove such a thing.

    So really he ought not be working in the profession. Not as some sort of triangulating Jew. He’s almost as evasive as Humphreys when it comes down to it. Look at his arguments against Georgist arguments in economics. They don’t make any sense. The problem with the Georgists is not that they don’t have a point. Its that they tend to be absolutist. Its bad news to right off that entire statement by John Stuart Mill on the basis of a single mistake in it. But Sinclair is always doing just that. He tarries with the good economics, looks like he’s setting the leftists up for the knockdown, but then he won’t throw the punch.

  11. “Tim<

    It’s easy to make light of it now as the wrsot didn’t happen.

    the shareholders all get wiped out or 95% wiped out, and we re-cap the bank out of depositors funds.

    As I said, we’re not talking about a couple of wipe outs. A system failure is entirely different."

    What this evasive dishonest bootnigger doesn't want to admit was that IT WAS A FRACTIONAL-RESERVE FAILURE. And thats all it was. So you traitors that stood up for fractional reserve, without any justification whatsoever, have set us up for a socialist takeover.

    Which was predictable in advance.

  12. Actually this bootnigger is such a lying cunt that he constantly claims that 100% backing is the same as turning banks into a lock box arrangement. This is what these cunts have done to us. By filibusting the argument about fractional reserve they have basically betrayed us to the socialists.

    Even now none of these lying cunts wants to admit that the banking crisis was a fractional reserve crisis. Sinclair the stupid cunt lied and denied it outright. As did Soon. As did this idiot bootnigger cunt Cambria.

    When it would have been obvious that l00% backed commodities could never have had the same crisis.

    Amazing. Even now he calls it a “system failure” Not a fractional reserve collapse.

  13. Humphreys has a typical Humphreys post at Thoughts on Freedom. He doesn’t have a fucking clue about increasing productivity. So he finds an excuse to dismiss the idea. Also he’s done the hateful Humphreys idiocy and divided the many choices into two choices only.

    So he divides the choices into two only and evades one of the choices, in order to set up the choice that he is interested in. Typical fucking Humphreys. And why he can never be considered a serious economic pundit.

    Here is a quick post I put in which he will block:

    ““Increasing productivity is a slow long-run project….”

    Its not a slow process. And as well as that these aren’t the only two measures you can take. Why not increase productivity? What you’ve done is made an excuse to ditch this option and so you’ve just dismissed it.

    Mass-sackings in the public sector is the first step to full employment. Since it enables more business-business spending which leads to higher productivity, a greater demand for labour, and as well you can afford a defacto wiping out of the company tax via double expensing of the first few hundred dollars every week for each separate employee.”

  14. Dividing the choices into two only, dismissing one of them, and choosing the other without serious debate is always what Humphreys does. You pick two alternatives only with regards to CO2. You dismiss the cap and kill. And then you have your tendentious option of the carbon tax…. which Humphreys now clings to without deviation or justification for years on end.

    Its fucking amazing to me that anybody ever takes Humphreys seriously. He’s basically an ignorant fool.

  15. NO YOU ARE AN IDIOT. THATS WHY YOU CANNOT MAKE A SPECIFIC POINT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. YOU ARE A DIM BULB.

  16. BUT I’M NOT. YOU ARE JUST A MORON.

  17. You don’t have any argument at all do you? You are just a fuckwit man.

  18. I EXHIBIT NONE OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS. THEY ARE BY THEIR VERY NATURE LEFTIST CHARACTERISTICS.

  19. FELLA YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS MENTALLY DEFICIENT. YOU CANNOT SEEM TO PUT UP A VALID ARGUMENT FOR THE TOPIC AT HAND. THATS AN INTELLECTUAL HANDICAP RIGHT THERE.

  20. YOU NEED A BRAIN TRANSPLANT AND A EXTRA-LATE-TERM ABORTION.

  21. What a loathsome example of Platonic Idealisation.

    Graeme Bird is a White Man and a Free Thinker.

    Is that why you hate him?

  22. the AA12 is an assault weapon. It doesn’t have “less lethal” rounds.

    YOU FUCKING MORON. YOU CAN PUT ANY ROUNDS IN IT YOU FUCKING WANT YOU DUMB SHIT. WHAT A FUCKING BLOCKHEAD YOU ARE.

    HOW DID YOU GET TO BE SO FUCKING DUMB?

  23. WELL WHAT HAS BEEN USED ALREADY YOU FUCKWIT? WE’VE HAD RUBBER BULLETS. WE’VE HAD SMALL BEAN BAG TYPE THINGS. YOU COULD START THERE. ITS JUST A MATTER OF HAVING SOMETHING THAT WILL KNOCK PEOPLE OVER BUT NOT LODGE DEEP UNDERNEATH THE SKIN.

    PROBLEM WITH A FUCKING MORON LIKE YOU IS YOU HAVE NO IMAGINATION. THIS IS A RESEARCH ISSUE. ITS A MATTER OF HAVING A REASEARCH PROGRAM TO FIND WHAT WORKS BEST. WHAT DEBILITATES WITH LESS CHANCE OF PERMANENT DAMAGE. SOMETHING THAT CAN CRACK A RIB BUT NOT PENETRATE MUCH DEEPER THAN THE SKIN.

  24. It’s irrelevant what works best as the AA12 is illegal and will remain so for civilian use.

    There are a number of good counsellors in the yellow pages if you care to look.

  25. Bullshit it’s illegal.

    God gave me the Right to defend myself and my homeland from Foreigners.

    No parliament of men can take that away from me.

    Go fuck yourself.

  26. WHAT A FUCKWIT YOU ARE. HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY, WHICH INCLUDES WHAT OUGHT AND WHAT OUGHT NOT BE ILLEGAL, AND YOU ARE THE BLOCKHEAD WHO COMES OUT AND SAYS “ITS ILLEGAL”.

    FUCKING HELL MATE. THAT HONORARY DEGREE IN LOGIC ISN’T SHOWING UP IN THE MAIL. SO DON’T HANG OUT BY YOUR MAILBOX WAITING FOR IT.

    THIS IS THE SORT OF DUMB CUNT THAT SHOWS UP AT MAGICIANS PERFORMANCE AND SAYS “ITS A TRICK YOU KNOW” LIKE THE DUMB CUNT LEARNED TO WHISPER IN A SAWMILL.

  27. What we were after was the best compromise with the right to bear arms. One which would enhance national security. Be helpful for domestic tranquility, deter the Prodeo crowd from trying to work towards tyranny which they do with every post they write, and which is an expression of peoples inherent right to defend themselves.

    So obviously if a good citizen chooses to marry the metal storm handgun, and the AA12 with less-lethal ordnance then this does all of the above. Since in the case of an armed invasion it would simply be a matter of updating the type of rounds used. Imagine Chinese soldiers trying to cope with Australians shooting at them form all sides with that sort of gear. This is a setup designed to avoid an occupation.

  28. THIS IS A PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSION BLOCKHEAD. WHICH INCLUDES WHAT OUGHT TO AND OUGHT NOT BE ILLEGAL. THE COPS DON’T WRITE THE LAWS DOPEY. I’D HAVE THEM USING LESS-LETHAL ORDNANCE ALSO.

  29. The ability to shield against incoming like this TROPHY system does, matched with the metal storm concept is where the future is at. Notice how close in the tank can hit a rocket propelled grenade and avoid harm to itself.

    But Metal storm has systems that can launch three RPG’s one after the other. And others that can launch dozens of these things in a short space of time. So you would quickly exhaust your own and the other guys ammunition. And you would likely be able to overwhelm their protection system.

    However the two systems go together really. And RPG’s are pretty slow. There are a lot of other faster-moving things, that present a smaller target, that you want to be able to defend against. And there is not likely to be much better than a wall of bullets to try and do this with

  30. It becomes pretty apparent that with that much ability to deliver that many bullets that quickly, and with the need to use ammunition, both as a shield and to do damage… well the amount of bullets you can produce and deliver to the danger area becomes a limiting factor. So from there the preferred tactics and strategy may well amount to trying to conserve you ammunition and to draw the other fellow out to use all his.

  31. Here is the sort of thing you need to be able to defend against. Even thinly-armed supply lines on water or on land would need to have some sort of metal-storm shielding system.

    Its very easy for sheilas and weak-minded blokes just to want to give up and not think about these things. But we can defend ourselves if we choose to.

  32. Mr B

    The Crazed Celestials of the Korean Peninsula have pulled the pin on another big one.

    The time has passed for public policy discussions. Why bother with imbeciles like this “Wolverine”. More like “Faggotine” if you ask me.

    Good strong and free White Men such as you and I just need to get armed up and underground.

    My old man, bless his soul, used to speak of oriental hordes. He was sort of joking but not really. At least I always thought he was joking.

    But not anymore.

    Armor up and lie low.

    That’s my plan.

    See you on the flipside, Mr B.

  33. WITH TERMINOLOGY LIKE THIS THIS WOLVERINE RETARD MIGHT EVEN BE MARK HILL.

  34. Logging post here just in case Humphreys doesn’t let it through. Actually Humphreys has been pretty good lately. If this continues I might have to go back and disallow a string of nasty comments about him. And actually his fundamental idea of stalling before-tax incomes and increasing after-tax incomes is in keeping with what I’ve been advocating and with sound economics… So long as the spending cuts and mass-sackings are there to reinforce the policy.

    “So you want to delay our recovery, maintain the current level of parasitism as if it is some profound human right, concede in principle that government jobs are sancrosanct, pile up debt and hobble our economy for decades to come, leaving no room for error and jeopardising our position if it comes to war.

    You want to continue to run deficits making it far more problematic to move to gold, leaving the next generation in hock, anti-preparing us for the retirement of the baby-boomers, sucking out all the funds that could be used for strategic tax cuts….. and on and on and WHY??????

    Why preserve government parasitism as opposed to closing down bureaucracies by the bakers dozen.

    You’ve got to be quits with this soft-headedness and immorality Terje. We cannot send you to Canberra in good faith if you are to be weakminded.

    Mass-sackings are their own reward. But they are also Gods work. Since they allow a higher tax free threshold as the Humphreys plan implies, which will allow less welfare which will allow more business spending and more tax cuts and on and on.

    Yes we could freeze the level of spending. Except we couldn’t. Because in doing so we would be conceding that its alright to maintain the level of stealing. But its not alright to maintain the current level of thievery. Its far from alright to do so. Matter of fact its unacceptable. And the very idea of income-neutrality is entirely unacceptable because that means us being ethically neutral with regards to stealing.”

  35. Logging some more posts that could stand a chance of getting wiped:

    Comment from: Graeme Bird May 26th, 2009 at 7:52 am

    “The irony of a blog that parades so much pseudo science being so concerned about the debasement of science is overwhelming.”

    No no. You are just filth SJT. You are a lying pig. And there may one day be payback for you constant lying, defamation and attempts at treason you filth. This blog does not parade pseudo-science. It sticks up for the scientific ethos. Thats why leftist pigs like you are here all the time running it down. You are a compulsive liar. And a coward. And your last post is an example of that. There is no irony. You are just a spineless insect.

    Comment from: Graeme Bird May 26th, 2009 at 7:55 am

    Bear in mind that if SJT wasn’t a spineless lying pig he could right now reveal who he was and at the same time come up with some evidence for this global warming science fraud or concede that he doesn’t have a case and promise to work against this modern variant of fascism from here on in.”

  36. Fuck our economists are useless.

    Here is pedro. A non-economist:

    “The problem with Edwards’ argument is that it assumes a bottomless pit of money. If we are to have a long recession then how is the government to keep finding the money for the decisive stimulus spending as well as the automatic stabilisers. This question is begged and begged and begged in so much of the pro-stimulus commentary.”

    Still labouring under the delusion that increasing debt is stimulatory. And our economists doing fucking nothing to relieve him of this anti-economics.

  37. I’LL NOT HAVE YOU SPREADING COMMUNIST LIES ABOUT HOOVER CAMBRIA YOU UNGRATEFUL SOD.

  38. THOSE ARE COMMUNIST LIES ABOUT HOOVER. THERE IS NO BASIS TO THEM AT ALL. YOU ARE JUST A SUCKER FELLA. TAKEN IN BY THE LAMEST COMMUNIST SMEARS.

  39. quiggers attracts attention of Mises

    http://mises.org/story/3466

    Right. Murphy ripping him to shreds. He doesn’t deserve this attention but you guys make him look good by your dishonesty and stupidity.

    Australian neoclassicals are the only people stupid enough to sometimes make Quiggin look good.

  40. YOU HAVEN’T LINKED THIS BUT I ALREADY KNOW IT COMES FROM A COMMUNIST SITE LIKE SPARTACUS. BECAUSE IT IS A LIE INVENTED BY THE COMMUNISTS. THEY HAD TO LIE BECAUSE HE WAS COMPLETELY SCREWING WITH THEIR ABILITY TO DESTROY THE US OR TURN IT COMMUNIST.

  41. NO THATS BULLSHIT. AND IF HE DID THEN HE WAS TAKEN IN BY A COMMUNIST LIE AS WELL. WHERE WOULD NIXON HAVE GOT THAT INTELLIGENCE FROM IF NOT FROM THE COMMUNISTS?

    HIS INTELLIGENCE CAME FROM THE FBI IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOUR CONTENTION IS RIDICULOUS. JUST ANOTHER CASE OF YOU FALLING FOR THE COMMUNIST LINE.

  42. THE NIXON QUOTE IS MEANINGLESS. HE SWORE ALL THE TIME. AND YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT YOUR SITE REJECTS THE CROSS-DRESSING ALLEGATIONS. HENCE YOU HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN. IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR THIS JIVE YOU WOULD HAVE IT.

  43. NIXON CALLING PEOPLE NAMES IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. HAVEN’T YOU HEARD HIM SPEAKING ON THOSE TAPES. HE CALLS EVERYONE SWEAR-WORD NAMES.

    NO EVIDENCE. OBVIOUSLY SCROUNGED BULLSHIT FROM COMMUNISTS.

    HEY BY THE WAY. HAS THAT IDIOT HUMPHREYS LOST HIS FUCKING MIND?

    “Gerry Jackson says that he supports the free-market, but he spends a lot of time attacking other free-market writers as ignorant, arrogant, selfish, incompetent, dishonest, cowardly and a “bloody disgrace”. He then whinges about being insulted and ignored.

    He claims that he is “Australia’s only Austrian economist” when in reality he is neither trained in economics and nor does he understand basic economics. He then mocks real economists by saying they are “self-appointed”.

    In his latest hit-piece, Gerry attacks Des Moore, Sinclair Davison, Chris Berg, Ron Manners and my paper on the carbon tax (a paper he clearly didn’t understand). But that is to be expected, so we can continue to ignore the personal attacks in his hate-filled rants. But the article is interesting for how it exposes Gerry’s ignorance of basic economics.”

    ITS HUMPHREYS THAT HAS TO LEARN THE MATERIAL. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS? UTTER HUBRIS AND BLUFF I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT. LIKE SINCLAIR TRYING IT ON.

  44. “In his latest hit-piece, Gerry attacks Des Moore, Sinclair Davison, Chris Berg, Ron Manners and my paper on the carbon tax…..”

    I should bloody think so. Then the idiot Humphreys goes on to suggest that Gerry didn’t understand his carbon tax paper. What could he possibly not have understood about it. A 14 year old who read free-to-choose for the first time could understand John’s paper. Its play-school economics. Its the crudest offering anyone has seen in years. Of course Gerry criticises these palookas. Because they are representatives of the Australian economics tribal order. They are hardly intellectuals committed to economic science. Well I sure know that Sinclair isn’t the committed intellectual anyhow. And Humphreys is just an ignorant child in this area.

    Imagine him thinking that someone didn’t understand his carbon tax paper. Like it had some new or hard to understand stuff in it.

    This fellow really is fucking delusional.

  45. “How America and Australia’s central banks badly damaged manufacturing

    Gerard Jackson
    BrookesNews.Com
    Monday 18 May 2009

    For years I have been warning that the central banks’ monetary policy — particularly in Australia and the US — could have the effect of hollowing out manufacturing and thereby lower living standards or at least keep them lower than they would other wise be. The process of hollowing out is usually interpreted as one of some manufacturers closing down while others relocate overseas. One of the points I stressed is that this process is inevitable if a country persists in maintaining an overvalued currency. Julian Callow, Barclays Capital top economist, has now raised the red flag on this problem, drawing attention to the fact that an the overvalued euro had “hollowed out” Europe’s manufacturing According to Callow:

    It takes time for currency effects to feed through. The damage was concealed during the global boom but the collapse in demand has exposed the vulnerabilities. We going to see a prolonged period of de-industrialisation. (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Europe’s industrial base may never recover from crisis, The Telegraph, 13 February 2009)

    Despite the fact that the “hollowing out process” should have been obvious to any competent journalist just about every single member of the global economic commentariat completely missed it, in doing so they provided ample evidence of how bad the teaching of economics has become.

    The process is fundamentally simple. There always exists at any point in time a structure of relative prices. When undisturbed by bad monetary policy these prices effectively allocate resources to their most valued uses. However, should a country’s currency become persistently overvalued its price structure will be distorted with the result that exports will become more expensive and imports cheaper.

    Depending on their circumstances export industries will be left with three courses of action: reduce the scale of their operations, go out of business or shift their operations abroad. In addition, the producers of many non-tradable goods could now find themselves having to compete with imports. Therefore we find that the country becomes excessively oriented toward consumption and its capital structure shortens.

    In brief, due to the central bank’s inflationary policy a process of deindustrialisation sets in, current account problems emerge, the financial sector undergoes excessive expansion as do services in general while manufacturing as a proportion of GDP contracts. This certainly seems to have been the case in the US, the UK and Australia.

    What is maddening is that this process used to be fairly well understood. Friedrich von Hayek referred to it in Money, Capital and Fluctuations: Early Essays, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984, pp. 150-2. The eighteenth century Anglo-Irish banker Richard Cantillon wrote a brilliant analysis of how inflation distorts the price structure and the pattern of production. (Richard Cantillon, Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General, Transaction Publishers, 2001, written about 1734 and first published in 1752).

    The heart of his analysis was the insight that money is not neutral, a vitally important issue that was part of the bullion controversy of the 1800s with respect to how inflation affected exchange rates, prices and production. Following in the tradition of Cantillon’s analysis John E. Cairnes explained how the Australian gold discoveries disrupted the colonies economies and distorted the price structure and the pattern of international trade, observing that

    the action of the new gold on prices will not be uniform, but partial. Certain classes of commodities will be affected much more powerfully than others. Prices generally will rise, but with unequal steps . . . The movement will be governed throughout its course by economic laws. (John E. Cairnes, Essays in Political Economy, Mcmillan and Co., 1873, p. 57)

    Des Moore’s ignorance of the history of economic thought and his failure to fully grasp the theory of free trade greatly helped the enemies of the market
    As the reader can easily see this is a vitally important issue, one that directly affects economic policy and living standards. Unfortunately Australia’s economic commentariat not only refuse to debate it they have gone so far as to even deny its existence. Des Moore, a former deputy head of the Australian Treasury and one of our self-appointed defenders of the free market, dismissed the issue on the asinine grounds that the analysis was not part of “the traditional explanation”. According to the likes of Moore and Sinclair Davidson, another self-appointed defender of the market, the a decline a in manufacturing as a proportion of GDP is basically an example of the law of comparative advantage at work.

    But my argument is that the concept of comparative advantage was conceived within the framework of a gold standard, meaning that its success rests on sound monetary policies. This would be obvious to anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the history of economic thought, which Des Moore clearly does not possess. Joseph Schumpeter — one of the last century’s leading historians of economic thought — noted that “the ‘classic’ writers without neglecting other cases, reasoned primarily in terms of an unfettered international gold standard”. (Joseph Schumpeter, The History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 732).

    Davidson’s approach to manufacturing badly damaged the case for free markets and helped justify greater government direction of investment and industry
    Moore is not alone in his ignorance and arrogant conceit. Two years ago Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson, both of whom are with the Institute of Public Affairs, wrote Thumping the Table: Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’. The paper concerned manufacturing and — to be blunt — it was a pretty sorry job indeed. I raised the same points that I repeated here. Berg had the decency to remain silent in the face of my criticism. Davidson, on the other hand, responded with the insult that he only deals with professionals, with him defining who is a professional and who isn’t, and the facts of the case be damned.

    In other words, the IPA adamantly refused to defend their own paper, a paper that involved a vitally important issue, because they knew they would have to admit ignorance of very crucial part of the history of economic thought and the consequences it could have for economic policy, not to mention their own reputations. In refusing to confront this issue the IPA made it abundantly clear that the welfare of Australians come a very poor second to their own selfish interests.

    Regrettably, it gets even worse. Ron Manners, who founded and heads the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation, personally objected to me having the bad taste to expose the incompetence, dishonesty and cowardice of the IPA. For some very peculiar reason Mr Manners seems to think it is a form treachery to expose the errors of our self-appointed and self-anointed leaders of the free market cause, of which he considers himself to be one.

    Mr Manners — and I kid you not — calls himself “the happy libertarian”. Why is he happy defending two men who wrote a paper that damaged the reputation of free market thought? Evidently Manners is unable to grasp the fact that Berg and Davidson’s paper played into the hands of statists who believe that free markets have failed the country.

    Last year the Centre for Independent Studies published a truly shoddy piece of work promoting a carbon tax. Such a tax would savage living standards and devastate the economy. When I criticised this atrocity Manners sided with — you guessed it — the Centre for Independent Studies. He then compounded the insult by writing them a cheque. So what in heavens name made Manners — the free market crusader — so happy about this mob and their destructive anti-market tax?

    Australia’s so-called free marketeers are a bloody disgrace.”

    And excellent article. Can anyone find anything wrong with this. I try and tell Sinclair and Humphreys about stuff like this and they refuse to listen. They just take the tribal view like the good Africans that they are. They are a bloody disgrace our alleged free-market supporters. As an anti-Pigouvian Sinclair betrayed us directly by supporting the carbon tax. In direct contradiction to his former anti-Pigouvian pleading.

    What is Humphreys whining about. We’ve all tried to tell him to lay off promoting the carbon tax and he’s totally irrational about it. Its a rolling fucking thunder going on a good 3 years and more now and never a justification.

    Whats ludicrous about it is that he thinks its some sort of original idea whereas I had the same idea back in 1990. It comes pretty much direct from free to choose. But I based it on the basis of the global warming deal not being a fraud. When we now know that it is a fraud.

  46. NO THEY HAVEN’T CONFIRMED IT AT ALL. WHERE ARE THE MEDICAL RECORDS. YOU LIE.

  47. NO THATS CRAP. THEY DON’T HAVE THE DATA. THEY DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE. ITS JUST LIKE DUMB LEFTWINGERS TO THINK THAT EVIDENCE CAN EXIST IN MID-AIR AS IT WERE.

    SOME OF THE YOUNGER NURSES LIKELY READ IT IN THE WIKI THAT THIS IS WHERE HE WAS BORN. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER EXISTS FOR THIS CONTENTION. IF IT DID EXIST YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT IT.

  48. “Moore is not alone in his ignorance and arrogant conceit. Two years ago Chris Berg and Sinclair Davidson, both of whom are with the Institute of Public Affairs, wrote Thumping the Table: Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’. The paper concerned manufacturing and — to be blunt — it was a pretty sorry job indeed. I raised the same points that I repeated here. Berg had the decency to remain silent in the face of my criticism. Davidson, on the other hand, responded with the insult that he only deals with professionals, with him defining who is a professional and who isn’t, and the facts of the case be damned.”

    You see this story has the ring of truth to it. And the fact is that this is not acceptable behaviour from this African interloper. He really must learn the material. He is belligerently ignorant is our Sinclair.

  49. WELL THE LAWSUITS MAY WELL FAIL. BUT THAT WILL MEAN THE END OF THE REPUBLIC. IT WON’T MEAN THAT BARRY IS ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER THE FORMER REPUBLIC.

    YOU APPEAR TO BE DEVELOPING AN IMMACULATE CONCEPTION THEORY FOR EVIDENCE ITSELF.

  50. you seem to want tax exemptions for every frigging thing/

    dude. just decide what you want to spend money on and raise a broad based consumption tax for it. end of story. no need to over complicate the tax system like this.

  51. You only say that because you don’t understand economics. Spending doesn’t work. Tax exemptions do.

  52. What brought on that tantrum. I cannot figure out where your last post fits in. What its in response too.

  53. Cambria is still insisting that they needed to steal money off the rest of us (in the American situation) and give it to the banks. Unbelievable the moronic welfare queen.

    In Cambria’s view replacing collapsing ponzi-money with cash money wasn’t good enough. Only outright theft would do.

    In reality only increasing the monetary base eased the problem. The thieving was ineffectual and was simply stealing and nothing else.

    Notice how Cambria uses liquidity as a moveable feast to make this plea for blatant daylight theft fly as an idea.

  54. Humphreys is attributing bizzare gains to bank cash pyramiding. These posts are not likely to get through.

    Bank cash pyramiding doesn’t produce these massive efficiency gains. This is ridiculous John. This is just foolish macromancy. And you cannot justify it.

    Comment by graemebird | May 26, 2009

    Its in no way a voluntary act between consenting adults. Voluntary acts between consenting adults involve their own property. Whereas pyramiding money involves the misappropriation of the property of others.

    You are lending or selling nonexistant cash, gold silver or shares that you don’t own.

    Comment by graemebird | May 26, 2009

  55. Here is what Humphreys says. Truly bizzare and he will not be justifying it:

    FRB = fractional reserve banking. Basically, it involves people entering into voluntary contracts for how another person can use their money.

    “Some strange people (including Bird, and some Austrians) think it should be banned because it makes financial markets more volatile. They are correct that it makes financial markets more volatile, but it also gives huge benefits such as massive efficiency gains in the allocation of capital… which is the prime driver of economic growth…..”

    Where are these huge benefits. Humphreys will not say. He will not debate this point. He won’t be backing this up. This amounts to a religious comittment.

  56. Mr Bird
    Look at the way the Negro Usurper treats his own people

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Reporter-Dragged-Kicking-and-Screaming-From-Near-Air-Force-One-.html

  57. The fish stinks from the head hey? The usurpers attitude cascading down to his security people. If this were a gentleman there would be a half-dozen security workers soiling their pants that they were about to be sacked.

  58. Look at this Mr Bird

    This is the end of American civilisation. These people are now no better than savages

    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Openly-Gay-Teen-Voted-Prom-Queen-at-LA-High-School.html

  59. Yes, Mr. Bird I t looks like Barry has ruined the country.

  60. It’s terrible, Mr Q.

    America is now a Sodomite Dictatorship. I mourn for our cousins.

    I have a bad feeling about this weekend. I think the North Koreans are even more cunning that the typical Oriental. It’s time to spend a few days DIck Cheney style, in the bunker.

  61. “The one thing about Bird is that he’s absolutely horrible …….”

    Trying to mislead Tal again. I was still a teenager when I got my economics degree and the woppy only did Keynes 101. You cannot hide from me you mummified Joe-90 cunt-ox. It doesn’t happen till it does and it will hurt. I don’t spend extra for steel-caps that look like sand-shoes for no reason.


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: