Posted by: graemebird | October 4, 2009

No More Posting On Catallaxy.

I cannot see myself posting a great deal more on Catallaxy now that the tyrannical and bigoted reign of Sinclair is about to begin. I know what he’s like. Even if he lets the post through he’s likely to have me on drip-feed. Meaning that he’ll wait until anyone reading has moved on prior to letting my posts through. Sinclair, despite his supposed allegience to the market, is basically tribal. Out of Africa. He’s fundamentally a priesthood guy. And therefore basically a witch-doctor despite the overlay. He let go how fundamentally ignorant he was when he backed Humphreys instead of Jackson. So therefore posts on economics and especially posts criticising the absolute dummies in Australian economics aren’t likely to get through.

Of course if moderation came off I’d change my mind. But its got to be expected that if moderation came off I’d be having a go at Cambria the entire time. This fellow has become a complete menace. Constantly getting in the way of me trying to teach people enough about money and banking to get them to change the banking system and stop the banking industry from

1. ripping normal people off.
2. Buggering our economic system.
3. And therefore giving plausibility to Keynesian and Marxist economics.

And they ARE plausible to the layman no matter how technically wrong they are. Because of the anomalies that fractional reserve creates.

To get people to stop themselves being ripped off might appear to be an easy thing but its not. Because getting out of this viscious circle of contant subsidies to the banks and them basically bleeding the community, is a thing of great subtlety. It ought to be a campaign of the highest priority and it will take people across the spectrum to understand the problem. Since we must craft a transition glide-path that goes pretty easy on both debtors and creditors. Here is where one of the big problems lies. Under fractional fiat we all carry too much debt. No-one wants to see a campaign that grinds them under just because they are currently in hoc.

So no more daily song for tal. No more economics commentary from someone who actually understands economics. No more running down bad paradigms in science that ought to have fallen under their own weight long ago. I’ve just got to figure out a whole different way of keeping these campaigns going. The money one being the most important. Stopping the carbon tax being next most. I would go so far to say that fractional reserve is the real story behind Fermi’s paradox ……

……… But thats not something that anyone who doesn’t understand monetary economics is ever going to be able to think is a credible claim. I don’t know HOW I’m going to keep this campaign going. But its something that must be done. I mean just from a national security point of view fractional reserve is a total hazard. Not just a small hazard but an entirely unacceptable hazard. Even if it wasn’t an incredible dead weight loss around our throats it would be unacceptable from that point of view alone. And any country with fractional reserve can be judged a pushover once occupied.



  1. Good work, Graeme. It is obvious that these Catallaxy interlopers hate freedom, and want to blind people to the dangers of athiesm and the fractional reserves. It would not surprise me if this Cambria fellow of whom you speak is a raving Keynesian sodomite, who likes a bit of a Firm Paradox of his own, if you catch my drift.

  2. He’s a nuisance for sure.

    Supposing one points out that fractional reserve forms the basis for every banking crisis. His counter to that won’t even be a refutation

    “Banks are forced to set aside, or rather allocate capital to all parts of their balance sheet usage including derivatives.”

    Note that ones got nothing to do with the other? And then you put pressure on the prick to come up with real evidence and Sinclair the dickhead wipes all your gear. After taking hours to get around to it.

    So I take a shot at Sinclair, also a more polite counter-argument for Cambria. Fucking Sinclair publishes the message to him that was clearly for his eyes only.

    So the fucker is looking for a justification to delay or ban me outright. Even the posts insulting to him appear to get preference over the ones explaining monetary economics.

    I might just spend my time writing insults to Sinclair.

  3. I think what I’ll do is just post insulting messages to Sinclair. And republish them here. It seems pointless to do anything else.

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Right. Dinosaurs started off as bipedal. Which suggests their ancestors had spent time in the trees. I don’t know how smart they got. But they had hand-like claws. Were they ever to get smart enough to have money they could gain a civilisation, and were they ever smart enough to get fractional reserve they would likely lose it eventually and become animals again. But one sees no evidence of them getting that far one way or the other.

    The giant photos were mostly part of a photo-shopping competition. But they found their way through some Indian and Arab newspapers. If you were that big you’d have to be up to your tits in water the whole time. The gravity would have to be less, the atmosphere thicker, and more oxygen enriched.

    However there are scraps of information suggesting quite large hominids. Even someone ten foot tall would not “do uphill” as in the fat lady saying “I don’t do uphill” And so any such large people would have had to have been coastal. Hence the evidence for them would necessarily be thin.

    I intend to post here as little as possible Phil. Why don’t you send me your email so I can talk to you offline.

    Dig this Phil. I thought you might like this picture of Saturn:

    This area on Mars is one we want to get a better look at. Those objects look small but they each may have a base of about one hectare.

  5. Goldman Sachs bankrolls Michael Moores anti-capitalist movie. And for good reason.

    “The Weinstein Company announced it was funded with a $490 million private placement in which Goldman Sachs advised. The press release announcing the deal quoted a Goldman spokesman saying, “We are very pleased to be a part of this exciting new venture and look forward to an ongoing relationship with The Weinstein Company.”

    And what is Cambria’s response to Phil’s claim?

    “No Phil Gold Sack DID not “roll” Mick’s pic. The Weinstein bros did.”

    No nuance. No clarification. Just automatic gainsaying from a useless dumb wop.

    And its right that Goldmans ought bankroll fatty. Because they are crony-socialist criminals who ought know only too well that you want this fight between the wrong parties while this scum takes off with all the loot.

  6. “The Weinstein Company announced it was funded with a $490 million private placement in which Goldman Sachs advised. ”

    In other words Goldman raised the money for them from the public. Not a million miles from bankrolling. Just not with their own money.

  7. So has this Stinklair banned you from Catallaxy Graeme? If so, I too will boycott that site. The management there have always been a problem. Now it’s run by some Apartheidist. Before that, it was run by a ladyboy. Probably a Filipino. Disgraceful.

  8. I don’t know if he’s banned me outright, But its pretty hard to get a post through. LIke If I put up a post there I’ll put it up here and it will either take a very long time to kick in or not at all.

  9. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Look Sinclair. If you have evidence for the Keynesian multilplier GIVE IT UP. You are always trying to slip this lie into the mix. Doesn’t matter if you are in front of the Senate or not.

    Where is your evidence. I’m claiming that its just the result of looking at the wrong metric. Looking at the metric of GDP rather than GDR.

    So if you think there is a Keynesian multiplier lets have that evidence.

  10. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Look Sinclair. If you have evidence for the Keynesian multilplier GIVE IT UP. You are always trying to slip this lie into the mix. Doesn’t matter if you are in front of the Senate or not.

    Where is your evidence. I’m claiming that its just the result of looking at the wrong metric. Looking at the metric of GDP rather than GDR.

    So if you think there is a Keynesian multiplier lets have that evidence.

    5 Oct 09 at 3:28 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Once again we have Sinclair pushing the fallacy of the Keynesian multiplier. What really happens of course is that spending gets taken away from gross investment, which isn’t included under GDP, and transferred to consumer spending and government spending, where it does show up in GDP.

    If Sinclair is going to smuggle in this irrational notions perhaps Sinclair can find some evidence for it. Can anyone find evidence for the Keynesian multiplier. I’ve brought this up before and its been a total Catallaxian fail.

  11. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    As mentioned the banks are poised to do untold damage to the Australian economy. To stop this imminent vandalisation will require a reserve asset ratio. Piano-tuning with the discount rate, which is after all just another bank subsidy, isn’t going to stop this burst of country-wide wrecking-ball behaviour.

    It would be nice if the economists both understood the above and were non-nihilistic enough to do something about it.

  12. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    But its worse than that Terje. You see you cannot polish a turd. Sinclair cannot start talking about various assumptions to do with the Keynesian multiplier WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING. No matter how he polishes this turd it will not shine.

    But what he can do is triangulate between the two tribes and sell us all down river. There are two assumptions that Sinclair has smuggled through here

    1. That there is a Keynesian multiplier.

    2. That we want to boost retail spending as part of sound public policy.

    Both these assumptions are wrong. And if Sinclair is going to be a bastard or in the case of the video below a “Half-Ted” then he deserves abuse from all sides.

  13. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Pedro rates policy is not monetary policy. Or not effective and fast-acting monetary policy. We are talking about how much the reserve bank forces the rest of us to subsidise the banking sector. This is not something that Sinclair is ever likely to point out to you.

  14. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “It’s amazing , isn’t it DB. It actually looking more and more like a totalitarian movement.”

    What do you know. Rip Van Cambria waking up. How about that. The dumb wop still supports a carbon tax. Another Half-Ted.

  15. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Right. But were they all warm-blooded?

    The thing is that the larger dinosaurs could never have survived, much less evolved to be that large with the atomosphere and gravity that we have now. The gravity was much less than. The dinosaurs were a mgratory species. On the smaller planet they would migrated from the Northern to the Southern hemisphere and back. Which would get more and more difficult as the Atlantic and the Pacific opened up. Notice that the surviving dinosaurs, ie the birds, still follow these implied migratory roots all these tens of millions of years later.

    “The male scientists in Jurassic Park suffered from womb envy and the ultimate masculine fantasy of male parthenogenesis.”

    Surely these were fluoride drinking post-moderns. Simple introspection tells me that the ultimate male fantasy would be to leave cuckoo-babies in rich mens houses. And there would definitely be females involved with that. His wife and mistress. And 19 year old daughter with a bit of luck. But such a prospect is now made impossible with modern genetic tests.

    “We’ve a lot to learn from them. Unlike us they didn’t poison their habitat or threaten the whole world with nuclear devastation and contamination.”

    We may be on our own here. Since it doesn’t look like they ever got even nearly that far. Being migratory, any hetertofore undiscovered smart dinosaurs who reached some level of material civilisation would be utterly appalled at the way we now have everything fenced in. I will speak for thse hypotheticals here since I too am mightily appalled.

    Reagan almost got matters to a point where we could be quits with nukes forever. But that window has gone Phil. And we have to figure out how to live with the prospect of extended nuclear war. What this means for our city layout, for our economic policies, and for our armed forces. For the monetary system we need to have to survive and wage such an undertaking. All the decisions of our society holistically planned with this shadow of nuclear war and intimidation in mind.

    Since while these people who would take everything off us and take all our girls might rightly be devoured one by one for trying to haremise them and fence them in, such elegant solutions can take too long. And we males who were left would be lost in the shame of having not succeeded in being males. Giving away your girls by force and bribery is a full spectrum male failure.

    5 Oct 09 at 10:31 pm
    Leave a Reply

  16. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Notice the drip-feed censorship Phil. Sinclair is around. He’s just putting a delay on communication.

    5 Oct 09 at 11:03 pm

  17. “Sinclair Davidson”? He’s obviously trying to pass for Anglo.

    I bet his birth certificate says “Shlomo Davidowitz”.

  18. Well of course if he doesn’t act patriotically people may get to thinking that way.

  19. What the hell. I’ll give Catallaxy a few more days. See how they go. So far its not too impressive. Drip feed censorship. He lets surprisingly critical posts towards himself through. But then he’ll delay normal posts for no good reason when he’s proved to be around.

    Sinclair I can divert some of the criticism away from your person but the issues have to be addressed. And if you aren’t going to be around take me off moderation. The only person I’m really going to box in is Cambria. Because Cambria is a stupid wop.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Oh my goodness. If it isn’t the dithering Adrien. Why do you have to make something so complicated Adrien? Its pretty simple really isn’t it?

    Longterm readers might take note that my relentless flattery of and goodwill towards Philomena (sorry Phil. I just cannot keep referring to you using a male name. I’m sure its doing me all sorts of psychic damage.) now means I have to word matters in such a way as to not throw all leftists together in the same deep pit.

    But there is a strain of toadying leftists that feel it necessary to find affinity with uppity elites who wish for a world wherein there is one set of laws for them and their pets, and another set of laws for those of us who exhibit a more proletarian form of chic.

    Its the fucking law Adrien. He has to do time. It doesn’t mean we all have to feel bad towards him. Perhaps we all feel well-disposed towards him. You think about how he felt the need to run. And his wife being cut up. His escape from the Nazis and all that. But he’s got to do jail time.

    Any questions subsequent to that are merely to do with expressions of hope that they’ll go easy on him. And it is very easy to express such thoughts once we know that he is indeed going to do time. This idea that he can get away free and clear is ridiculous and its a sign of a very unhealthy society, whose pretensions to equality before the law and justice have been debased away along with its currency.

    Its like with this business of Bill Clinton. He should have done jail time for selling military secrets to the Chinese for obviously corrupt reasons. I don’t dislike the guy. But that aint the point. I wouldn’t have even wanted him to get a stiff sentence. But the way so many leftists, elitists and crony-rightists protected him and then diverted the matter towards his hopelessly unsatisfactory sexual performance with a youngster, was really very disgusting.

    6 Oct 09 at 2:39 pm

  20. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Can I get an appeal going to take me off moderation? I can make the following undertakings. If I swear at anyone not Cambria and someone picks me up on it I’ll try and take their advice to heart. I’ll try to play the ball and not the man with regards to economics but only if I’m NOT moderated. I’ll attempt to ignore most jibes not coming from Cambria or at least about one in two. Birdlab ought to be moderated. But I’ll even attempt to only react to one in two with him as well.

    The only person I’ll try to box in relentlessly is Cambria. I’ll attempt to take more abuse then I give with all other parties. And if I fail in this I will be responsive to reminders.

    I submit that I ought to be given a chance. Or perhaps while Sinclair is present he can agree to put me on moderation, but not while he is away. Since a crusader needs the ability to communicate. And we have many harsh decades ahead of us.

  21. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Rethinking basic physics.

    There are two teak wood planks in space forming a cross. Where they are held together, it is with strong glue. Much of the basic building blocks of reality entire in this visage alone.

    Taking the lead from the majestic and leggy Philomena I have decided to try and show how most of reality can be conceputalised from as little as two opposing forces. In her words love and strife (Philomena being extremely feminine). Perhaps she was smuggling through the Chinese concepts yin and yang via a Greek Trojan Horse. We will see how we go with push and pull. But first we must look at latent versions of these two.

    Here I draw heavily on what little I know of the two different systems of Gaede and Neal Adams. With extrapolations from myself. Most of which will likely prove redundant or opposed to the source inspirations.

    Suppose we show up in space and several of us aided in our movements by all sorts of micro-rocketry. We attempt to pry the two pieces of wood apart and sometimes to push them together in the hope that they may snap. But always without adding any movement to the situation. We are unsuccessful in our attempts.


    But there is a difference here between latent push and pull where on the one hand we have this adhesion that isn’t being put to the test. And on the other hand the wood exhibits a force at its surface, as if it wants to maintain its form. But neither the push force nor the pull force, once brought into action TRAVEL. The push and pull forces have no reach. I would say that this is the case with virtually all forces in the universe in the first instance.

    Where pull is concerned I follow Gaeda and his orthogonal ropes. Ropes of ying and yang rapping around eachother like on a clothes line. Largely if not wholly porous to anything passing through them laterally. In the way that Birkeland currents travel through space in this rap-around way and yet we would likely pass through these currents seamlessly if we were travelling in a lateral direction to them in our spaceship.

    Students of basic mechanics may tell us that all pull is really push in disguise. And that when we lassoo someone and pull her towards us the rope is really pushing her from behind. We may break this down another way on another day. Into push adhesion and compression. But for now push and pull will do. And I’m saying that when there is the force of pull at a distance this implies orthogonal ropes. For the most part forces don’t “travel”. They don’t work at a distance. For them to work at anything much of a distance would imply occult powers.

    Now just to lay a bit of shorthand on this. Here are a few items I want you to contemplate.

    Under my system (Gaeda and or Adams are not to be held responsible.)

    1. Acceleration due to PUSH is proof of prior compression.

    2. Energy and matter are not the least bit convertible one to the other. In fact there is no such separate entity as energy.

    3. The creation of new matter over time is obviously less miraculous and easier to justify then the creation of all matter instantaneously. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

    4. The creation of matter over time ought not, even at this humble stage, be thought to be more than 1% miraculous. Since 99% of what is going on is the setting up of countervailing push and pull arrangements, many of them latent, and many of them involving static-compression. Almost all of the behaviours we have for seemingly solid material or liquid or gaseous material for that matter, can be explained by myriad arrangements of interlocking push and pull setups. Adhesion, repulsion (of a sort that does not “reach) either totally latent, or involving compression …. well this is basically all thats needed to manifest everything that we see and know of.

    5. We can imagine that in the middle of moons, planets and stars we have the following characterisitcs. High pressure. Extreme heat. Powerful electrical currents. Which also implies monstrous forces of magnetism. I ask you. What else is needed than the above to set up the myriad countervailing, interlocked, overlayed forces of push and pull that we take to be matter?

    6. Note that looking at the mainstream paradigm, the most efficient energy conversion that we know of, or at least that I know of, comes from the air compressor, wherein you haven’t had enough time to lose the heat of the compressed air, and then you convert it back to work. You can get efficiencies of above 90% using this system.

    7. I would say that ALL instances of what the mainstream consider to be POTENTIAL ENERGY involve countervailing forces. And the only serious useful energy storage implies compression of one sort or another.

    8. Just think for a minute about the foolishness or at least strangeness of the photonic view of light. Somehow we let loose a photon. And what does this photon do? It starts acting like young Forrest Gump. Running flat out in a straight line at high speed. Or perhaps in waves. They cannot make up their mind. “Where are you going Forrest?” Where are you going little photon? Are you angry? Are you lost?

    Its really all very silly when you think about it.

    Enough for now. Questions?

  22. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I agree you should be given a chance, and you are being given a chance. If you recall you were placed in moderation and then banned and then back into moderation.”

    But look. People were rude to me. They swarmed me. And no-one stuck up for me like I consistently try to stick up for other victims of swarming.

    I’m telling you the way things are. These various campaigns I am running are important. So I have to find the best way to run them. If that means attempting to play the ball more out of moderation I’ll simply judge things on the basis of how effective I think I can be.

    If I’m being run down and trampled with Cambria and others midleading people then thats no good either as three years of generalised monetary theory ignorance has proved.

    So I’m telling you how I’m likely to act either way. Your own behaviour is perverse. You let some of the worst insults to yourself in and at the same time you seem to want to arbitrarily hold back comments for no reason at all.

    Congratulations on getting the invite to Don Mateo’s caffe where the people are serious about freedom. This of course wins you enourmous brownie points. But you don’t act in a consistent way Sinclair. And this can promote anger. Which will find more serious expression if I’m outside the tent than if I’m inside. All I can say is that I’m likely to play the ball a great deal more if I have the opportunity to be effective. So the abuse of Cambria has to stay. Moderated or not. But the rest is open to a different sort of moderation. That sort of moderation that starts between my ears and manifests in my fingers in the first instance.

    After Cambria went bad nobody ever defended me from the swarming filibusting, refusal to admit when I had been right. No-one. Occasionally Jason defended me on other blogs. But never right here.

    Most of the time I was just snapping back in the face of persistent rudeness. This stuff gets bad if its repetitive. To this day I could not be more appalled at the tribal way that Homer is still being treated.

  23. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Is that a trick question pedro?

    The thing is all of you start falling into the path that the Keynesians have made for you. STOP CALLING FISCAL POLICY EXPANSIONARY. Its just the same old story of the left basically controlling you. No-one, and I mean no-one has come up with any evidence for fiscal deficit spending increasing nominal total spending. So the two policies aren’t countervailing. The monetary expansion was functional up to a point. A point which I believe has been overstepped.

    Now both policies are damaging. But only one of them is expansionary. Having a discount rate is a subsidy to the banks. Increasing or lowering it by small amounts is only tightening or loosening IN CONTEXT.

    Right now it isn’t going to make a brass razoo of difference. Since the banks are cashed up due to the prior scare so they are going to go into wrecking-ball mode. The monetary norms of this country are so devised as to leave the banks raking in billions of dollars that they are not entitled to at the expense of sound monetary management, and of the national welfare.

    Stephens, whether he knows it or not, is totally remiss not to set a reserve asset ratio at just below the level that the average bank now has its reserves at. Because reducing the scope of the subsidy to the banks in the current context isn’t the least bit contractionary. Its about as useful as trying to slow down a rampaging elephant by throwing a saddle and a young child onto it. If they were lent up to the hilt and the banks did not feel they had “surplus” cash on hand then the selfsame reduction in subsidy to the banks could in that context break the entire confidence of the banking system. But if the banks themselves feel that the reserves they have are “surplus” then only a reserve asset ratio at an appropriate level will stop them from going hog wild in an orgy of profits and vandalism.

    What is no good is if you guys internalize bad theory and then turn this into a sort of relentless implied mantra in homage to Keynes, thus tightening the grip that economic error has on our society and on your own subconscious minds. Its bad enough experiencing this rolling thunder of Keynes when we read the Financial review. But there is a practical matter to be understood here: I cannot get the scales to fall from your eyes unless I can stop you repeating over and over the same intrinsically Keynesian nonsense. Because it winds up just more leftist hypnosis. And you guys have no business being nasty to Homer when you yourselves are accepting Keynesianism without even knowing it.

    Homer is a Keynesian. He’s straight up with it. You guys don’t know what you are. Now point taking out your own confusion on Homer. He’s telling his story straight. You cannot refute him without refuting Keynes.

    6 Oct 09 at 4:40 pm
    Leave a Reply

  24. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    More on physics.

    Consider the proposition that things tend to maximum disorder. Entropy. Tepid soup. This CANNOT be the whole story.

    In fact this proposition must be dismissed. Perhaps it is the case for normal matter. Who knows. But even if so the universe is made mostly out of plasma’s. It is manifest that things do not tend towards maximum disorder. The proposition has to be limited in some way or dumped. Its doesn’t pass the empirical test.

    Consider the idea that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Again. Empirical evidence refutes this. The matter is here. End of story.

    Consider the proposition that energy can neither be created or destroyed except by way of transmutation between energy and matter. You’d be surprised how little evidence there is for any of this. There is no need to set the proof bar so low on account of the cult of personality. This proposition deserves the folded arms approach.

    Most of this jive has to go.

  25. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I think the simplistic idea that mass and energy are equivalent and interconvertible has to go. Although I could contradict myself to some extent later. Its more the idea that they can neither be created nor destroyed that seems to be wrong.

    Here I’ll give you an example. Suppose we have a super-sturdy and ultra-light material and out of it we contruct a stairway to heaven. But we put this stairway on a body without much of an atmosphere. We put it on the moon.

    As I climb this stairway I am gaining in potential energy. Is net mass being created? Am I or the moon getting more massive as a result? Of course I’m burning calories. But thats all accounted for. The increase in potential energy is something else again. Supposedly explained by more mass.

    Jump-cut to the situation between the moon and the earth. The moon is slowly getting further away from the earth. This is seen as a loss of potential energy. And some folks put it down to the tides. So getting higher is LOSING potential energy. Is it losing mass? Whereas if I climb these stairs am I gaining mass? Because I’m supposed to be gaining potential energy.

    Now consider the point at which if I climb any further I go into geosynchronous orbit? So here I had piled on all this potential energy, and I take a few steps more and its all gone again? Where is the mass all gone?

    I pull myself down to the point where I can again drop to the surface of the moon. This has taken extra calories to reel myself back in, in this manner. This is all counter to this notion that energy and mass are never lost or gained but only converted one to the other.

    In fact BOTH ENERGY AND MASS ARE SET UP BY LOCKING IN COUNTERVAILING FORCES. That and that alone is what they have in common. Its utterly simplistic to claim that they convert directly one to the other and neither is lost nor gained.

    I go down to where its unambiguous that I can now fall straight to the moons surface. I jump off, rapidly gaining speed. Check my watch. Think about my girls and then reorient myself such that I am heading straight down with clenched fists.

    I blast a bit of a crater in the moon and get up and straighten my tie and comb my hair. Brush off my black suit a little. The accountants come out in their space suits and start calculating where all the energy came and went and what it meant for the conservation of mass and energy. They will do their best and fudge the figures around. But there is no such conservation to be presumed in every last situation. Because setting up mass and energy involves the interlocking of countervailing forces, and where gravity isn’t involved compression of some sort or other must be.

    7 Oct 09 at 2:19 am

  26. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Humphreys piece is just old hat. And he ought not be advocating this sort of thing except as some sort of glide-path towards less stealing. I read free to choose in 1980. Why are you acting like this warmed-over stuff is just the bees-knees Jason.

    For one thing he’s not advocating less stealing. Only less churning. For another thing he’s got no understanding of what monetary and other factors are causing this poverty at the bottom end.

    Where is this money going to come from for this negative income tax that he’s advocating? Its got to come from somewhere. And we find that it comes out of the very fund that would end poverty. It comes out of business spending ultimately. Or it comes out of monetary inflation and there is no ending poverty without ending that.

    Entirely unoriginal and lacking in sophistication.

    7 Oct 09 at 3:46 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Ok I’ve read it now and look at this:

    “His report proposes a mandatory minimum level of both health insurance and schooling, but beyond that middle and high-income earners leave the welfare system and pay for their own, perhaps using the money saved through lower taxes.”

    So already he’s decided he want to bugger two important industries by leaving them mostly socialist. So there goes our hopes to have a vibrantly innovative education and welfare industry that delivers better value for money every quarter.

    The reality of the piece is much worse than what I assumed from the executive summary. At least he thinks he can ditch 80 billion in spending. But why continue to sit on two of our most vital industries?

    Don’t pretend this is classical liberalism Jason. If you want to confess to being a George Bush the Younger conservative do that.

    I mean how is the intellectual feebleness of “compulsary insurance” There is no such thing. Thats a violation of what we understand insurance to be.

    And why simply assume that health care needs to be paid by insurance. Food is pretty important too. Will we need food vouchers. Or food insurance companies?

    This is all anti-economics.

    7 Oct 09 at 3:59 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Oh Lord its just too too awful.

    There is nothing here about mass-sackings. Nothing here about closing down bureaucracies by the bakers dozen. Nothing here about getting rid of financial sector thieving and the monetary conditions needed to end poverty.

    There is hateful talk of means-testing. There is nothing about getting rid of taxes on retained earnings. Its just awful. Its just so depressing.

    Henry’s stuff is quite good as usual. Humphreys stuff is enough to ruin any economic-sophisticates day.

  27. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    That quote of Stiglitz’s THR, hones in on the problem better than Stiglitz himself will probably prove to. Or at least thats what I’m supposing I’ll find when I get around to reading the article entire.

    We see the common problem of the puny human intellectual. The ratio between how clearly the leftist intellectual particularly, diagnoses the problem, and the plausibility of the solutions he offers, well this is a big ratio.

    Its like this with critics of modern physics. Some of the most whacky people out there can explain very clearly why Einsteins relativity is wrong and silly, and why Quantum physics isn’t a forever thing either. But prior to finding Gaede, almost without exception, when they turned to their own solutions, just reading them gave one the impression that these guys were clinically insane.

    If I didn’t know better, and had just arrived from Mars, on the back of a second-hand spaceship carrying only watermelons, and me with a hayseed between my teeth, I would give the same diagnosis for Keynesians and Marxists.

    But these guys can be very sharp, with their critique of society. And almost insane (if one didn’t know better) with their solutions that follow these critiques.

    The quote hones in on a common fault with the neoclassicals, that even extends to a lesser degree to many Austrians. It doesn’t extend to Jackson or Reisman but thats another story. The fault is that they take the conclusions, from their model, and from an idealised form of capitalism, and seem to simply assume that this applies to the crap cronyist system we live in now.

    In our system all but the very faultless are held back from reaching their potential ability to make a contribution to wealth production. Not in any absolutist sense. But enough to matter over the wider span of the population.

    The neoclassicals seem to make a point of getting confused between their models and the real world. We see that with their flippancy at our continuing trade deficits. Yes it is true that under capitalism, properly considered, any level of debt would have to be considered to be benign and the explosive progression of capital accumulation it produced would make the paying off of this debt almost effortless. This is not the case now and we are digging a hole for ourselves. We’ll only get away with it be ripping off people poorer than ourselves, if the debt is denominated in USD. Since the USD will collapse, thus relieving us of the burden of paying people back who depended on this for their elderly years.

    Stiglitz may have good things to say about how screwed up things are. But his solutions will prove idiotic. He lacks the required economics sophistication to craft plausible solutions. And actually when it comes down to it he’s not as perceptive as all that.

    Galbraith was a seriously sharp-eyed individual. I mean it. But a complete nutter when it came to policy-advocacy.

    We can have it that at the lower rungs of society we are moving very quickly to a situation of Sydney-like incomes, and Manilla-like living costs. And I think we ought to get serious about applying what is known to economic science and move to that situation with all due haste. This is where the low-hanging fruit is. You cannot force wages up. Or establish skills training programs and get solutions from that. Or try to pretend that the right infrastructure spending, financed via funny-money, is going to neutralise the “bottlenecks” leaving explosive growth in the economy that over-rides the currency debasement.

    All of this to the objective alien would seem to be evidence of clinical insanity.

    Its true that current people in the “professions” (ie the conspicuously rigged part of the labour market) would see their nominal income depressed under this scenario UNLESS THEY LEVERAGED THEIR BONA-FIDES THROUGH BUSINESS OWNERSHIP OR SUPERVISORY ROLES.

    But even in the case of these people, the cost of living would be falling so fast that they would also, on average, probably be gaining in absolute terms.

    8 Oct 09 at 2:45 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Is Graeme working or has Mullah Omar aka Sinc put him in moderation?”

    Tal. The Sweetheart. Sticking up for me. See that Philomena? You send her all your good vibes hey?

    Everybody note. Sinclair was invited to make a presentation before the extremely prestigious Prodos coterie. That he accepted this invitation seems to indicate that the public service, and academia, hasn’t completely stifled his ideals.

    8 Oct 09 at 2:53 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Re the Polanski thing, i hope the whole sorry saga demonstrates that artists are capable of great beauty and great darkness, just like everyone else, tho often more marked. Its not a free pass. Wrestling with that shadow is a large part of the artistic (and human) struggle, and i’m sceptical of those who are dismissive of its potential power and reality – it hints of repression, naivety or guilt.”

    Right on sister. Repression, naivety or guilt. In all eight potential permutations.

    Now what I’m about to say will make me sound weak on peadophilia or evil as such. But if we have this understanding that you convict obvious wrong-doing with more than just a slap on the wrist, we can avoid barbarism, revolution, or repulsive outcomes and still not be TOO punitive in our punishments. It ought to have been simply assumed that he would do jail time of at least a year or two. Then the subsequent argument ought to be to do with whether the law ought go a bit easy on him for this reason or that. The people who wanted him to get off the hook made the fatal mistake that Homer chastised Bart over with faking his report card. Homer told Bart that a “D” quite naturally can be altered to become a “B”. But attempting to make it an “A” is obviously over-reach.

    Its like those photos. Where does the law stand with that photographer getting off? He’s more damaged now in all likelihood on account of the Janus-faced elitest support and his subsequent aquittal. Had he simply been punished, did his time, and public anger had been converted to public sympathy, then he would now be far better off. I say this without presumption to know anything about his situation.

    If I did that sort of thing, and I never would, I’d get jailed. And we must be equal before the law. So where is the cutoff? We are left in limbo with liquid law.

    But at the same time, I didn’t want to see this “artist” or artist ( now that he’s had such a hard time I’m going to reserve judgement either way) nailed to the wall. I didn’t want to see him suffer the upper level of potential punishments.

    The soft-headed left and elitists (note deference to my new friend evident in my wording) wanted to let him off BUT NOT REPEAL THE LAW. Well I don’t think the law ought to be repealed myself. Because parents who are both working right now, need to know that their kids can leave the house and there is some sort of cutoff that prevents them being manipulated.

    But how can you let this fellow off entirely, and not bother to change the law? This is saying that if the left perceives you as “friend” or “pet” the law doesn’t apply to you. But that they can grab an antagonist like me and take me down at any time. Nail me for racism. For hurting the feelings of gangsters, banksters, and millionaire woppies who have betrayed us.

    If we had combined punishment, serious punishment, at the lower end of what the law said, but with some sort of moral support when he had taken his punishment, then decorum would have been maintained, and some sort of charitable reception could have been had, when he’d done his time, and he would be less likely to be damaged psychologically, and as an artist.

    Again, without pretension to know how he is travelling mentally or otherwise.

    The left tend to murder their pets. This would seem to be an historically established fact after all this time.

    8 Oct 09 at 3:21 pm

  28. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Mistake. What the hell are you talking about. I admit mistakes so fast that none of you guys ever see it. For example the other day Edney had me on the ropes. I had assumed this massive mis-match between matter creation and matter degeneration. I still think there is a big mis-match. But as soon as Edney set me straight on this it was a big punch to the jaw. Because it turns out that the mismatch isn’t even one hundredth of what I’d assumed. So he socked it too me good and proper. And I am pretty sure that he’s right and I was at least about 90% wrong.

    As it turned out I managed to counter-attack pretty effectively. So much so that with Edney’s revelation (Edney is an authentic expert on Plasma physics, cruelly wasted to workaholism in service of a bank-cash-pyramiding racket) I developed an whole new slant on the problem of energy and mass. Well new to me at least not gypping Gaede and Adams.

    But I always own up when I’m wrong. So you are full of it Mark. I’m not wrong about anything here.

    We must look at the INTENTION of the Humphreys monograph. Not of Humphreys writing the monograph. But of the Humphreys monograph itself. This might seem to be the same thing, but in the sense I mean its not.

    I will reserve the right to switch between the Humphreys PERSONAL motivation. And what I would call the separate and distinct INTENTION of the text itself.

    Paradoxical yes I know. Like a literary critic talking about the motivation of Ophelia. When someone else comes along and just says that Will’ was feeling kind of daffy.

    We might call it the “gnostic” intention. Or the “group-think” intention. Or we might even go so far as to call it the “conspirational” intention.

    But I want you guys to get to thinking in this sort of vein;

    Supposing you have a young actor and a director. And the director lets things roll and then he says “CUT!!!!”

    He calls the young protege over. And he says:

    “Listen kid. You look good. No problem with the way you look. Man you got the best vocals in the business. And look at the way you hit the marks. Beautiful. I could do it in one take, because the cameramen can rely on you to be where you have to be.

    But there is something wrong kid. No its not the enunciation. I said to speak your lines trippingly-on-the-tongue and you have it DOWN.

    Its your INTENTION. I don’t get your INTENTION.

    Hey the rest of you beat it! Time out. Take a break. Go on get going…. Now kid. What is it that you think your character is motivated by, and with every segment of this scene? We are going through it step by step?”

    Its this sort of vibe I want you to ponder on with John’s monograph. What is the ‘groupthink” intention of it.

    You guys ought to go for the mental exercise of what I’m saying. Lord knows you could use the exercise.

  29. Well the Cunts have seemingly banned me too. Why, all of a sudden are they trying to Mini-Me the odious John Quiggin? He has a beard FFS?

  30. They moderating you or they have you banned outright? I was originally banned last time for being nasty to John.

  31. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Sinclair you stupid cunt!!!! What is silly and why. Give me a fucking answer.

    What a fucking moron you are. This fellow spends more than a million dollars to avoid having his eligibility tested and somehow you think you know that he’s eligible?

    Where do you get this information from you blockhead? You are just not too bright are you. No you aren’t.

    9 Oct 09 at 6:57 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    There’s the committed analyst for you. Substituting blind faith for evidence. I this how you decided that the Keynesian multiplier existed Sinclair?

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    You and Sinclair are cut from the same cloth Birdlab. If you cannot get him to make good with his evidence for Soetoro eligibility, perhaps you can get him to show you his evidence for the Keynesian multiplier. If he can find that he might sweep the Nobels, economics AND peace. After all he implied to the Senate that there was such a multiplier. So he ought to be able to find evidence for it. I suppose my contention that the multiplier doesn’t exist will be judged “silly” by the astral travelling professor.

  32. So I found out last week that my girl friend has been cheating on me for months. So like any good ex I have uploaded every last nude pic and video I have of her to the net at

    Yeah revenge is sweet.

  33. Hi.
    My PC worked not correctly, too much errors. Please, help me to fix errors on my computer.
    My operation system is Windows XP.


  35. Our mission is to attract clients to trade on Forex!

    # 3-tier affiliate scheme – we pay 1/2 of spread for 1st level customers, 1/6 of spread for 2nd level customers and 1/18 of spread for 3rd level customers;
    # We pay up to 200 USD per order;
    # We pay up to 2000 USD per client;

    You brought 1 client and 1 partner. Your partner brought 2 more clients and 2 more partners. Those partners (third level partners) brought 3 clients each. In such case, if all clients from all partners buy 2 lots of EURUSD with result of minus 30 pips and then sell 3 lots of GBPUSD with result of plus 40 pips, according to our MultiLevel program you will receive 71.5 USD + 23.83 USD * 2 + 7.94 USD * 3 = 142.98 USD instead of 71.5 USD that would be your bonus in case of single level partner program! It’s twice more! Hierarchy could be much bigger, and there could be much more clients!

    In the half year of slow work, I confidently went to daily profit of 320-400$, which is constantly growing.

    Learn more about the Partner Program

  36. You dirty Jew Bastard.

  37. To whom it may concern

    I searched so much unitl I found this company
    Shopping in USA is now really easy with their forwarding address service. Their support was so helpful and understanding. They helped me to chose the best plan that fits my needs and I was allowed to pay after using the address to shop just before the goods were ready to be shipped to me.
    Sorry to bother you with this – but this really helped me and I hope this will help you!

    Appreciate your contributions, Pamela

  38. hello, it’s nice here so I am just saying hi. I’ve been watching site for a moment now and decided to register. Hope that my english will be good enough to communicate with you :). My hobby are internet contests and my hobby page – instantempo it’s about them.

  39. What a writeup!! Very informative and straightforward to comprehend. Trying to find more such comments!! Have you got a facebook? I recommended it on digg. The thing that it’s missing is of color. However we appreciate you these details.

  40. hi, good site very much appreciatted

  41. , ?

  42. Man .. Beautiful .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your web site and take the feeds alsoI’m happy to find numerous useful info here within the publish, we’d like develop extra techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

  43. Каждому! Все об уязвимости сайтов

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: