Posted by: graemebird | December 3, 2009

Back Off And Give Tony Abbott Some Time (The Public Works Approach).

Some totally quixotic ideas of yesteryear may now be doable, so long as we aren’t stupid about it. The invention of Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene, can resucitate the idea of the canal. The canal with salt water from the sea pumped into it, can be desalinated by simple dehydration as the water flows along the canal, which is covered by the ETFE.

The water itself can come from the nuclear power station. Cold water from the ocean used to cool the thorium and keep it at the right temperature. Or used in steam to turn the turbine even. You need to take just enough energy from the nuclear power station to pump the now hot water up a hill to a strategically higher place on the coast, from which the canal water can then travel along with just the force of gravity. Travel along dead slow like the Danube. The water evaporates off and it meets the ETFE ceiling. and it drips down as fresh water and then can be collected on either side.

On either side one may have the black pipes coming out just under the ground at the level of the roots. And as we all know once the Australian desert gets fresh water it bursts into a carbon sequestering frenzy of energy and life.

The trick to this endeavour is patience. Not buying into this frenzy of tipping points and other baseless lies. Since extra CO2 is good for the biosphere, and anyone saying otherwise is lying, then the only interest we have in carbon capture, is simply to acquiesce the fears of simple-minded poor bastards who have been lied to. But to do this we want to concentrate on the POTENTIAL TO REDUCE CO2 IF THERE IS A BIG FUCKING PROBLEM. Not the actuality of reducing the CO2 levels as soon as possible. But only the potential to do it at some later date if in some wild-eyed dummies imagination, the new data comes in, giving the CO2 enhancement the thumbs down.

The difference with Tony Abbott is that he can be reasoned with. Cambria cannot be reasoned with. Humphreys cannot be reasoned with. Turnbull and the Larvatus Prodeo crowd cannot be reasoned with. And the neoclassical economists of Australia, under 50 cannot be reasoned with. But Tony can. So so-what, if he’s come up with a grab-bag of a lot of little things wrong up front. He’s got one massive thing right. AND THATS HANDS OFF OUR COAL INDUSTRY. No taxes on emitters. None. Its a beautiful thing. I’m really proud of him. For just getting that straight up front I’m as proud of him as I am of the great scientist Marohasy for sticking to her guns though it cost her her job.

We can kill three birds with one stone. We can bring fresh water, nature corridors, food production, all sorts of the good things into the desert….. We can apply the science idealism we always wanted to apply, and if we want to, we can have the ability to sequester carbon at some later date, just to put you CO2-bedwetters minds at rest.

There is no place in any government action to impose costs on our coal guys for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Let me name names:

“Carbon Energy Australia” “Linc Energy” “Cougar Energy” and yes my personal favourite “Central Petroleum.” And there is a lot more of these guys where that came from. These are the people that can reach down to access previous unusable coal, can gasify it under the ground, and bring it up as syngas, then turn that syngas into anything that the Petroeum industry has sold to us. Well they can turn it into more ETFE to help build our canals if they want to.

But we are also talking a string of coal-to-electricity companies. We need to expand our coal use so badly, that were it up to me I would take every opportunity to cut off exports until such time as Peking was a satrapy of Australia and not the other way around. We are wasting our carbon paternity by selling this shit off cheaply in such a hurry overseas. And if you wanted to see us reduce CO2 output …… if we were serious about it and not just being a fucking bunch of Prodeo-loving wankers, then cutting off coal exports, is the only way to reduce world CO2 output, in the context of massively expanding our own economy.

There is no medium-term strategy to bring down CO2-emissions without destroying the Australian economy. You can you read that again. THERE IS NO MEDIUM TERM STRATEGY TO BRING DOWN CO2-EMISSIONS WITHOUT DESTROYING THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY. Save alone the afformentioned idea of cutting off coal exports to foreigners. This is provable. There is no such strategy I shit you not. Just as a partial explanation, take the building of the nuclear power stations. To build dozens of nuclear power stations, and heaps of heliostats will take more and not less coal use. I said more and not less coal use.

DO YOU GET IT? So we can develop the POTENTIAL to reduce emissions down the track if we want to without destroying the economy. There is no ability to reach emissions targets in the near term without destroying the economy. None at all. Perhaps France can pull this off but we cannot. If you don’t believe me here you are just being a prick, and doing things on the basis of the liver quiver and being too lazy to get out some paper and a calculater and start mucking about until you’ve nutted this problem through.

Now it seems that Tony has a grab-bag of small compulsion measures on the fly. Efficiency standards and that sort of thing. This is no good. But it will pass because he is a reasonable man. But he got the big thing right when the neoclassicals got everything wrong. And why is this the case.

The neoclassicals have turned SADO-PIGOUVIAN on us. They have their otherworldly static-equilibrium models. But those models deal with immediate production decisions. They lack the time factor. They don’t deal with flows of capital investment over time. To bring the time factor into it, and leave the crude neoclassicals in our wake, we need to recognise the industry-profit-equalisation-mechanism that runs throughout the economy. The functioning economy does not regulate the profit of individual firms. Only of industries. And it does so in the following way. If an industry is more than normally profitable, more investment in heavy machinery goes on in that industry. This makes the people more productive, leading to falling prices, which leads to profits for the industry entire falling to the economy-wide level. Notice that this probably only works perfectly under “growth-deflation” since under current conditions of debasement, prices very seldom fall at all.

The reason why our neoclassicals have it wrong and Tony has it right is Tony is smarter than our neoclassicals. They think in terms of static resource allocation. Whereas we must think in terms of capital accumulation.

Now there is another component to this. And that is the capital markets. The debt market and the equity market. A pigouvian tax on our superb coal gasification companies will reduce the rate of their capital accumulation. We have to go further and get rid of any tax on their retained earnings. They must be able to accumulate the heavy equipment without any harassment whatever. Let us green the desert if it makes people sleep at nights. Tony has it right. Our neoclassicals have it wrong.

A word on sea and canal transport. This ought to be our holy grail. It is an economy based on sea and wide canal transport that can bring economic development to its highest level. If there were no such thing as extinction events we could do it all based on the sea and forever forsake the canals. But there are extinction events and this means that we ought to patiently take the water inland.

Here is the explanation as to why sea and wide canal economy is the ultimate thing to be reached for:

“…….. We have got to start building more wharves. Nothing can beat the energy efficiency of water transport. You can even have computer-controlled sails to take the edge off the energy cost. That opens up the oceans for work in progress. Since manufacturing is really an extension of logistics. Logistics is about putting things in the right sequence. And cost-cutting is often about getting inventories down.

Putting this together it stands to reason that the most powerful economy to be spoken about with a human tongue, would be based around a multitude of factories with their own wharves as dispatch and incoming. And their inventories and work in progress on the water.

Unmanned boats traveling slowly, with sales, hydrogen and diesel back up. And continually putting themselves in the correct order so that they arrive at the factory in the exact sequece in which they are needed. No economy could possibly be more effective or energy efficient then that.”

This is the holy grail of economic performance. Its probably a bit too much for you all to take in all in one hit. And its not complete yet because what I’m saying here has to be understood in the context of the Boehm-Bawerk doctrine of the LENGTHENING OF THE STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTION. When thats all integrated, then and only then you will understand why a combination of sea and wide canal economy is the ultimate and the best we can get and bequeath.

KEEPING COSTS LOW FOR PUBLIC WORKS.

How can we keep costs low for this CO2-bedwetting-soothing balm project?

We see we have the model of capital accumulation to an industry:

1. An industry is more profitable than the average of the economy entire.
2. The rate of capital update is faster for that industry.
3. This leads to falling prices (SO LONG AS YOUR MONETARY SYSTEM IS “GROWTH-DEFLATION”)
4. Profits are normalized throughout the economy by these falling prices.

The idea with this public works situation is to mimic the natural way of things. And focus on step 2. We don’t focus on getting thousands of kilometres of canals built. We focus rather on cheaply building up the capital equipment, when and only when, we can get discounts. So we don’t blow out the price of getting hold of the gear, either to ourselves or the economy entire.

OUR DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN.

Capital goods providers have to know that our door is always open but only for a discount. We reverse the primary with the secondary goal. We don’t rush out there and try to build a trillion miles of desalinating ETFE covered canals. We “make haste slowly” as Caesar said. Each quarter it becomes cheaper for us to create a kilometre of 100-metre-wide etfe covered canal. Because we are more focused on the ability to make this building project doable more cheaply (via capital accumulation) then we are focused on building the canal itself.

Another thing we don’t do in capital works projects is that we don’t drive up the cost of skilled or unskilled labour to ourselves or to the private sector by being in too much of a rush. Rather we slowly build up our training capacity. Same again. Our door is always open. You can always get a job with us. Perhaps if you are too old and the private guys turned you down. You are a stutterer. Perhaps if you are having health problems and can only do three days hard yakka and not five or seven. Our door ought always be open for cost-effectiveness. For discounts. But not to create bottlenecks in the rest of the economy or drive up prices for ourselves.

So in this fuss and frenzy of lying what must be clamped right down on is this bullshitartistry of the tipping point. And worst of all this business of “Delay is the new denial”. I understand that you people out there have all these fears that have been potty-trained into your feeble minds. But on the social level we must not allow this sort of lying, globalist quisling scare-mongering get off the ground ever again. This is the one time I have disagreed with Albrechsten. Malcolm wasn’t any super-talented wizard. Malcolm was a quisling and full of shit. Let us never hear of Malcolm again. Long live Tony.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “Come on business lobby – you are pathetic. Standing by while taxes rise. Standing by while Government spending jumps. Standing by while new taxes get imposed. Standing by while industrial relations regulations are tightened. It seems that the business lobby (with some honourable exceptions) is a classic case of the principal-agent problem.”

    Exactly Samuel. But its not a problem that is going to go away. The bigshots are not our friends they are the fucking enemy. They want the high company tax. Because their smarter smaller, born-dirt-poor competitors have to pay the company tax but the bishots don’t have to pay it.

    You are younger than me Samuel. And you may not realise it now. Bigshoteria will always be our enemy. We cannot persecute them. For all must be equal before the law.

    But they are not our friends no matter the impression that Atlas Shrugs gave us. The bigshots are not our friends. And we just have to get serious about this.

  2. “Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However, plausible reductions by industry in capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if
    enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.”

    Idiotic and not applicable. Don’t believe every damn fool thing you read rog.

  3. Do you own the LDP? Do you own the party? Do you in fact own the party? Are we now saying that you TAYA own the party? Is this your private property is it? Is it like a sort of Pakistani setup?

    Can we now lock it in that you Taya don’t own the party and that there is therefore no excuse for you to be a complete pussy. And don’t pretend to me to be Mr politically astute. You have no idea of the politics. You are softheaded. A girlyman. And the fact is this. Politically speaking, once you let on that evidence doesn’t matter then you’ve given the whole damn thing away, you’ve lost the argument, and so you’ve lost the vote.

    Now pull yourself together. Time you went out shooting with David, put roids in your coffee and generally shook yourself up.

    Comment by graemebird | December 3, 2009

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “The position presented by the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Alliance was that a 25 per cent reduction in emissions was needed by 2020…”

    So what? They don’t have the data. This is human resolution. A puny human resolution. The natural world mocks our puny human resolutions.

    They don’t have the sound argument or the evidence. Make haste slowly like Caesar said. Its this rush that is the big problem.

    We would naturally go to low carbon because nuclear is better for bulk electricity and hydrogen is better for short distances. So why hurry? In an ice age?

  5. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “He would not approve that abortion pill….thats what he did to women. He would rather women who want an abortion to have a more difficult invasive procedure.”
    That was definitely a mistake on his part. Even from an anti-abortion point of view which says the child has rights later in the pregnancy. Nobodies perfect. He’s not the bad guy you are making him out to be. I’d rather have a person who gets a few things wrong and is fair dinkum and not a triangulater. We are taught about the halo concept. But there is the opposite concept and we are not taught about it and so are probably too susceptible to it. The “anti-halo” concept. Where a dude really does get one thing very wrong. And so from there on in you figure he’s got cloven feet and horns hidden by hair. We all suffer from this. But you know we gotta look out for it.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “As the saying goes, Abbott is writing cheques his butt can’t keep. He can’t bring in nuclear without a substantial carbon price or a subsidy or a substantial increase in energy prices. ”
    Thats the myth but no tax on coal is not the real problem for nuclear Fran.
    Thats not why the nuclear is expensive. The main nuclear cost is financing the initial capital outlay. And if you know about discounting to present value, you will realise that there is going to be a big difference between the costs if you can put up a Westinghouse in 3 years or in 12.
    Its not about taxing coal. Its about bringing down the commissioning time from 12 years to 3 years. The other thing is think about the fellow who owns the land. If he knows that these guys have had to go and get down on one knee to three layers of government, and schmooze and this is the one place they can put their nuclear setup then thats a sellers market for the land.
    But if the Prime Minsiter uses just persuasion. And he goes around and persuades everyone to pre-approve more land than we could possibly use for energy factories and wharves and things….. that way you’ll have a buyers market.
    The third thing is that all the workers are paying income tax, even though its years before the company can break even. So you do need that long-term tax exemption. Not a subsidy, just a tax-exemption.
    You put that all together the mystery ends.

    Because the amount of power you can extract from the nucleus just dwarves anything coming out of some puny chemical reaction. If you have heard that mantra Fran, you haven’t heard it with all the relevant assumptions on the table.

  6. I just read something last night that made me feel sick. We are taking cronyism and ugly corporatism to a drastic new high. Consulting Goldman Sachs on raising all this debt for this Telephony-infrastructure project.
    Why bring those thieves into it? This is humiliating. The idea would be to get back in surplus and just pay for it out of the surplus. This is irrational. Its letting all these third parties wet their beak for no reason at all. Let me tell you people, this is not compatible with capitalism or equality before the law.

  7. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Greg Hunt is on lateline right now arguing that “direct action” (ie. picking winners) is better than a carbon tax/trading.”

    I agree with Greg Hunt. I wonder if that is even contestable in 2009. It would be different if we became the best and lowest cost producer of nuclear power, solarised roads and heliostats, and were already using non-carbon sources with a big fat head of steam. But right now we are not in that position so lets just pay the money, green some desert or something.

    What about cutting off coal to the world until we get back that hostage the communists grabbed?

    You want quick results for CO2, thats the way to do it! If people are serious that would be a quick way of getting our hostage back, cutting CO2 emissions, and slapping a few nameless bully-boys around. I’m up for that. I’d want to bring the slipper down while we still can.

    I don’t want to excite the attention of any search engine if you think I’m being too cryptic here.
    Some people need to be put in their place and subject to a new round of “self-criticism” if they want to go about taking our lads hostage like that.

    Carbon tax might be the best way for the French to reduce CO2 output in 2009. But no way for us. And it would mean missing out on a lot of greening potential. The most important thing is to keep these banking sharks out of it. Let us reverse this nonsense going on with that new telecom infrastructure outfit. We should have more pride. And it ought to be a personal source of pride not having these banking sharks picking up all these commissions. The three worst words in the English language are “public private partnership.” Makes me feel sick just thinking about it. PPP spells cronytown. The way we did things in the 50’s was far more sound. We were socialist in theory but free and equal in practice.

    (Bear in mind this comes from Professor JQ’s blog and I am restricting myself from shouting at his guests and calling them CO2-bedwetters)

  8. “Yobbo, there are government cynics that believe that global warming is scary.”

    The answer is quantity discount medical help. If someone has delusional beliefs do we:

    (a) Corrupt economic policy on behalf of the delusional people?
    (b) Graft ignorant economics onto irrational science delusions?
    (c) a & b
    (d) refer them to counseling.

    To fail to pick option (d) is to reverse all commonsense and all precedent, in terms of how we are supposed to be dealing with scientific evidence. Notice that every one of those fools who gets the science wrong is utterly useless in their economic theory also. And in their sense of political strategy. This is what comes about by being a repressed CO2-bedwetter. Better to not repress your delusions under further delusions of personal political savvy. Much better to get all that stuff out into the open and tell it to the man taking notes.


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: