Posted by: graemebird | December 13, 2009

Laurie Oakes And Barnaby Joyce: What Does And Does Not Constitute Financial Sophistication Part Three

The other day Terry McCrann must have thought that enough was enough, and perhaps encouraged by the sensational elevation of Tony Abbott, commonsense, and love, to the leadership of the Liberal party ….. well Terry came out with a blistering attack on the ghoulish nihilistic death-worshiping EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME. I don’t know whether we have time to save our civilisation. But every so often you get moments of great relief. And it was fortunate that I wasn’t juicing up on clear spirits when I read his brilliant article. Of course those days, and that sort of behaviour, are long in the past (for the most part).

It was brought to my attention that Gerry Jackson had pointed this all out many years ago. And after some reflection I realised that George Reisman also had an article even more biting then the McCrann article. But then I too had been hammering away at this business on all the blogs that did not have me blocked. Blinded by the light. And in fact no small article can get to the bottom of how hateful and damaging the ETS would have been if Turnbull had stayed and taken this Shi-ite bipartisan.

Gerry puts the hard yards in. I do what I can stoushing on every blog to the point of being blocked globally. Reisman has spent a lifetime being more right about more things than anyone. But that we only see the forward progress coming in a few bursts does not mean that our efforts are wasted. This is why the Abbotts elevation is a watershed.

One of the true heroic patriots in our country right now, who was totally righteous on this matter, and surely must have tipped the balance in favour of the Athenian heritage of reason, was Barnaby Joyce.

Without the principled and aggressive stand of Barnaby Joyce, Tony might never have committed to utterly ruling out a tax, hidden or otherwise.

Without Barnaby, Tony wouldn’t have had the mettle, to do the right thing. And Tony wouldn’t have won.

With Barnaby Joyce, as with Reagan and Mad Max, we see and have the proof that ONE MAN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. And this is a good thing to know and be made real for us from time to time.

After all, if a single vote had gone the other way, we would not have had Tony. We would not have had Tony concerned to keep the conservative coalition together with a blanket rejection of this ETS menace. And let us be in no doubt about it, whatever incompetent “economists” like John Humphreys say it doesn’t matter. This ETS was a menace of the highest order.

The very threat of this menace is STILL DOING US untold damage. The very threat of this hate-inspired small-minded anti-Athenian menace must be removed, and removed for all time, before the investment and entrepreneurship, that may put all wrongs to rights, can even so much as begin to begin to begin-again. It is for this reason that the poser and narcissist Rudd, must be a one-term Prime Minister. Its not enough to vote against an ETS. The threat of any demonisation of life-giving CO2, manifested in planning or tax codes, must be killed with the silver bullet and the wooden stake driven through its black heart, its former proponents vigorously ostracized, and separated from the public tit.

I was about to write a piece on a sensational article from Henry Ergas. But it will have to wait. You see when the mainstream crowd write a really good article like Terry did the other day its no “AHA” moment. Its more like “sweet Jesus you’ve finally come through.” Its not like one learns anything new. But its magnificent just the same. But Henry did come up with an “AHA” moment, for me at least, just the other day. I will just note in passing that my fulsome praise, when these mainstreamers do really good work, ought not distract us from the fact that Gerry Jackson is the leading economics commentator and authority in this country. And has been to my knowledge, for some years. I’ll not include myself in this ranking. But anyone else who has written on economics in the last few years has to understand, any such person, as studious as his efforts may have been. Well anyone like that, has only ever been going for second place.

Now back to this business with Laurie Oakes and our new national hero, young Mr Joyce. An Athenian in Canberra. Perhaps the only one and if there is one other it would be Dennis Jensen. Barnaby is a man of reason. And a righteous man. He understands economics and finance enough to know that the left and right economist punditti in this country are leading us down the road to disaster. But that doesn’t mean that his own understanding is perfectly polished at this point in time. This is a feature of the human intellect. Its so much easier to perceive that the other fellow is totally wrong, and much harder to fashion the better policy.

Still Barnaby’s understanding that the alleged experts have feet of clay is a potential breakthrough for the rest of us. The old guard is leading us to destruction, on both sides of the economics professions putative left and right wing. And we need at least people who can SEE THIS …. we need such people, as a first step to finding out what the better answers are.

Just as a general survey in this story about what does and does not constitute financial sophistication, how many of the left or right economics punditti would agree with the following statements:

1. No PARTICULAR family farm needs subsidy, but the institution of the family farm is vital to our culture.

2. We need policies that revive and give life to the sole trader, the small but growing company, the business startup and the independent entrepreneur.

3. The banking and finance industry is suspect at best. And not to be judged in the same vein as other big businesses. A bit of demarcation and special treatment is in order with this crowd. After all they have been pampered in such a way, such that if that same pampering was applied to any one of us, that person would be a millionaire in a decade, and a billionaire in four. Therefore, if we need to slap the banking and finance industry around a bit, this ought not be interpreted as an anti-business stance more generally.

4. As a nation massively in debt, we ought to be, from here on in, in a position of structural surplus. The trade surplus can ebb and flow. But we need to be in surplus as a general rule. As befits anyone in debt.

5. We need to reindustrialise. “Heavy metal don’t mean rock and roll to me. ”

6. This idiot-town Treasury view. This idiots view that manufacturing is a sort of lesser “poor-persons” activity. This moronic, anti-economic, parasites view that growing things and MAKING STUFF is to be outsourced to China first, and Africa later…… Well this is just idiocy. Think about the stuff we can export? They don’t fucking want our haircuts man? We cannot send people burgers from Sydney to Botswana. The whole services industry and knowledge economy jive was a lot of anti-economic bullshit-artistry.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Did you agree with all six of those statements? They are what they are and not what a dumb neoclassical type will interpret them to be. For example I’ve certainly not said above that we ought all give money to keep a failing family of farmers, on a failing family farm. Nowhere have I said this. And neoclassical economists, who are evasive, and lie all the time, ought not interpolate something other than what I’ve said. I’ll TELL YOU if I’m advocating a subsidy. You will be the first to know. Its a pretty bad situation when you have to pre-emptively ward off a shitrain of lying in advance. I myself agree with all six of the above propositions. Further I see them as being propositions within the orbit of financial and economic sophistication. And I see the people who would be against all six of these propositions as being a bunch of mindless bums.

But this is not to say that I support these propositions being supported from a policy point of view, by stealing, subsidy, and persecution of non-favoured businesses. These are stand-alone propositions and do not imply subsidy. And in any case the usual suspects who accuse me of advocating stealing and subsidy know themselves that they are lying.

What is financial sophistication then? Well there are many aspects of it. The thing is too detailed to just nail it down in one. We have idiots on the left of economics who love governments to be in debt no matter what. In the hard times they say they’ll want to pay it off in the better times but this is all lies. On the left are the Keynesian-keynesians, and they just love public debt. They love for us to lose our national sovereignty via the constant accumulation of public debt on all levels of government.

On the right there are the Neoclassical-Keynesians and they are soft on public debt. They don’t love it. Yet they have proved to be useless, when it comes to reigning in their Keynesian-Keynesian mates. When we needed them they weren’t there. They would not come out against the voodoo of the Keynesian multiplier just for example. Though I threw down the gauntlet. Though I protested like Achilles outside the gates of Troy, I could not get one of these financial illiterates to prove that the Keynesian multiplier existed or to give it away for all time.

The reason that the Neoclassical-Keynesians act in this gutless and shabby way is that THEY TOO are Keynesian, and will bend over for their homosexual ghost, and again for his latter-day followers.

The neoclassical cuckoo babies, allegedly on the right, thus do not share anti-Post-Modern rightist values. They care not for the start-up, the homesteader, the lone wolf, the family farm. Its not enough for them to rule out SUBSIDY for the family farm. They are outright antagonistic to such a thing. They seem to hate all manufacturing that is located on this Continent. I’m sure their mental sickness manifests itself differently from nation to nation as their counterparts graduate globally like triffids. But in THIS country the neoclassicals want us to be interior-decoraters, or get a job in outsourced agency bottom-wiping for the elderly, or be in finance, or perhaps be landscape-gardeners.

In other words the neoclassical, pseudo-right, are totally bereft of any holistic understanding of economic science. Economic science being the study of WEALTH-CREATION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Circling back to the question of what is financial sophistication we find one aspect of the beast is the following:

1. At every level of monetary growth we will choose to hold a level of debt, that if the monetary growth slowed or stopped we as individuals, and the economy, would be in distress.

2. But only slow monetary growth, or more accurately a slow rate of growth in nominal national total sales revenue, (including intermediate production) is consistent with sound, Athenian, resource allocation, for the purpose of WEALTH CREATION.

3. Whipping people like dogs to reduce their debt, by simply reigning in the growth of money, while it may be a necessary policy, is extremely brutal.

4. Forcing banks to hold higher PROPORTIONAL reserves by the simple expediency of not printing any more money, and pulling the interest rate subsidy…… well yes they will all go broke and any survivor will hold high proportional reserves. But this is a brutal way of going about things.

5. In 5 we circle back to number 2. To have the good, rational, survivable society we must have rational resource allocation and a bias to the small business, the startup, the family farm. But we can only have that in a situation of “growth-deflation”. That is to say in a situation where total sales revenue are stable and growing slowly. But yet so slowly that prices generally are falling. This is a pre-requisite to Adam Smiths hidden hand, making the investments that any consensus of Athenians would deem rational.

6. The upshot is that if we are financial sophisticates, wanting a better world, we must reject both wings of the merchant-of-debt schools of economics that dominate this country.The Keynesians cannot get enough of public debt. The neoclassicals never see private debt but that they aren’t in love with it. And any asset they see, they dream of it being awash in debt-obligation.

The answer to the problem of both wings of economics punditti being incompetent and wrong-headed in this country is to read all of Gerry Jacksons stuff. Read what I have to say. Ask questions. But otherwise reject any dogma. And the great thing about Barnaby Joyce is that he has rejected all the mindless faux-economics dogma of the entrenched punditti. Which does not mean he has everything perfectly right quite yet.

7. You see we have to reduce debt all the way around. We have to cut the banks out of anything we can rightly cut them out of. We have to have policy that helps bring debt down so we can be comfortable with lower monetary growth. We cannot be happy with lower monetary growth unless we already have the lower debt appropriate for that lower monetary growth.

8. So we have to fashion policy that is KIND-YES-KIND to current debtors but also rewards current creditors and inspires the act of saving and paying off debt, without the sort of bludgeoning that a massive clampdown on monetary growth will provide. We want everyone paying off debts BEFORE the monetary squeeze is upon us. We want to phase out fractional reserve without just simply cutting off the supply of new cash. We want to do things in a non-brutal, non-disruptive way.

But the above is only one aspect of financial sophistication. Let us get to the important stuff. Lets get right down to it. Lets look at Laurie Oakes taking a shot at Barnaby Joyce. I now see that this thread has grown too long. So the actual meat of what Laurie has to say will have to come in another thread.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. whipping a delinquent debtor like me oh no

  2. We don’t want to whip struggling debtors in transition. We would never get monetary reform doing that.

    Rather we want to try and get debts down before the monetary crunch to reduce the pain.

    • thank you but that did get my attn but careless ones who dont care should receive some sort of punishment even short jail sentences

  3. What are you up to? I’ve just gone to your website and its a blog with no entries. Read through my blog if you are short on inspiration. We don’t want to be stigmatising debtors. We want to show a way out. Under solid non-fractional reserve money, people aren’t inclined to borrow very much.

    • Sorry I do not mean any disrespect but we are on two different paths here. I just joined up to read about different subjects and being a debtor(and I admit a careless one) I became attracted to your article because the responsibility for my debt is me no one else My wife is helping me to manage this very nicely and she has no debt but wants teaching me to adjust my attitude as I go along. But I disagree with you regarding punishment for the debtor esp in my case but thats a different subject altogether.I dont want to hold you back and thank you for your intelligent contribution. Sammy rjjk240@aol.com

  4. I’m not advocating punishing debtors. Rather I’m advocating going through a period PRIOR TO adopting hard money where we are trying to bring debts down. And making it easier for people to bring debts down.

    We want to convince people to bring debts down PRIOR TO the adoption of hard money. Since it is high debt levels that make monetary reform so incredibly painful.

    Twice now you’ve accused me of wanting to punish debtors. You don’t want to be spreading these untruthz.


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: