Posted by: graemebird | December 14, 2009

Barnaby Has Spine To Spare/ The Liberals Needed A Loan.

He’s the only elected representative speaking with the right language with the right tones. Unlike yourself, Soon and Davidson, he couldn’t give a rats ass, what boneheads like Bahnish think about him.

It might be somewhat prosaic for me to hold the right forward-lean, when I think about the people I work with, my family, the people who feed us, and the people who fought for this country. And when I think about the older Australians who have been gypped by the taxeaters with their crap currency and their bullshit economics and don’t have sufficient funds saved.

One or two people out there have had the appropriate tone. And said the appropriate words with that appropriate tone. But none of those that have done so have been politicians.

The difference with Barnaby is that he is right there in Canberra. He’s never done the Cambria thing. Never tried to meet this goon-show half-way, when doing so is moving decent people and children, half the way along to their impoverishment and destruction.

AND FOR WHAT?

This is a known Gramscian science-fraud!!!!????? There is nothing to it.

The original Swede, who had a lot of ideas, and got this one wrong, wanted the hydrocarbon industry to prevent the tragedy of a new glacial period, by way of warming the globe This was a noble goal. This goal of Arrenhius. The thesis of Arrenhius, was a piece of reasonable inductive reasoning, that turned out to be wrong.

But its was reasoning in-keeping with the Athenian heritage. The Christian heritage. The heritage of LOVE AND REASON.

The carbon tax and ETS advocacy was nothing short of an attack against reason. Against evidence. Against science. Against the sovereignty of the individual. Against all things good. Against nature itself.

And out of all of the politicians in Canberra only Barnaby could get appropriately angry about it.

This tone that you hear from Barnaby is entirely appropriate. To go against a movement that had rejected science, reason, humanity, and indeed the needs and requirements of the natural world? A nihilistic movement of house-nigger-wannabes, who lust for sacrifice and subservience, as if these things were endless masturbation-sustenance.

And we simply have not seen the appropriate human tone from anyone ELSE!!!!! in elected office. If it was me I’d likely cross the floor to beat up on Kevin Rudd twice as hard as was necessary, only for the fact that I would not be able to hurt Penny. With her it could not really go beyond pushing her into a swimming pool. So the blokes would have to pay twice over, for my forbearance in the case of Penny.

Make no mistake, you taxeaters and financial sector parasites. This was a fullblown, total-attack, on the the people who feed you, and bring up your children.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “Barnaby Joyce is learning to hold his tongue and moderate his sometimes outspoken views after a talking to by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.”

    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/barnaby-joyce-holding-his-tongue-20091214-kqsy.html

    IS THERE A POINT TO THIS DUMMY?

  2. Birdy, what do you think of Barnaby wanting to reintroduce tariffs?

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHAT DO I THINK OF IT YOU FUCKING MORON? ARE YOU ASKING ME IF I’M IN FAVOUR OF TARIFFS? WHY ASK ME A QUESTION YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO?

    YOU WANT TO LIE IN PUBLIC YOU ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT QUESTIONS BUT FLAT OUT LIES.

    YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION YOU DISHONEST WOP CUNT, ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER WILL BE.

    YOU ARE JUST A FUCKING ASSHOLE MATE. AND I OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN IT ALL ALONG AND WORKED A LITTE HARDER AT DRINKING ALL YOUR WINE AND GETTING THE FUCK OUT OF THERE. NEVER COMING BACK TO THE CLOCK EXCEPT TO SEE HELEN AND ONE OR TWO OTHERS (Justin, David and a couple of other worthies).

  3. Barnaby also has links to the LaRouchite CEC:

    http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/12/13/la-la-la-rouche-again/

    COME ON MAN. THAT GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD BY ASSOCIATION WITH LAROUCHE DOESN’T SHOW UP IN ANY SCHAUMS OUTLINE SERIES IN LOGIC THAT I KNOW OF. THIS IS QUIGGIN AT HIS MOST FEEBLE AND IDIOTIC. YOUR CROWD ARE MASS-MURDERERS. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU STAND WITH MASS-MURDERERS AND FOR THEIR CAUSE. AND THE SAME GOES FOR QUIGGIN. WHO WOULD CENTRALISE MALARIA FIGHTING ALL OVER AGAIN AND IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER IN THIS REGARD.

    SO BOTH OF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF MASS-MURDER. AND LAROUCHE ISN’T.

    WHERE DOES THIS HATRED OF LAROUCHE, WHO IS GOOD ON SCIENCE AND A LITTLE OFF ON THE HUMAN WORLD….. WHERE DOES THIS COME IN?

    LAROUCHE IS DECADES AWAY FROM SUPPORTING MASS MURDER. BUT YOU AND QUIGGIN SUPPORT MASS MURDER OPENLY AND WILL NEVER BACK AWAY.

    • “It’s misleading not because Joyce isn’t influenced by the LaRouchites but because this is presented as a personal idiosyncrasy. As I pointed out here the great majority of the political right, including most rightwing commentators at the Oz and most of the current Opposition frontbench derive their opinions on environmental issues such as global warming and DDT, directly or indirectly from La Rouche[1].”

      This is Quiggin at his most moronic. We derive our opinions from the evidence. Perhaps the Professor ought to try and emulate this habit.

  4. Answer the question about tariffs.

    WHAT QUESTION ABOUT TARIFFS DOPEY. IF I KNOW YOU ASSHOLES IT WASN’T A QUESTION AT ALL. IT WAS A BRAZEN LIE POSING AS A QUESTION.

  5. Well if you don’t support tariffs, why then do you support someone who does?

    ANSWER YOU OWN QUESTION YOU STUPID FUCKING WOP. SINCE WHEN HAS TARIFFS BEEN THE BE-ALL-AND-END-ALL.

    The problem has been brought about by our economists not doing their job and not learning their material. Our manufacturing is being diminished, in the relative sense, by bad policy. Bad policy.

    Now I’m sure that we can reindustrialise without tarrifs. I’m sure that we can beat off all comers without tariffs. Its not a bit thing either way.

  6. This is an evidence free zone.

    I’VE ASKED YOU A NUMBER OF TIMES. WHAT SPECIFIC HYPOTHESIS DO YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR YOU DUMB WOP. EVIDENCE IS NOT A THING THAT HANGS IN THE AIR UNRELATED TO AN HYPOTHESIS. IF YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AS BASIC IS THAT WHY DID YOU EVER ENTER INTO A SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION IN THE FIRST PLACE? IN MY CASE I’M AFTER EVIDENCE FOR A GREENHOUSE EFFECT. YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH IT. BUT WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT EVIDENCE FOR?

  7. Mr Bird:

    You wrote on Prof Quiggin’s blog in the discussion on the Qld ALP’s asset sales:

    “The goal of getting a high sale price is directly antithetical to the establishment of a functioning industry post-sale. The goal of getting a high sale price ought then be abandoned. ”

    I’d be grateful if you explained your reasoning here.

  8. Thanks for your interest.

    Now just bear in mind sal. That we want to block out most of the real world noise, and approximate an idealised monetary situation when we go in for conceptual economic analysis. We do this by imagining arrangements whereupon the level sales revenue in an economy is static in nominal terms.

    We are not talking about GDP here. We are talking about total sales, including intermediate production. Total sales viewed in this way will give you a figure several times higher than GDP.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    For the purpose of this analysis there is no need to dwell on the above too long.

    But we who have dwelt on the subject come up with the conclusion, that under static nominal total sales revenue, most prices would be falling all the time.

    We find under this analysis that the economy would be balanced in the following way. If one industry was a great deal more profitable in terms of profits, per capital invested, then capital goods would flow to this industry.

    Each firm knows that prices are going to fall. That their own per-unit sale price is going to fall. Hence their main obsession would be to spend money now to reduce recurring costs later. They will spend money on capital goods which will allow them to reduce their prices.

    We would then say that under a FUNCTIONING INDUSTRY (with the assumption of static nominal gross domestic revenue) high profits would lead to the extra flow of capital investment would lead to falling prices, and these falling prices will not moderate the profits necessarily of any individual firm. But they will normalise the profits of the industry.

    Now supposing you want to get the best price for the sale of New Zealand rail.

    If you want to get the best price do you then adopt a formula for wannabe entrepreneurs to be able to make farmers offers for a new rail system? Do you put private-eminent-domain at 300% premium, to allow the rail startup to sieze yet vastly overcompensate the farmer to get a track through his place??? Of course you would do it so that the provision was never used. But without the provision, in a skinny land like New Zealand how can a second rail start up?

    If you want to get the very best price for selling off New Zealand rail do you suddenly have an “aha” moment?

    Do you suddenly say I will choose this time THIS TIME, to get all my ministers speaking to every mayor, and middle class business organisation and all the little people. Will we shun overseas show-pony behaviour and talk to all our mayors and councils and just try to get them to look at all the private and public land on the coast.

    And will we ask them to pre-approve as much land as possible on the coast. Not for the ACTUALITY that a wharf will be built there. But just the possibility that a wharf may be built there and no zoning restrictions. Because we all know that the sea shits on even rail for heavy slow cargo. So do we choose that time to run that major campaign?

    NO WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANY OF THAT STUFF. If we are thinking about sale price we are not going to do any of the things which would make the market a FUNCTIONING INDUSTRY.

    Now in a functioning industry no firm within that industry is allowed to fail to accumulate real-tangible capital goods. No firm can avoid having to spend money now to cut recurring costs later.

    Every must innovate and innovate constantly and never leave off the innovation since his peers are in the same boat.

    So if all industries were “FUNCTIONING INDUSTRIES” and no industry was not, then the rich man would be no threat to the poor man. Since to maintain his wealth he would have to constantly reinvest his winnings in such a way as to pull down prices for the poor man.

    But probably less than 30% (thats off the cuff) of what we have on the fly is functioning.

    Now consider your new New Zealand rail. Anyone wanting to compete doesn’t just have to sidle up to farmers and buy options to a path through their land ranging from a 50 to a 100% premium.

    No fuck no. They’ve got to go through three levels of government AND through each and every farmer to get this gig on the fly. Supposing sal that your rich aunty died? Could me and you go driving around the coast looking for an appropriate site to put up a container-capable wharf?

    Well we could. But no fucking good it would do us.

    So you see that the very act of selling, in a motivated way, for the motivated purpose of getting a good price, sets of a chain reaction of influence that mitigates against the very possibility of ever having a functioning industry at the end of the process.

    I believed in privatisation. And the case was overwhelming. But now when we take it to not just an economic level, but indeed to the level of political-economy. Well we see that we have set off a chain of dysfunction. And its upsetting because I don’t know how to get out of it.

  9. Thank you that is a brilliant explanation. But what I do not understand, Mr Bird, having said all that, is why you would support a sell-off or privatisation in the first place.

  10. It was because they were speaking my language. The bigtime privatisers got out of University only a couple of years before me. These were people who knew which way the wind was blowing.

    On strict economic grounds you would be better to have as much as you can in private hands. But the estimate that privatising was therefore an uncontroversial net benefit “misunderestimated” the idea that the ubiquity of privatisation would actually impede ideas towards more fullsome reform.

    Supposing we say that “private is good, public is bad” and when we say that we are thinking about the communists trying to make shoes or cars or what have you. Well the generalisation holds true.

    My generation of economists got lazy. They said that private was good and public was bad. And so they decided that they would make “more than the minimum wage” hocking stuff that was not theirs and that they did not build.

    In all this activity a terrific mental block was built. A mental block that was so frightfully strong that it blocked out the original intent of the project. And the original intent was not to hock the old stuff. The original intent was to set up the conditions to get the new stuff built.

    If we want to have the infrastructure that would put Singapore and any other pretender to shame we must understand the following:

    Its not about hocking the old stuff.

    Its about getting the new stuff built.

  11. I agree that the old stuff should not be sold off. There’s no way selling off public utilities and essential services like trains, buses, libraries, hospitals, is in the public interest. not least because they usually become less efficient, less equitably accessible and more costly to the consumer when privatised.

    I agree it would be good if the private sector built infrastructure and produced socially useful goods and services but there’s not a direct or inevitable connection between commercial success and falling prices is there?

    And are there not incentives for a private sector intent above all on maximising its profit actually producing goods that are either overly complex and subject to dysfunction or which are produced shoddily and cheaply with a view to early replacement by the consumer for the benefit of the private owner?

  12. “I agree it would be good if the private sector built infrastructure and produced socially useful goods and services but there’s not a direct or inevitable connection between commercial success and falling prices is there?”

    There would be under the following conditions.

    1. Sales Revenue was static. But in the real world under free enterprise money this would be modified to sales revenue growing slowly. Seldom growing fast enough for prices to rise.

    2. Each of the industries were “Functioning” in accordance with my lingo.

    And “Functioning means that if the industry has higher than average profits, the new capital equipment will be built, and prices must inevitably fall.

    Now we get this far and the economists training locks them into certain grooves. They start thinking of Frank Knights theory of the firm. But its not like that. Its really about SCHMOOZING OVERHEAD.

    Like if you are a little guy you simply cannot schmooze three layers of government and all the farmers as well unless we had all this reform.

    So its not about some neoclassical model of the theory of the firm. Its more a human judgement call. What will happen when we sell this stuff under current conditions?

    Which way will the ratio of profits/capital investment be normalised given each individual situation as a judgement call?

    1. Through capital gains? Perhaps is its some infrastructural good average profits/capital invested will find normalcy, not through anything approaching wealth creation. But merely via the on-sale price going through the roof.

    2. Through inefficiency and/or massive salaries of the bigshots?

    3. Through each player constantly having to innovate and invest leading to falling prices.

    This may not be exhaustive. But only number 3 is consistent with wealth creation. We note also that only monetary conditions of “growth-deflation” can ensure effective resource allocation. Because its very easy for funds to be consumed in speculative capital appreciation schemes under any other scenario.

    But ultimately its a judgement call.

    Now supposing I get 100 million dollars. And I wanna compete with Telstra? All my money will be frittered away schmoozing by the time I get much in the way of fibre optics in the ground.

    Yet under conditions of post-saturation computer-manufacturing, young Mr Michael Dell started an outfit from his dorm room and was at once stage the biggest computer manufacturer. So you see capital can accumulate rapidly and righteously once we get the industry on a functioning level. And a little guy ought to be able to come out of the blue and challenge bit infrastructure companies if we get it right.

  13. Mr Bird, what are the conditions or preconditions then that would encourage the success of more Mr Dells and what are the chief obstacles in your view to the relative lack of success of potential entrepreneurs like him?

  14. Mr Bird, a slight digression if I may. I’ve been wondering where the picture under your masthead was taken? Is it in the North Island of NZ?

    And my compliments on the snow effect raining down the screen. It is calming and beautiful. How did you do that?

  15. “Mr Bird, what are the conditions or preconditions then that would encourage the success of more Mr Dells and what are the chief obstacles in your view to the relative lack of success of potential entrepreneurs like him?”

    For life to start you need warm and protective ponds. You cannot be taxing the little guy who might want to build a basement, turn it into a workshop, and mess about in there, hoarding gear like Smorg and just generally having a life outside school or his day job where he is motivated to accumulate capital. Perhaps even old stuff. Second-hand gear. He has big dreams but he tells his friends “Oh its just a hobby”. Five years later he tags a cash flow to that hobby and he makes his act scalable. He winds up taking out the forces of old and ugly.

    It ought not be thought that any decent economic policy can suffer to have the dozens of barely necessary bureaucracies that we are currently maintaining. Slashing government spending is a big part of any serious reform.

    You cannot ever tax profits. This might seem pro-big-corporate but its not. If a fellow has business accounts and private accounts the business account activity ought not ever be subject to tax until he draws the money out for his own personal use. But even there we need high tax thresholds.

    We need to try and bias things against land value inflation and yet in favour of massive vertical development. We need to go so far as to find the legal framework that makes it easy for people to build road-straddling high-rise. To amalgamate with his neighbour to build something big. We are talking organic not compulsion. We want to facilitate this not compel it.

    We need to somehow bring down debt levels in advance of bringing down the money supply growth. This is because only under growth-deflation will we have the right resource allocation. But the initial effect of tight money is terrible. Because at faster money growth we all get armtwisted into debts totally inappropriate for the slower monetary growth. And so the first effect of hard money is paralysis and anxiety.

    Debts are slavery-lite. But when the hard money hits that same debt looms larger and becomes like slavery-XXX 100 proof and only sold in the duty free shop.

    So we have to find ways to get everyone behaving as they would when the monetary crunch comes BEFORE the monetary crunch is visited upon them. We need to think real hard about dealing with debt the next time we go for hard money.

    You see reform is hard. Because we can never do any good without the hard money. Yet the hard money hurts. And can cripple. Medieval evidence suggests that the hard money crippling effect can last even 20 years.

    So policy is a tough gig and its a long way to go to get to a just and working society. The high-rise is all about getting people living in a situation of more-than-enough space. Spare rooms and a place they can fit out as a workplace. And yet though these people have all this space and low rent they are living in close proximity to eachother.

    On another level I would say that limited liability ought to mean 100% equity finance. No debt financing for the artificial entity. Banks need to be 100% backed. Since banks go into debt to their depositers for term loans this implies that their can never be a limited liability bank. Banking would become more of a communal thing. Dealing with people on the local level and if they trust this kid and they know the debt will increase his cash-flow then there is no level he cannot reach while his ability to expand cash flow lasts.

  16. “Mr Bird, a slight digression if I may. I’ve been wondering where the picture under your masthead was taken? Is it in the North Island of NZ?”

    I’ve wondered that myself. It sure looks like it. But I do not know. It came out of a bunch of choices from WordPress. Likewise the snow option is a wordpress feature.

  17. “Mr Bird, what are the conditions or preconditions then that would encourage the success of more Mr Dells and what are the chief obstacles in your view to the relative lack of success of potential entrepreneurs like him?”

    I can see how I’ve answered in the general. But you might have wanted an answer specifically to do with infrastructual properties. I’ll have to get back into that at some other time.

  18. If as you recommend there is to be no taxation on profits then the entire tax burden would fall on individuals wouldn’t it, their income, accrued savings and assets?

    I could envisage a society without any taxation at all, but only in a moneyless economy. But that could only occur in a society where there was no need for any institutions of the state as we understand them today, above all, no national military institutions or expenditure.

    You seem to think that all other things remaining the same, there exists some sort of preordained harmony of the capitalist economic order that would not result in an ongoing sordid scramble for power and individual competition for ever-greater profits which inexorably leads the more successful to the unscrupulous practice of monopoly at the public expense.

    This is a recipe for chaos and inefficiency and growing inequality me thinks and I don’t see how your vision, in practice, would avoid this.

  19. It must be a photo of Aotearoa, Land of the Long White Cloud. A perfect composition. And the clouds are magnificient.

  20. “If as you recommend there is to be no taxation on profits then the entire tax burden would fall on individuals wouldn’t it, their income, accrued savings and assets?”

    There is no magic pudding that can possibly make the current level of spending OK. You have to have small government.

    “You seem to think that all other things remaining the same, there exists some sort of preordained harmony of the capitalist economic order that would not result in an ongoing sordid scramble for power and individual competition for ever-greater profits which inexorably leads the more successful to the unscrupulous practice of monopoly at the public expense.”

    I’d think that would be the case if each industry held to the characteristics of a functioning industry. But you have to think of how many industries aren’t in that position. The real estate industry. The industry for medical services, educational services, legal services, infrastructural goods, the defense industry. And already we see that most of the economy is pretty dysfunctional. But by extension of how a good industry works, eg. the computer industry, well there is a lot of potential for improvement.

  21. On the one hand peoples interests are harmonised by a free market supposing each industry is “functioning” in the way mentioned.

    On the other hand if you are talking from a wider political-economy point of view you might have a point. Always someone appears to be undermining things. Elitists appear to be pretty brazen when it comes to rent-seeking behaviour. After witnessing the bankers on Catallaxy, and the way the economists there toady to them, it gives one the notion that they are beyond reform.

  22. YOU IDIOT. WE’VE BEEN IN AN ICE AGE FOR 39 MILLION YEARS OR SO.

  23. Getting the rich to actually pay taxes would be a start, Graeme, along with a less regressive tax system.

    Wages could be reframed as profits under your scheme and should not be taxed either if the profits of corporations and businesses are not to be taxed. Fair’s fair.

    You haven’t answered the question of who is going to pay for police, army, schools, hospitals, trains and buses if we eliminate taxes.

  24. You don’t want to start pretending that wages are profits. Drawings and dividends could be taxed like wages. Its really profits that must not be taxed.

    You could keep the GST and lift the tax free threshold straight up from the ground. The idea is to just make the necessary spending cuts. You just close down bureaucracies by the bakers dozen and sack all the taxeaters, getting them to sign up for tax exemptions so you don’t have to pay redundancy.

    You start from where you are now and start cutting. So the tax on retained profits goes first and then the tax free threshold is lifted. The GST later on I guess.

    The number of government departments you can cut and not leave people dead is astounding. We don’t lack places to start cutting.

  25. I think you need to start from what you want to achieve and work backwards. Now cutting the public service and government spending even if it was desirable or supported by the citizenry who want all these services improved rather than diminished or made more expensive isn’t a useful starting point.

    Do automatic processes of unceasing, expanding quantitative production and innovation for its own sake really meet the human goals they should serve or do they move further and further away from the any humanly desirable objectives?

    These are all insensate forces we are talking about after all. And human beings have the capacity not really unleashed to control, direct, organise and subordinate these to our biological needs and cultural purposes. Unless we find out how to do this, these blind, uncontrollable dominating forces will by their overabundance undermine our lives, certainly the quality of life. Some of these forces must be not only curbed but eliminated if they threaten our very existence.

    Think of an unmanageable flood of water that might disrupt the entire ecological system on which life and welfare depends. The prime need in that case would be to contrive channels for the excessive energy and flows that have over-reached organic norms by erecting embankments and dams to even out the flow and spread it into decentralised dispersed receptacles where people can use the energy and life source the water represents for their own growth and development in ways in which they decide, not decided for them by others.

    Economic life and organisation could be viewed this way too, methinks.

    • “Do automatic processes of unceasing, expanding quantitative production and innovation for its own sake really meet the human goals they should serve or do they move further and further away from the any humanly desirable objectives?”

      I would think so under capitalism properly considered. But not under our system of socialist-crony finance. If you cut spending in this way under bad money it would likely spill into some bubble or other, and the results just be a free ride capital gain for already wealthy slobs. The situation is far different under monetary conditions of 100% backing with growth-deflation. In the latter case the wealth is spread around through a falling cost of living and increasing real wages. As well as fairly low overall profit share. Under crap money it could just wind up going into even more debt and wealth being directed into few hands.

  26. Mr Bird

    A paradox confounds me. If as you say Catallaxy is now a cesspit of faux-libertarian far-leftism, why have there been so many efforts by the Reds to hijack that blog? Witness recent events

  27. Back on topic, Mr Joyce is a fine statesman. If only he would apply his strictures on Chinese investment consistently and consider as well mass repatriation of Chinese from Australia.

  28. GMB, the esteemed Ken Henry has the right idea He says economics must concern itself first and foremost with the common good, with well-being, not technical matters or even policy. I agree and would urge you to leave the mere technical and arithmetic approach to the grey flannel machine men and apparatchiks in management, the academy and the political bureaucracy.

    As an aspiring deep philosopher and holistic prophet it is your mission and duty to come up with far-reaching grand plans and visions for the world of tomorrow.

    • Ken Henry’s sentiments so expressed may be right. But he believes irrationally that these goals are to be achieved by

      1. Taxeaters increasing their level of parasitism just when their benefactors are hurting.
      2. That financial sophistication consists on putting our youth and the unborn further into debt bondage.
      3. And that the common good consists of imposing costs on the taxpayer and denying the biosphere of more CO2 when there is a manifest shortage of same.

      Ken Henry is an anti-economist. An economics imbecile.

  29. Define “taxeaters” please.

  30. Well you have two classes in society. Those that pay taxes and those that consume those taxes. And the latter tend to have different priorities then the former. The former is going to like Keynesian economics and big government. Because they do not have to pay for it. They represent in total a lobby group for more spending. Listening to the ABC we see how it works. Its like rolling thunder always in favor of more spending.

    This dovetails into the more subtle resource-eaters in the counterfeiting bank-cash-pyramiding industry. These people want more debt. More debt encourages more spending. So there is an a natural alliance here. We might see the net effect as one two-headed monster. Bankygov. Or Govybank.

    Now this doesn’t mean that individuals in this big setup may not be doing good and conscientious work. It just means they are going to be effected subtly by their line of work. And the net effect will be one conspiracy or another against the interests of the taxpayer.

  31. “I would think so under capitalism properly considered. But not under our system of socialist-crony finance. If you cut spending in this way under bad money it would likely spill into some bubble or other, and the results just be a free ride capital gain for already wealthy slobs. The situation is far different under monetary conditions of 100% backing with growth-deflation. In the latter case the wealth is spread around through a falling cost of living and increasing real wages. As well as fairly low overall profit share. Under crap money it could just wind up going into even more debt and wealth being directed into few hands.”

    There seems to be more than a bit of category error going on here. The inequitable scenario you describe as “socialist crony finance” in fact has no relationship to socialist economics at all but is wholly capitalistic, by definition.

    A socialist economy by contrast is more likely surely to “spread the wealth around” increase real wages, etc.

    You seem to have things topsy turvy here Graeme.

    And how do you explain the fact that under global capitalism today the inter- and intra-national discrepancies between incomes, wages and living standards of all peoples are growing rather than declining?

  32. Ok so nurses who both pay taxes and whose wages are paid for by taxes, e.g. where do they fit in this scenario?

    • Its a bit of a calling this nursing. Well sure they are taxeaters. But not people who you would be wise to cut funds to in any quick way. The way to bring medical costs down is a much more involved subject. You don’t do it by giving nurses a hard time. All good policy starts with finding resources from closing bureaucracies that we might like. But that if we close them no-one will die. If you started at the nurses end of things and started cutting off money to them hundreds of people could die. So we don’t go about things in a foolish way. We have to have an industry plan to smoothly bring medical services to a functioning industry which delivers better value for money each quarter. You don’t do that by underpaying or overworking nurses and sending them into early retirement through back injuries. You have to chart a course to smoothly getting the transition underway, and not leaving your old and sick in trouble.

  33. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t most debt non-government?

    • I think that would probably be right yes. Relentless currency debasement and our peculiar mix of policies arm-twists everyone into high levels of debt.

  34. Under this global-cronyism we get an effect wherein the local sole traders do not have the same property rights as the international bigshots. It may be a subtle thing, but it will wind up getting worse and worse until it resembles that famous situation of United Fruit company in South America.

    Diplomatic support, local lobbying, campaign contributions, and formal “free” trade agreements mean that these people have the ability to do business, but the sole trader local can never get his concerns met. Taxeater-Schmoozing overhead puts him at a disadvantage. And while both parties are alleged to be subject to taxes on their profits, the internationals have people working around the clock to get out of this by various cost transfer devices in accounting.

    So whilst the company tax might appear to be an anti-corporate thing it is quite the opposite.

    An insipid bias towards big and international over small and local, no matter even if it is slight, will work its magic overtime. Throwing many people into the ranks of the proletariat. And restricting the numbers of people with a track record of taking full executive control of a business entire.

    Thus we will see a rigged market at both the top and the bottom. Where salaries at the top will become ludicrous, and wages at the bottom will somehow lag behind expectations.

    If one errs in public policy it ought to be on the side of the sole trader. So if this broadband is to go ahead, just by one way of example, the way to get the job done is at the subcontracting sole trader level. To have the tax-exemption at that level.

    But we see now that the bigshots have the ear of government. The money will be taken off the rest of us and funneled to the big end of town. We will get poor value for money. And be saddled with greater debts. The loan money will not generate any new resources. It must simply rob resources from elsewhere.

  35. Graeme, well done, you have just described the processes of imperialism.

    You are a socialist, enough with the denialism.

    • I”ll thank you not to slur my name in this way young lady. But limited liability was always a little bit on the nose. We needed it. But whether the modern corporation is a fully representative expression of freedom of association is open to some question. If it is not then we probably ought to make organic changes which bring it more in line with this principle. You might put a time limit on its mortality. Since it cannot possibly be the case that a corporation will forever fulfill its founders wishes after the death of the founder. Another thing you might do is restrict the limited liability company to 100% equity finance. And this may restrict the extent of this International Crony-Corp Imperialism that we seem to be agreeing on as a bad thing.

  36. Graeme, the United Fruit Company became an international pariah and byword for US imperialist exploitation of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

    In 1950 Gore Vidal published a novel (Dark Green, Bright Red) in which a thinly fictionalised version of United Fruit supports a military coup in a thinly fictionalised Guatemala.

  37. Graeme, in NSW alone we need to graduate and employ around 2000 new nurses every year to meet demand, but nurses are currently graduating and can’t get work because NSW Health is in debt and can’t afford to employ them.

    Meanwhile most nursing graduates stay in the industry around five years before fleeing. Not because the pay is so bad, they get paid better than teachers (not saying much) particularly shift workers, but because of the onerous workload and conditions.

    In the absence of increased revenues to the states through increased taxes this situation is only going to get worse.

    • Right. The idea is to hold the hospital and clinic accountable for overall quality control. And not try to design quality control in from Canberra by way of educational requirements. Then what you do is take medical services out of the tax system. This will employ all the nurses and produce the investments in capital equipment and training that will bring medical costs down every quarter. But you need to make fiscal room for this. And you must cut out every unnecessary bureaucracy to do it. A lot of bureaucracies you might want them around. But if you could close them and people not get terribly hurt then they must be closed. Then via tax exemption you can make sure the nurses and their patients are well looked after.

  38. Right. You see a third world country is one where the average Joe doesn’t have clearly defined property rights and clearly recorded titles.

    So these Gringos come in, and their diplomatic support effectively makes them the only act in town with the property rights that the peasants lack. Right there they have an unfair advantage. As the peasants ought to have had those sorts of property rights. Resentment builds and to placate the natives the local bigshots, who ought start by correcting the situation of lack of property rights at the bottom, instead start giving the foreigners static. The big Corp will then likely pervert local politics as well as that of American Spooktown, to make sure he can meet his debt obligations.

    The end result is not for me to describe. But I could refer people to the Perkins account of his life as an economic hitman.

  39. Cyd I’ll get around to replying to any questions or comments sooner or later. But I have to go right now. Don’t think that me taking a long time to reply means I won’t get around to it.

  40. Mr Bird
    Not a peep from you about my comments on peaceful Asian repatriation. Am I right to infer that you are somewhat soft in this area?

    Look at Mr Soon. A perfect example of what I mean. See how he sells out his adopted country daily. Why would you want such cunning Orientals in our country by the bushel?

  41. Graeme, medical services taken out of the tax system charge for their use. Only the rich can afford to use them, i.e. a minority of the population. This is no answer to the goal of well being for all that Ken Henry thinks should be highlighted and prioritised.

    And your description of the relative lack of rights, income and support of the poor in the Third World isn’t really that different to the situation that obtained in 16th century Europe where peasants had no money or title, and the landowners took their surplus for themselves a part of which was provided to the state or the Church in the form of taxes. Of course without this original form of taxation, i.e. directly of the wealthy there would have been no infrastructure or art, no progress.

  42. of course Graeme, à bientôt.

  43. I share your concerns Winchestor. But as much as possible once a person is made a citizen we have to try to reduce risks without discriminating too much against them on an ethnic basis. Of course anyone with Quisling characteristics has to be nowhere near policy levers and state secrets.

    “Graeme, medical services taken out of the tax system charge for their use. Only the rich can afford to use them, i.e. a minority of the population. This is no answer to the goal of well being for all that Ken Henry thinks should be highlighted and prioritised.”

    Right. But consider how this situation has come about? If an industry is functioning it will deliver powerful improvements in cost-effectiveness each quarter. If it is restricted, cartelised, unionised, subsidised, subject to demarcation as to tasks performed, and accreditated by socialist-run education, in an environment of ponzi-money and debasement, it will have costs going up all the time. If most medical services are bought out of inusurance and not out of savings, thats a further factor that sends costs up and not down. And of course if there are height restrictions on buildings, well thats going to be a constraint on bringing hospital bed costs per night down as well.

    I’m not knocking the people who wanted socialist medicine. But they didn’t know what they were playing with. Because if you have a situation where medical costs are growing at GDP-2%, and then you socialise medicine and now all the old people are well looked after, but under the surface of things medical costs are now growing GDP + 2%, then nobody notices it for a long time. But 40 years later its eating up all this expense and no-one can afford it but through insurance.

    So we need to reverse this. And bring costs down all the time and not up. We go back to the same model everytime. The model of business conditions under a situation of no change in total sales revenue ( Gross domestic revenue) in the economy. Under these conditions all businessmen know that to maintain any sort of profit they will have to deliver better services at lower costs all the time to stay in business. The emphasis isn’t on grabbing market share in most cases The emphasis is on spending money now, mostly via retained earnings, for the purpose of cutting recurring costs later and improving cash flow.

    You see how we must strive to have old people retire rich, or keep working part-time to supplement there income. This whole thing is not going to work unless we are looking for ways to bring most old people to retirement very wealthy. I see no room in any of this for even one marginally helpful bureaucracy that could be cut. I see no room at all in this scenario for allowing the banks to gain the benefit of new money creation. We have to find the resources from somewhere to deliver the goods. And where medical and education services are concerned the pressure is on for a situation where everyone can see improvements constantly. You truly would have to deliver.

    Now you are right. Pulling all subsidy out of education and medical services, and instead making these tax free industries, and as well the sole traders these industries pay directly would also be tax-free. Well you have to create a situation where all these doctors know their fees have to drop all the time. They have to train unqualified people to do as many tasks as possible. They have to dream up new more cost-effective business models. They have to maintain quality control over the output of their practice. And if they sit still just as a GP and don’t wish to be a delegator, business owner, invest in new equipment and innovate new service design, well they are going to wind up earning less and less.

    At the same time you are pushing up the tax free threshold for everyone which is helping poorer people particularly. But you are dropping their education and medical services training. In favour of developing industries that are on the path to much better value for money and much more re-investment.

  44. Mr Bird
    Look at the way our Prime Traitor struts around the world stage while proposing to tax us more to funnel money to the golliwogs

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/jet-ship-tax-to-fund-climate-poor-copenhagen-deal/story-e6frg6xf-1225811174639

  45. Yeah its just disgusting. And think of the irrationality of a shipping tax in this context. Wherein shipping is by far the most cost-effective heavy cargo transport there is by a long-shot. Its not going to help any poor person this tax. Its just going to hurt everyone but international bureaucrats. He’s trying to sponsor a great fat leach of an organisation from whence can come his promotion.

    We’ve got to dispute the right of these twats to sign other people up for stuff.

  46. Piers Corbyn telling like it is:

  47. Thanks for your John Perkins ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’ reference. Looks like an awesome book. Yet another lefty Graeme!

  48. Graeme

    “Piers Corbyn has no academic status ….and has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.” – George Marshall

    In other words, a charlatan, Graeme.

  49. No thats not true. What is meant by “academic status” This is a nebulous term if ever there was one. You have to come around on this issue. This is a hoax. I’m not relying on Piers Corbyn. I’m just pointing out that he is telling matters like it is. Piers can predict the weather given solar activity. The hoaxers cannot predict anything right.

  50. “Where is your evidence for the idea that a little bit of human induced warming would be a BAD THING during a brutal and pulversing ice age.

    And where is your evidence that CO2 warms the globe more than a trivial amount in the first place.

    You had nothing then. You never found anything since. So you position was fundamentally irrational and treasonous.”

    It was the same question for everyone at Catallaxy Cyd. No-one came up with anything nor could they find anyone who could come up with the evidence for these specific propositions. Since this is a simple hoax.

    Its not even logical that CO2 could warm the planet up. Its not even a sound apriori proposition. And the “greenhouse effect” itself is an entirely bogus notion.

  51. Graeme, Piers Corbyn is a weather forecaster, a notoriously unreliable trade. These dudes can’t reliably predict the weather within a 24-hour period. We see this almost every second day!

    And besides, limiting knowledge to simplistic, verifiable, observable facts and events is a grave error. That way lies wilful blindness to some of the most important manifestations and meanings of human existence that are not predictable, verifiable or observable, Graeme, not in the least.

    • Piers used to make a lot of money forecasting weather months ahead given what the solar situation is. Evelyn Garriss has a newsletter for North American investors explaining how the weather will be a few months ahead of time and saying why. She can tell you how the hurricane season will be any given year. So it can be done to some extent if you follow the science and not this CO2-driven fantasy.

      For example such scientific evidence that we have makes it very clear that we are in a cooling cycle. And apart from some possibility to do that unprecedented (in known written history) 2012 alignment, we can be very confident that we are going to be a lot colder during the 2030’s then we are now.

      If you follow actual scientific evidence, save for something entirely unexpected from left field, its very clear that we will be soon having problems to do with quite brutal cooling.

  52. why did you cite Arrhenius approvingly in saying that it was good that CO2 trapped heat if you don’t believe it does. your position is rife with contradiction?

  53. I didn’t say that CO2 trapped heat since it doesn’t trap heat. Arrenhius thought that CO2 could be used to forestall an ice age. This is a rational proposition since no-one except an idiot would want to do anything else but warm the planet during a brutal and pulverising ice age.

    There can be very little question that Arrenhius would think that people wanting to reduce CO2 levels and cool the planet were lunatics. Since they are lunatics.

    You explain to me how it is you think CO2 traps heat. It doesn’t do so.

  54. Arrenhius thought that CO2 could be used to forestall an ice age.

    And how did you think he thought this could happen? How on earth can you accept Arrhenius’s suggestion that CO2 be used to forestall an ice cage without accepting his theory that it can do so by trapping heat???

    BUT I DON’T ACCEPT THAT IT CAN BE USED TO STOP AN ICE AGE. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK FUCKING HEAD. IS THERE SOMETHING FUCKING WRONG WITH YOUR READING COMPREHENSION?????

    IT WAS A RATIONAL IDEA TO WANT TO STOP A THE ICE ENCROACHING AND DESTROYING EVERYTHING BEFORE IT.

  55. you idiot

    it was Arrhenius who first proposed that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, you can’t reject his theory while quoting him in support of your position.

    BUT I JUST DID YOU FUCKING MORON. I REJECT HIS THEORY. AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS RATIONAL TO WANT TO WARM THE EARTH. OF COURSE I CAN. THAT IS IN FACT THE LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. HIS ARMCHAIR CONJECTURE TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG. EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENT AGAIN YOU FUCKING DOPE.

  56. Graeme, if we are cooling why are the NZ glaciers steadily retreating? Do you deny they are?? I’ve been there Graeme, the hike to get on to them has become much longer from the infrastructure built to get tourists on to them easily because the glaciers in the South Island are melting because of global warming.

  57. The New Zealand glaciers aren’t retreating. They were retreating. They are not retreating any more. The South Island of New Zealand particularly is cooling.

    Since the weather oscillates back and forth all the time you cannot make these statements without a specific start and end date.

  58. It is well established that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation. Experiments have been done showing this.

    BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. YOU CLAIMED THAT CO2 TRAPPED HEAT. AND YOUR CLAIM WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CO2 TAKEN COLLECTIVELY. NOT IN TERMS OF ONE MOLECULE. ABSORBING IS NOT TRAPPING. AND THE BEHAVIOUR OF A SINGLE MOLECULE CANNOT BE EQUATED TO THE BEHAVIOUR OF ALL OF THEM TAKEN COLLECTIVELY.

    CO2 MOLECULES HAVE THREE DIFFERENT ABSORPTION REGIONS. IT ABSORBS RADIATION BOTH WAYS. AND RELEASES THE SPECTRUM, MINUS THREE APSORBTION REGIONS. THATS NOT TRAPPING HEAT IN THE ATMOSHERE. THATS HOGGING RADIATION TO ITSELF. THATS A COOLING EFFECT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE RIGHT THERE. SINCE OTHER MOLECULES RE-RADIATE THE SPECTRUM ENTIRE. WITHOUT ABSORBING ANY OF IT. WHICH MEANS THEY ARE RE-RADIATING MORE RADIATION THEN THE CO2 MOLECULES ARE. IN THAT FIRST MOMENT THATS A RELATIVE COOLING EFFECT OF CO2 IN TERMS OF THE MOLECULES AROUND IT.

  59. If you cannot explain this in your own words you don’t have a case. Imagine a nitrogen atom being hit by the light. It absorbs and re-emits the light. It doesn’t have much of a problem re-emitting most of the infra-red spectrum. In this sense the Nitrogen atom is not hogging the spectrum to itself.

    Compare this to the CO2 molecule. It will aborb the light and re-radiate all but its absorption region. By failing to re-emit part of the spectrum its HOGGING some of that energy and denying the re-release of that, compared to the nitrogen atom, and therefore in the first instance thats a cooling effect vis a vis the ground and other gas molecules.

  60. trap = shorthand for absorbing and re-emiting a particular type of infrared. In any case there is a net warming.

    IT NOT SHORTHAND ITS A LIE. ITS LIKE CALLING A CAT A DOG. AND INDIVIDUAL MOLECULE OF CO2 HAS 3 ABSORPTION REGIONS. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT CO2 COLLECTIVELY TRAPS HEAT.

  61. what do you think happens to the stuff it hogs? it has to manifest itself eventually no?

    THE EFFECT OF THE ABSORPTION WILL MANIFEST ITSELF IMMEDIATELY NOT EVENTUALLY. BUT LETS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ITS A RELATIVE COOLING EFFECT VIS A VIS THE SURROUNDING MOLECULES.

    SUPPOSING ITS TEN AM. AND THERE IS 1 MILLION CO2 MOLECULES CHOSEN AT RANDOM AT YOUR KNEE LEVEL AND IN THE OPEN WHERE THE SUNS LIGHT CAN HIT THEM. THESE CO2 MOLECULES ARE ABSORBING AND RE-RELEASING RADIATION FROM ABOVE AND BELOW. THEY WILL HOG SOME OF THAT IN COMPARISON TO THE NITROGEN MOLECULES. THEY WILL HEAT UP. AND PRETTY SOON MOST OF THAT MILLION CO2 MOLECULES WILL BE ABOVE WHERE YOUR HEAD HOUSE AND THERMOMETER IS.

    THATS A COOLING EFFECT IN THE SCOPE OF THIS EXAMPLE.

  62. New Zealand glaciers melting away: Survey
    IANS 23 November 2009, 12:26pm

    WELLINGTON: New Zealand’s glaciers are melting away, according to an annual survey of the snowline on 50 glaciers in the South Island, the National

    Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) announced on Monday.

    They have lost half of their snow and ice over the last 30 years, scientist Jordy Hendrikx said, confirming that the glaciers again lost much more ice than they gained in the 12 months ending March at the end of the Southern Hemisphere summer.

    He said this was mainly due to above-normal temperatures and average rainfall over the Southern Alps during the previous winter combined with above-normal sunshine and well below normal precipitation during late summer.

    Hendrikx said that, on average, the snowline during the year was about 95 metres above where it would need to be to keep the ice mass constant.

    This indicated that the loss of glacier mass observed in 2007-08 had continued, he said.

    Last year’s survey showed that the glaciers had lost 2.2 billion tons of permanent ice in the previous 12 months and shrunk to their smallest size since records began in 1977.

    Prime Minister John Key told his weekly news conference: “It certainly demonstrates that we need to take this issue of climate change very seriously.”

    Key does not plan to go to the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen next month, but he said it would be on the agenda of this week’s British Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago.

    After releasing the report, Hendrikx told the TV3 channel: “It’s undeniable that we have altered the atmosphere.”

  63. See that? They were talking 30 years. Well that brings us back to 79. We know we unambiguously warmed 79-through-98.

    So unless you have a start and finish date then its not possible to make a clear statement of whether it cooled or warmed.

    We’ve unambiguously cooled since 2005 for example. I can say that because I’ve got a start and finish date.

    On other measures we’ve been cooling a bit longer than that. But not unambiguously.

  64. You’re half way there Graeme. You know in your boots that possibly catastrophic events await us. You speak of your sense and dread of these all the time. But you attribute them to things other than climate change that may never or are less likely to happen and of not as immediate, pressing importance.

    This IS happening, it’s real. You just need to go one further step. Be brave, Graeme. Embrace your fear, FEEL THE FEAR and then accept what 95% of scientists, every government in the world thinks. It will be a relief to take this necessary step.

    Then then you can join the constructive economic and related debates about What Is To Be Done.

    I’m sure you’d have a lot to contribute.

  65. you’ll still need to dig up an experiment where CO2 leads to net cooling. there isn’t one. The point is there is a kind of trapping because not all of the infrared gets emitted out into space. Instead some of it is absorbed and heats up surrounding molecules.

  66. btw Graeme, there is nothing ‘treasonous’ about my stance.

    YES THERE IS. YOU WANTED A CARBON TAX AND SUPPORTED AN ETS. TREASON. SINCE THIS WOULD HAVE DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY, AND WAS WRAPPED UP WITH SIGNING AWAY OUR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE UN.

    I do genuinely believe there is a greenhouse effect

    SINCE WHEN HAS SCIENCE BEEN ABOUT BELIEF? MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE THERE IS A GREENHOUSE EFFECT? NOT ALL OF THEM ARE TREASONOUS

    and that we need to manage it by bringing down CO2 emissions

    BUT WE DON’T NEED TO

    otherwise shit happens and we might be worse off

    HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE WHEN WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE RIGHT NOW? WHEN WE KNOW THAT CO2 IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY GOOD FOR THE BIOSPHERE? YOUR PETTY BELIEFS DON’T AFFECT THE NATURE OF REALITY. SCIENCE WAS NEVER ABOUT BELIEFS. YOU WANT THE RELIGIOUS DEPARTMENT. THREE DOORS DOWN.

  67. Birdie, what is you take on HoYava gravity?

    NEVER HEARD OF HOYAVA. YOU GIVE ME YOUR TAKE ON IT AND I’LL SHOW YOU HOW YOU ARE WRONG. THE MAINSTREAM HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT GRAVITY IS. NEWTON SAID THAT OPENLY, AND EINSTEINS THEORY OF GRAVITY WAS MERELY RIDICULOUS.

    THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT NOR ANY ANOMALY THAT REQUIRES IT. WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISTAKING FOR A GREENHOUSE EFFECT IS MERELY THE PHASE CHANGE OF H2O WHEN AIRBORNE. WATER HAS ITS GREATEST TENDENCY TO SMOOTH OUT TEMPERATURES WHENEVER IT IS DITHERING AROUND ITS PHASE-CHANGE REGION IN ITS AIRBORNE STATE. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE IT IS IN THOSE PLACES WHERE WE HAVE TYPICALLY HIGH LEVELS OF ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY WHERE THIS MODERATION OF TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE IS AT ITS STRONGEST.

    WE CAN SEE THAT INDUCTIVELY ALSO. FOR WHILE WATER VAPOUR DOESN’T HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS WE’D NEED FOR A GAS TO WARM THE SURFACE TAKEN ALONE, THE BEHAVIOUR OF WATER VAPOUR AND MICROSCOPIC AIRBORNE LIQUID WATER, TAKEN TOGETHER, CERTAINLY HAVE THE CHARACTERISTICS YOU WOULD NEED TO EVEN THE TEMPERATURES BETWEEN NIGHT AND DAY. THIS MEANS ITS QUITE LOGICAL THAT FIJI WOULD HAVE FAR GREATER MODERATION BETWEEN NIGHT AND DAY TEMPERATURES THAN THE SAHARA.

  68. Graham, just ban jc and Pedro from your blog.

    They are abusive, dumb, childish males with nothing to add to the sum of human knowledge and you don’t need the distraction or aggravation.

    Just block their IP numbers, names and email addresses holus bolus.

  69. Look at this Mr Bird, that traitor is up to no good again

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-vows-to-work-through-the-night-to-seal-climate-deal/story-e6frg6xf-1225811611620

    It is time for a military coup Mr Bird

  70. I think Tony and Barnaby are going to roll these traitors for us come the next election. Hopefully they will and can reverse some of the damage. The main thing is not to let public servants who pushed this fraud get away with it. We’ve got to see it through to have them all sacked and kept right away from the public sector. Or it will be one thing after another.

  71. Plimer is just a shill for the mining conglomerates. You can’t believe a word he says.

  72. “Others have made even bolder claims for HoYava gravity, especially when it comes to explaining cosmic conundrums such as the singularity of the big bang, where the laws of physics break down. If HoYava gravity is true, argues cosmologist Robert Brandenberger of McGill University in a paper published in the August Physical Review D, then the universe didn’t bang—it bounced. ”

    WHY WOULD I BE “UP” ON BULLSHIT LIKE THIS? THERE IS NO COSMIC CONUNDRUM OF THE SINGULARITY AND THE BIG BANG, SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SINGULARITY, NOR WAS THERE ANY BIG BANG. AND THE UNIVERSE DIDN’T BOUNCE THATS JUST SILLY. THESE PEOPLE HAVE COMPLETELY RUN AWAY WITH ONE NONSENSE BUILT ON CRAP HOISTED UPON FAILED PARADIGMS. WHY WOULD ONE WISH TO EXPLAIN A SINGULARITY OF THE BIG BANG PRIOR TO FINDING EVIDENCE FOR THESE ACTS OF CONCEPTUAL FOOLISHNESS?

  73. “Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.”

    EINSTEIN WAS WRONG FOR SURE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SPACETIME. AND I THINK ONE OUGHT TO FIND A THEORY OF GRAVITY. WITHOUT PREJUDICING IT WITH THIS OLD HAT QUANTUM BAGGAGE.

  74. I thought you’d be up on this cutting edge physics stuff birdie.

    WHAT MAKES YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY. I PROBABLY AM TO SOME EXTENT. BUT YOU HAVEN’T MENTIONED ANYTHING CUTTING EDGE. LET ALONE ANY CUTTING EDGE PHYSICS. THIS IS STILL THE SAME OLD JIVE BUILDING ON SACRED COWS.

  75. There could not be a greater level of idiocy than the following:

    “More specifically, the problem is the way that time is tied up with space in Einstein’s theory of gravity: general relativity.

    Einstein famously overturned the Newtonian notion that time is absolute—steadily ticking away in the background. Instead he argued that time is another dimension, woven together with space to form a malleable fabric that is distorted by matter.

    The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two conceptions of time don’t gel.

    The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space at very high energies, such as those found in the early universe where quantum gravity rules.

    “I’m going back to Newton’s idea that time and space are not equivalent,” HoYava says. At low energies, general relativity emerges from this underlying framework, and the fabric of spacetime restitches, he explains.”

    This is an example of taxeaters at work. The stupidity never ends. And the iron law is that these taxeaters willl waste your money and do you grave harm if you don’t get them sacked.

  76. OF COURSE I COULD OF. IT WOULD HAVE JUST AMOUNTED TO STAYING BACK TWO MORE YEARS AND GETTING THE MASTERS AND MAYBE GOING TO TEACHERS COLLEGE FOR A YEAR TO MAKE SURE OF IT.

  77. Birdlab’s IP Address. I just did a search and its from Singapore. I searched it on my blog as well. Did you know that I have 20 pages from this stalker, under dozens of different names. Thats just the ones I haven’t wiped. I would have wiped most of them.

    You can see why Sinclair is wrecking your old blog Jason. He lets flagrant stalkers on his site. He’s got no idea at all. No sense of decency and honour. Lets a stalker just more or less hound me all the time. Obviously thats going to water down the effectiveness of this site he’s taken over and diluted.

  78. Holy Crap. According to IP Addresses, THC is Travis Bickle, notorious stalker of Iian Hall. But dig this. He’s also teenage conservative Christian rapper Kevin Kang.

    http://kevin79.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/2009-is-a-joke/

    And Scott Bridges seemed to know that he was a fake. Because this is the only time Scott agreed with me.

    “Scott said

    August 27, 2009 at 12:38 pm
    What Graeme Bird said.

    Reply”

    You’ve got to understand the lengths these marxists will go to. Here is THC, running a stalking site, where he pretends Iian Hall is a stalker while in the real world he’s the stalker running a string of different identities.

    That poor little girl born into his household. I can only fear for her future.

  79. Holy Crap. Turns out the extremely unscientific Steve Edney doubles as the reasonable Richard Glover (Dick Lover?) And went drag as Anne Spandette.

    There is something very troubling about these Marxists. They obsessively deny conspirational behaviour but its right in their blood.

    Contrast this to the gorgeous Philomena who never fails to tip me off as to her identity and her real attitudes.

    Philomena. You sure you want to hang out with all these crazies on the left? You need to come over to the bright side of the road. Or at least be a small government pro-sovereignty leftist of sorts.

    These hard leftists like Edney and THC are disturbed people. And probably have clinical problems.

  80. Where’s my poem Birdie?

  81. I don’t know whether I can come up with anything worthy of you in a great hurry. I’ll mail you something on the very modest side of the poetry world.

  82. Dude
    from experience these IP address searches give quite strange results. they’re not always to be trusted

  83. Graeme
    Sinc runs a more right wing, anti-AGW site than me and you’re complaining?

  84. He’s blowing with the wind Soon. Blowing with the wind. Yeah I can see why you would say that Kiwibird, Parkos, McSkimming and partime Quartermain.

  85. Dude this is why I say the IP address thing is faulty. I’m certainly not any of these people though I briefly impersonated Quartermain a few months ago (who is otherwise a separate person). Mcskimming is a former colleague of mine – you can Google search him yourself. See here for example
    http://www.ceg-europe.com/attachments/db/ceu/31.pdf

  86. Right. Hey you should see Monbiot’s latest. He’s seen his crowd make such a hash of negotiations (praise be) and he takes this to be the state of the art in negotiations. He shows some sadness at losing a lot of environmental values, none of which have anything to do with CO2 and most of which would be helped along by more CO2. The fellow is quite delusional.

  87. Mr B

    The Hebes are notoriously crafty when it comes to spoofing IP addresses. They learn how to trick White Christian Webmasters with their mothers’ milk.

    Almost as bad as the chinks.

    Probably best to lay low for a while until this blows over.

    I’m off to the bunker but I’ll see you on the flipside.

  88. Catallaxy won’t touch you, Quiggin’s got you on a tight leash, and banned from everywhere else. Have you finally hit rock-bottom?

    I HAVE QUITE A HEALTHY READERSHIP ACTUALLY. THE MAIN THING IS TO EFFECT SOME CHANGE. AND OF COURSE YOU CANNOT TELL IF YOU HAVE DONE SO. IN THE PAST ONLY A FEW PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AS STUPID AS YOU. ONE OF THEM BEING JIMMYTHESPIV.

  89. Note that I attempted to block Birdlab’s url. But he’s so obsessive about me that he’s come back without a url.

    This is a pretty sick individual. I was under the impression that rents were too high in Singapore to be obsessing around the clock about blokes in other countries. It shows what a low-quality act Sinclair is to let this fellow on Catallaxy. If he is Jimmythespiv he’s likely a househusband to a banking sheila and knows which side his bread is buttered on.

    We’ve had a bit of a Singaporean contingent at Catallaxy over the years.


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: