Posted by: graemebird | March 13, 2010

New Co-ordinated Leftist Campaign To Rewrite History, By Harassment And Incitement, Launched March 2010.

From elsewhere:

Does anyone know who Ben Eltham is and in what way might he be connected to Professor Quiggin and to Clive Hamilton? Right at this moment he appears to be a lunatic. But if past practice goes to form, we will soon be desensitized to this cultural virus. March 2010, will be the specific date in history when the left lays down and hammers in this historical myth. The historical myth of, in essence a “denialist campaign of harassment and incitement.” We ought to know now that Clive has hatched this plot with at least one other fellow in the ABC.

It began, with not one, but and unprecedented five posts in a row by Clive Hamilton, laying down an entire body of completely ridiculous and delusional lies, which forms a backdrop to what Ben Eltham is saying. I tell you that Ben Eltham grates at the moment. More in shock and surprise then in anger. Ben Eltham come across as an entirely odd fish. But the tenor of these accusations will soon be part of the national ambience.

Bear in mind that Professor Quiggin and Clive Hamilton, once were co-organisers to a petition, that went to pretty much everyone in the economics profession, in either academia or the finance industry. 47 self-selected failed analysts signed the petition organised by Professor Quiggin and Clive Hamilton.

Now Clive is a fool. But I do so wish Professor Quiggin wasn’t a hard leftist. As Louis pointed out he doesn’t understand the scientific method, but once in awhile he makes some decent observations.

Anyhow it is established that the two of them have a familiar line of communication. Now if you think Ben Eltham sounds like some utter lunatic, and he does, check out the often sensible, and once in awhile insightful, Professor Quiggin, over at his own blog.

“Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.”

Always leftist campaigns of this sort roll out in pairs. Forces come in equal and opposite pairs. Likewise these leftist campaigns roll out in such a way as to be doing exactly what they are accusing the right of doing. We see the gist of the new mantra already. It appears that the gist of it is “co-ordianted harassment and incitement”. Which you all may recognize at once with great astonishment, is of course the history of the global warming fraud.

But from now on …. From March 2010 that history will be changed, and small children will be taught that the climate deniers ran a co-ordinated campaign of hate incitement, leading to many deaths and ruined careers.

In the case of McCarthy the witch-hunt against McCarthy and his supporters was rolled out in parallel with a new dispensation which said that matters ran the other way. Instead of McCarthy being the subject of a leftist witch-hunt, the history was laid down that he was co-ordinating a witch-hunt against innocent “liberals” who were doing nothing more than minding their own business, listening to the radio.

Another example of allegedly informed history being laid down at a single moment in time was when Al Gore spoke at “Moveon.org.” Up until then both the Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions had been bitterly opposed on the left. Which would have been alright in my book, had they been opposed for sensible and honest reasons.

But Al Gore laid down the new dispensation to a shocked Moveon.org audience. He determined that the administration ought to be congratulated for their intervention in Afghanistan, but that Iraq, was not merely a bad strategic move. But wrong, illegal, criminal, criminally carried out. And so forth. A different case then that the left made, could be made for at least some of these propositions, one supposes. My point is only to note that the left gets its new strategic marching orders in definite moments in time.

Another example is the campaign kicked off as a result of the collusion between Amy Goodman and Joseph Wilson. What happened is Wilson started a typical leftist campaign, wherein he waged what amounted to psychological warfare to deceive his nation and hurt the war effort. I’m certainly not against an honest pacifism-bias, or campaigns to bring the troop out of harms way, or ideas to do with making ones wars; big and short.

But the subject is leftist campaigns, and the way they usually take on this same structure. So Joseph Wilson and the left wage a campaign of misinformation and lies, in order to deceive the public, for the purpose of hurting the war effort. And what is the mantra and context of that campaign? Its that the Bush administration was waging a war of misinformation and lies, for the purpose of deceiving the public, and that this deception would wind up hurting the national interest.

But Wilson was posing as a patriot. So he deflected his criticism onto Karl Rove and Dick Chaney. Because he was affecting to be MR REPUBLICAN and pretending that he had this notion of the President as HIS PERSONAL commander in chief.

Anyway him and Amy Goodman colluded in this matter. What happened is Joe Wilson went around to all these radical meetings to get the momentum up, gut staying under the radar of the mainstream media. And Goodman would feature Wilson on her radio/video show. Often an excellent show by the way. But she never once had him on as a guest. Although he was a feature of her show leading up to the launching of the new mantra. See he was always ON THE SHOW, but there was no fully provable evidence let to slip through, that Amy Goodman and Joseph Wilson, had met and discussed things. PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

Joseph went around stirring up the radical types about this alleged friend of his, who had found out that the administration had lied about 14 words in the State Of the Union Address. This all under the radar. Then later with faux-drama he announced “it was me.” Anyway he lied about everything. He was the first person, to lie on TV, massively more extensively then Bill Clinton.

On Amy’s show, every-time she went to a break she repeated this mantra about the 14 words being a lie. Actually the 14 words were truthful in every way. Literally truthful. True in spirit. The honest truth of it. That was enough to get marxists, on methodone or otherwise, strategically laying down this mantra on blogs, many times every day.

This is a lengthy explanation but my point is this. Clive claimed a co-ordinated campaign of harassment …. We therefore must assume a co-ordinated campaign of harassment, since this is how these things work. If Clive isn’t planning harassment, what he is doing instead, is trying to white-wash the last ten years of harassment against global warming empiricists, by laying down an alternative history.

When Clive first claimed there was a co-ordinated campaign, it struck you all at first as lunacy. You will soon be desensitized to it, as the leftist projectionist campaign is rolled out.

To my knowledge, I’m the only one who has sent nasty emails to people like Clive, Monbiot and Karoly. There is no co-ordination on this side, and the way things work, the accusation of co-ordination is a white-wash for the co-ordination on the left side.

The other thing to note is that repetition by a well-known leftist icon on the left is the code to what the new mantra/campaign will be about. This particular conspiracy required Clive to be given and unprecedented access to 5 posts in a row on an ABC blog. So if matters are true to form it took one or more radical leftists in the ABC, to allow the ABC to be a forum, for Clives new mirroring campaign of lies.

It would certainly be nice to know who lobbied for the decision to give Clive access to 5 posts in more or less 5 days. If you have ever heard leftists accusing various people of coded words and wolf-whistles wonder no more. Its their standard operating procedure of leftist projection. The campaign goes out clothed in mirroring. This is how they work time and again.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Now we see this business coalescing we may be pleasantly surprised if nothing comes out of it and they back off now and stop trying to victimise Stephen McIntyre or anyone else.
    I’m so sick of it. Its not funny anymore. If I ever had a sense of humour about it, then it stopped when Jennifer mysteriously didn’t get her contract renewed and me thinking I might be to blame.
    A VERY STERN WARNING OUGHT TO GET OUT THERE.
    I say the word ought to go out for these people to back off this one time. Which is not to say that the ABC particularly ought not be investigated over Clives 5 posts. I’ve seen these co-ordinated campaigns of intimidation and mirroring so many times before, and I’m not the least bit interested in seeing another example of it.
    Bear in mind that when Clive started this attempt to lay down a disgustingly slanderous version of history, he cannot have expected the spirited defense and counterattack that people around here managed to come back with. He’s not the Prince Of Darkness. He’s just a very stupid and naughty person with all sorts of Quixotic scams on the fly. And he may be persuaded to lay low, and not try and spread these poisonous lies, if he feels that this attempt to harrass people, incite people, and change history, is a losing cause.
    So my answer would be to ask everyone to man ABC unleashed at all times. With a view to stop this campaign that Ben Eltham seems to be a part of, before it fully gets started. Its better for all parties, that the culprits give it away, before wading waste-deep in this lying muck. And I for one reserve the right to not forgive them for trying it on. But then again life is short. And there is a tendency to simply forget and look the other way, when some past abuse and maliciousness is no longer a live issue.
    If any of you are up for it, it would not be a bad idea to warn any of the known culprits outright.

  2. Graeme,

    I’m flattered to be considered in the same vein as Clive Hamilton and John Quiggin. Will I get a nasty email too?

    Ben Eltham

    • You weren’t being considered “in the same vein” to either of them you sloppy-minded twit. Your lying was merely discovered and noted as part of a typical campaign. I’m certainly not going to hold you up as being a new John Quiggin. John Quiggin is an intellectual bigot. But he at least gets a few things right. I’m more likely to see you, thanks to the above confession, as being more akin to Clive Hamilton, who never gets anything right.

      Face it Eltham. You are manifestly a failed analyst. Since you have fallen for the global warming hustle. Asking you to come up with evidence in support of this hustle, would be like asking Stevie Wonder to take the wheel. Since you are already a proven failed analyst it follows that you are a poser, whose lack of ability will manifest itself as you wing it across a number of subjects. Now doubt clouding your lack of understanding in obscurantism, and a few titbits to appeal to leftist prejudice.

      But then we shall see. You might be better off taking up a trade while you are still young. Show me some thinking of yours that you think is particularly impressive hey dopey? How about that?

  3. Oh be still my beating heart. The multi-disciplinary pony-taiiled Ben Eltham has left a calling card!

  4. He’s a liar Philomena. It would surprise me if he has anything useful to say on any subject. But then again we will see. He seems to be part of a co-ordinated campaign of incitement and harassment. Kicked off by Clive Hamilton and some people in the ABC. Since he’s one of the first to take up the idiot Clives lying meme.

    I thought this was just Clive airing his paranoid delusions. We now have to assume its part of a co-ordinated campaign to lie about history.

  5. “The Greens have a clear position on climate change: they believe the CPRS as it stands does not go far enough. The science backs up this position.

    HA HA HA.

    Well so far he just looks like a liar and a moron. I’m wondering where the good stuff is.

  6. How is this for typical loony-leftist mentally-deranged behaviour.

    First we have Ben making a throwaway insult towards Bernard Salt:

    “KPMG consultant and media columnist Bernard Salt has been available for comment on just about any social or demographic topic for some years now. These comments rarely do justice to the hard work of statistical analysis performed by real demographers…….”

    It is a feature of the more loopy leftists like Clive Hamilton that they will project their own behaviour onto their opponents. So in the very next paragraph what do we find Ben claming?

    “Salt is the master of the sweeping generalisation and throw-away insult.”

    This fellows foolishness may go beyond mere failed analysis and posing.

  7. SOON I’M GOING TO HAVE TO EDIT THIS COMMENT TO BRING IT IN LINE WITH LOGIC.

    graeme

    THERE IS INDEED A CASE FOR CONSPIRACY AS Ben belongs to the same think tank as Quiggers, Keen and Bahnisch SO THE CONNECTION IS THERE. CO-INCIDENCE? POSSIBLY. I DON’T THINKSO.

    YOU SEE SOON, HOW THE WORLD CHANGES WHEN YOU ACCEPT LOGIC.

  8. graeme

    bernie salt is a tosser. his generational analysis is akin to astrology

  9. So there is a conspiracy. So the two have a connection. And Clive and JQ have an obvious connection, having been joint founders of that petition.

    Right. So we have a convincing link with these people.

    What is the name of the think tank wherein this conspiracy lurks? And next we would like people to accuse that work for the ABC.

  10. Steven Kates has just this second showed up on the Mises media archive.

    Why Your Grandfathers Economics Was Better Than Yours.

  11. centre for policy development.

    it’s not a conspiracy HOW DO YOU FUCKING KNOW? CAN YOU PROVE IT? YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TELL LIES HERE SOON. YOU ARE SAYING ITS NO CONSPIRACY WHY?????

    SO FAR YOUR CLAIM IS ON THE BASIS THAT CONSPIRATORS KNOW EACHOTHER?

    THATS WHAT A FUCKING CONSPIRACY IS YOU FUCKING DOPE. ITS WHEN PEOPLE KNOW EACHOTHER AND WORK TOGETHER.

  12. Fucking hell Soon.

    So you are claiming that if these people do not all know eachother the conspiracy cannot be a conspiracy.

    But if they are in close contact with eachother, the conspiracy cannot be a conspiracy either?

    Choose logic for the love of God choose logic.

    Clive has just made up all these lies and now these people, that same month, are pushing the meme. Like the 14 words meme. Like the witch-hunt meme.

    And all these lunatics know eathother. When we first read Clive, talking about some paranoid delusion he has about a co-ordinated harassment campaign. Nobody takes him seriously. But he has 5 threads, like no-one else has ever had, to lock this delusion in.

    The minute the delusional meme has gotten its maximum exposure, two people who know Clive start pushing this idiocy.

    And you you nut. What do you reckon? Like leftists don’t get involved with conspiracies? And of course the fact that they know eachother proves its not a conspiracy.

    I know you are desensitized to leftists lying. But its not OK. You’ve got to get it out of your head that this is alright behaviour.

    How can you fucking possibly rule out collusion, when you know they all know eachother. And your only proof is …….. wait for it …….

    ….. They all know eachother.

  13. Graeme, perhaps your take here is the logical extension of the Thatcherite/Hayekian dictum: there is no such thing as society only individuals. Individual spontaneity is all, let there be no planning.

    Of course this is nonsense. Fact is people do band together, always have, always will, it is why and how we initially evolved as a species, for a start, and accomplished all else.

    All knowledge, including scientific, is cumulative and therefore collectively derived. So it is nonsense to say that conspiracy is what explains people agreeing with each other over anything or seeking to collaboratively advance their point of view, about anything including AGW theory or for that matter its converse.

    You will note that that most climate change denialists are driven by ideology of one sort or another, in many cases, explicitly religious in that their paramount belief system is metaphysical.

    What does that indicate/suggest?

  14. Right but the Clive Hamilton, Ben Eltham fiction that I’m referring to is just such a dishonest rendering of history, that it stands out as somewhat beyond the pale. Plus Clive had to convince another conspirator at the ABC to give him access to five threads in a row at ABC unleashed. So its a really shabby little meme that these people are trying to nail in for keepsies.

  15. I don’t know I haven’t followed it to be honest.

    I do worry that all this and similar spats apart from anything else are a massively time wasting distraction from all the known huge environmental problems that no one seriously disputes in relation to air pollution, traffic congestion, urban overcrowding, atmospheric chemical contamination, deforestation, soil depletion, water shortage, salination, river and wetland destruction, overfishing, biodiversity depletion and all that these things entail.

    If climate change denialists want to have any credibility whatsoever they first and foremost need to show that they are concerned about and want to be part of the discussion about how to address these huge problems now and in the future. Otherwise, their motives will forever be suspect.

  16. You got to get away from this climate denialist business Philomena. The global warming cult is an evidence-free hustle. Those who oppose it tend to be exacerbated by its implied attack on the scientific method. The global warming hustle is being opposed by climate empiricists. The climate empiricists are the only people who are interested in climate science.

    Yes the arguments are detracting from other issues. From all sorts of issues and from all sorts of threats. And yes this hustle is detracting from serious ENVIRONMENTAL issues. I was advocating aquaculture being made tax free to help stop the threat to fish stocks. It just got a great big yawn. And the weariness came from CO2 bedwetters.

  17. Well I would have thought taxes were integral to a system if acquaculture that is sustainable.

    And this article explains.

    http://yzkc.ncu.edu.cn/NCUCourseWare/UserImages/Upload/0123230102/ziyuan/sucai/%E7%B3%BB%E7%BB%9F%E5%8A%A8%E5%8A%9B%E5%AD%A6%E8%8B%B1%E6%96%87%E6%96%87%E7%8C%AE/A%20system%20dynamics%20analysis%20of%20boom%20and%20bust%20in%20the%20shrimp%20aquaculture%20industry.pdf

  18. Jason Soon. Why are you not highlighting the lecture of Steven Kates at the Mises institute. He seems to be a guest of honour. Perhaps along with Paul Cantor. He is introduced by Joe Salerno.

    Its a great speech. Naturally I don’t agree with every last bit of it but its really quite an awesome speech. You guys at Catallaxy ought to give it a big plug. He’s the first economist since the late Sudha Shenoy to be so respectfully treated at the Mises Institute. The only other Aussie who gets great raps there is Shostak.

    Kates has got such a strange accent. Very hard to pin him down. But Salerno tells us his background.

    I’m pretty happy I treated him well at Catallaxy now that he’s an anointed bigshot.

  19. Unfortunately I’ve temporarily deep-sixed my pdf to create space. I keep on putting off getting this computer fixed.

    I suppose in the final analysis you might have to tax the feral and free fish catches. But I’d never suggest such a thing without also advocating that the animal-husbandry fish growers would be taken out of the tax system.

  20. See Philomena. The fishing industry is still hunter-gatherer. Hunting and gathering was unsustainable on land hundreds of years ago. On most continents thousands of years ago. It became fundamentally unsustainable in the oceans, probably in the early twentieth century. We likely have been doing damage a long time. Its a very urgent issue.

    But aquaculture is animal husbandry. So you might tax one type of industry and take the other out of the tax system.

  21. Abstract
    Driven by growing international demand for shrimp and stagnating catches of wild shrimp, the
    shrimp aquaculture industry has grown remarkably over the past two decades. Initial hopes that farmed shrimp could provide an environmentally benign alternative to over-exploited wild stocks
    have, however, proven disappointing. Although global growth has been steady, the industry has
    experienced dramatic production crashes at national and sub-national scales associated with
    severe environmental damage. From a systems perspective, the industry is prone to exceed and
    consume its environmental carrying capacity, resulting in boom and bust patterns of development.
    In this paper we describe a dynamic commodity system model built to examine boom and
    bust in the shrimp aquaculture industry. Experiments with the model suggest that a policy that
    taxes the industry and rebates proceeds to licensed producers may help shift the system toward
    sustainability. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Syst. Dyn. Rev. 21, 305–324, (2005)
    Introduction
    Growing international demand for shrimp and stagnating catches of wild
    shrimp in the early 1980s created an opportunity for the development of
    export-orientated shrimp aquaculture industries (Csavas 1995). Countries
    with climate and natural resources suitable for shrimp farming, particularly in
    Asia and Latin America, seized on the opportunity, converting vast stretches
    of coastline into shrimp farms. Growth in the sector has been spectacular over
    the past two decades (Figure 1). In 1982 shrimp aquaculture (also known as
    shrimp farming) accounted for only about 5% of world shrimp supply; by 1994
    this figure had risen to 30% (Flaherty et al. 1999). Some experts estimate that
    aquaculture now accounts for 50% of world shrimp supply (Rosenberry 2004).
    Globally, farmer earnings from shrimp farming were estimated at U.S. $7
    billion in 2000 (FAO1 2002). In Thailand, one of the world’s largest exporters
    of farmed shrimp, the industry generated approximately U.S. $2 billion in
    export earnings in 2000 (FAO 2002). In addition to providing social benefits of
    employment creation and foreign exchange earnings, many believed that shrimp
    aquaculture would take pressure off overfished wild shrimp stocks and offer
    an environmentally benign alternative to destructive practices of the shrimp
    capture industry (Naylor et al. 2000).2
    Steve Arquitt is a
    research assistant with
    the Centre for Marine
    Studies at the
    University of
    Queensland, Brisbane,
    Australia, where he is
    working to develop
    system dynamics
    models for improved
    management of coastal
    ecosystems.
    Xu Honggang is
    Associate Professor of
    System Dynamics at
    the School of
    Geography, Science,
    and Planning at Sun
    Yat-sen University,
    Guandong, China.
    Professor Xu’s special
    interests are natural
    resource management
    and tourism planning.
    Ron Johnstone is
    Associate Professor
    and Deputy Director of
    the Centre for Marine
    Studies at the
    University of
    Queensland. His
    research interests
    include investigations
    into nutrient
    interactions between
    habitats and biotopes,
    encompassing
    System Dynamics Review Vol. 21, No. 4, (Winter 2005): 305–324 Received January 2005
    Published online in Wiley InterScience Accepted June 2005
    (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sdr.313
    Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    305
    a Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. E-mail: sarquitt@uq.edu.au
    b Sun Yat-sen University, Guandong, China.
    * Correspondence to: Steve Arquitt.
    306 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    Fig. 1. Shrimp
    aquaculture
    production in main
    producing countries
    (Source: FAO, Kautsky
    et al. 2000)
    Despite the apparently bright picture of growth and export earnings at the
    global scale, the shrimp farming industry has exhibited an extremely unstable
    pattern of development strongly associated with ecological damage and natural
    resource depletion. Examination of Figure 1 reveals patterns of boom and
    bust at national scales. In the early 1980s the industry grew rapidly in Taiwan,
    China and The Philippines only to suffer dramatic production crashes within
    a few years. Boom and busts have been observed both at national scales
    and within countries. In Thailand, for example, the national production
    figures have remained high but mask a series of boom and busts in which the
    industry has developed rapidly in one region only to crash and migrate to
    another (Huitric et al. 2002). The production crashes have left extensive areas
    of abandoned shrimp ponds and depleted natural resources, in particular
    coastal mangrove forests, and have caused social damage through loss of
    employment in shrimp farming and related side industries.
    This paper describes a system dynamics model developed to examine the
    underlying causes of boom and bust in the shrimp aquaculture industry and
    to aid in policy design for improved sustainability. The development of the
    model was guided by a case study of shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Thailand
    is one of the world’s leading producers and exporters of farmed shrimp, and its
    shrimp aquaculture industry has been the subject of much study and debate.
    The model builds on earlier work modeling the shrimp commodity system
    research on coral reefs,
    seagrass beds, and
    mangroves. Professor
    Johnstone is also
    working to develop
    appropriate tools and
    approaches for better
    integration of
    environmental science
    into decision making
    processes for coastal
    zone management.
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 307
    (Arquitt 1995; Arquitt et al. 2003) and was informed by the shrimp commodity
    modeling project undertaken by the Sustainability Institute (Johnston et al.
    2002). The model is based on recognized commodity modeling principles
    (Meadows 1970; Sterman 2000) and is general enough to be applicable to
    shrimp aquaculture in other countries. It is hoped that this study will contribute
    to the ongoing debate on policy for environmental sustainability of the
    shrimp farming industry and other aquacultural commodity systems.
    Environmental limits to shrimp farming
    The form of shrimp farming examined here is known as “brackish water”
    shrimp farming. Several species are farmed but all are marine species requiring
    salt water. For this reason shrimp farms are typically found along coastal
    margins, often on the shores of estuaries and embayments lined or formerly
    lined with mangrove forests. “Mangrove” refers to a tropical coastal ecosystem
    type that is alternately inundated and exposed by tides and dominated by
    species of salt-tolerant trees. Mangroves are the dominant ecosystem type
    found in most shrimp farming areas and serve as an important resource base
    for shrimp production by maintaining water quality through assimilation of
    nutrients and pollutants (Rönnbäck 1999). Mangroves also provide shoreline
    protection, and serve as nursery grounds for many commercially important
    fish species, including wild shrimp3 (Hogarth 2002).
    Shrimp farming is at once strongly dependent on supplies of clean intake
    water and highly pollutive. The degree of pollution produced by a given farm
    is directly related to farming intensity. Farming intensity is usually categorized
    into one of three broad production modes. Traditional “extensive” shrimp
    farming has been practiced in Asia for centuries. The farmer relies on feed
    occurring naturally in the coastal waters, inputs are minimal and there is little
    release of waste into the environment. Yields are comparatively low, in the
    range of 0.5–1.5 metric tons (live weight) per hectare of pond per year. “Intensive”
    farming is dependent on heavy inputs of commercial feed and chemical
    treatments. Yields are much higher, in the range of 7–15 metric tons (Kautsky
    et al. 2000). Demands on the ecosystem are also much greater. Intensive farming
    produces large amounts of wastewater contaminated with dissolved feed, dead
    shrimps, fecal matter, etc. that must be flushed from the pond and replaced
    with clean water. Also, up to 500 metric tons of sediments per hectare of pond
    per year of extremely high organic content are produced and must be disposed
    of (Flaherty et al. 1999). The third category, “semi-intensive” farming, is intermediate
    between extensive and intensive in terms of inputs, yields, and environmental
    impacts. In general it follows that the greater the farming intensity,
    the greater the demand placed on the ecosystem for waste assimilation.
    Kautsky et al. (2000) have developed the concept of “ecological footprint”
    for shrimp farming. The ecological footprint with respect to water quality is
    308 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    the area of adjoining intact mangrove required to assimilate farm waste and
    sustain production for a unit area of shrimp pond, the size of the footprint
    being directly related to the farming intensity.4 An indication of an area’s
    carrying capacity for shrimp farming can be obtained by dividing the mangrove
    area by the average footprint. If the carrying capacity is exceeded,
    organic waste from shrimp farms accumulates and yields fall due to pollution
    and, in particular, to increased incidence of infectious shrimp diseases that
    occur under polluted conditions.
    Causes of shrimp production crashes
    In many industrial systems production busts occur as a result of overinvestment
    in production capacity relative to market demand. Since the early
    1980s global shrimp aquaculture production has grown more or less continuously
    (Figure 1), whereas production crashes have occurred at national or subnational
    scales even in the face of strong international demand. Underlying the
    production busts are failures of policy makers and authorities to recognize
    industry dependence on ecological services and take effective measures to
    limit entry into the industry and preserve the natural capital that provides the
    services. Shrimp farms have often been allowed to proliferate in numbers and
    densities far exceeding the ecological carrying capacity. Furthermore, farms
    have often been established directly within mangroves with the result that
    large areas of mangrove have been cleared to make way for shrimp ponds,
    canals, and access roads. In sum, the shrimp farming industry has often exceeded
    and consumed its carrying capacity. Such systems inevitably exhibit
    overshoot and crash behavior (Sterman 2000).
    The case of Thailand
    Boom and bust of commercial shrimp farming in Thailand has been well
    documented (Huitric et al. 2002). Since its beginnings in the early to mid
    1980s, the industry has shifted from one coastal region to another, first from
    the central to the western Gulf of Siam, then to the eastern Gulf, and finally
    to the Andaman seacoast. It is estimated that Thailand lost approximately
    half of its mangroves during this time and that at least half of this loss
    resulted directly from proliferation and migration of shrimp farms (Barbier
    and Cox 2004; Huitric et al. 2002). Since the mid 1990s there has been a
    significant move of shrimp farming to the interior, in particular to the central
    Chao Phraya River basin, using seawater brought in by truck (Flaherty et al.
    1999). The move to the interior is due to increasing difficulty of obtaining
    clean seawater suitable for shrimp farming in coastal areas (Huitric et al.
    2002).
    As recognition of the environmental damage wrought by the industry increased
    through coverage in the popular press and through research studies,
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 309
    the Thai government enacted measures to regulate shrimp farming, including
    a ban on shrimp farming within mangrove areas and a prohibition on loans
    for farms in mangroves. Ministerial regulations placed limits on pond effluent
    discharge and required that all shrimp farms be registered. More recently the
    Thai government has banned shrimp farming in interior regions due to risks
    of salinization of surrounding farmland, problems associated with disposal of
    wastewater and sludge, and conflicts with neighboring rice and fruit farmers.
    Shrimp farming is now officially permitted only in designated near-shore areas
    of the coastal provinces (Flaherty et al. 1999; Szuster 2003).
    Official policy changes in Thailand indicate that policy makers now recognize
    industry dependence on ecological services. However, policies addressing
    environmental problems of the shrimp farming industry have not proven
    effectual to date. For example, despite the ban on farming in mangroves,
    encroachment on officially protected mangroves continues. Also, regulations
    on pond effluents are commonly ignored and the majority of farms operate
    without licenses (Huitric et al. 2002). Reasons cited for non-compliance
    include inadequate sanctioning, and shortage of departmental resources to
    monitor mangrove encroachment and farming practices and enforce regulations
    (Flaherty et al. 1999; Huitric et al. 2002; MIDAS 1995).
    Model structure
    General structure
    The bulk of shrimp aquaculture production is traded on international markets;
    in the case of Thailand over 90% of production is exported. We have therefore
    modeled Thai shrimp aquaculture within the context of an international commodity
    system. To accomplish this, inventory, production, and ecological
    sectors specific to Thailand were developed. Rest of world (ROW) inventory
    and production sectors model shrimp supply from all other countries. We
    have not included an ROW ecological sector on the assumption that worldwide
    shrimp farming and capture industries are able to maintain production
    by moving into unexploited areas over the time horizon considered in this
    study. Thai shrimp production is disaggregated into two sectors representing
    production undertaken within mangrove zones and production in coastal
    inland areas adjacent to mangroves. This makes it possible to model policy
    that shifts advantage from mangrove based to more sustainable near-shore
    inland production. The model does not consider shrimp production in far
    interior regions discussed in the previous section. Figure 2 shows principal
    feedback loops operating between sectors.
    The demand, inventory, and production sectors are based on the generic commodity
    model developed by Meadows (1970) and refined by Sterman (2000).
    Balancing feedback loops between the demand, inventory, and production
    310 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    Fig. 2. Organization
    of shrimp commodity
    model showing
    feedback loops
    between the sectors
    sectors (loops B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) seek to equilibrate supply and demand by
    adjusting prices to maintain inventory coverage at desired levels. Balancing
    loops between the Thai production sectors and the ecological sector mimic
    environmental limits on shrimp production. When production rises through
    farming intensification (loops B6, B7) and expansion (loops B8, B9), the
    industry ecological footprint increases and yields begin to fall as the footprint
    outstrips the mangrove area. Expansion of mangrove shrimp farms directly
    consumes the mangrove resource base and ultimately results in a production
    crash (loop B10). Note that all feedback loops between sectors are balancing.
    Reinforcing loops causing growth of Thai production are contained within the
    Thai production sectors.
    Internal structure of sectors
    We shall limit our discussion to the sectors most relevant to our policy analyses:
    the Thai production sectors and the ecological sector.5
    The Mangrove Shrimp Farm Production sector represents decision rules
    controlling shrimp farming within mangrove zones. The basic stock and flow
    structure is shown in Figure 3.
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 311
    Production is the product of farm area and yield with a delay to account for
    the time lag between seeding the crop and harvest. Yield is a function of
    farming intensity and ecological effect. Intensity adjusts after a delay to a level
    indicated by the expected mark-up ratio, formulated as the ratio of expected
    revenue to expected variable costs. The model does not explicitly distinguish
    between the three modes of farming intensity described earlier, but treats
    intensity as a smooth continuum.
    Initial investment is modeled as an exogenous one-time pulse. Farm area
    expands or contracts in response to expected profitability, which is formulated
    as expected long-run profit divided by expected revenue. Expected profitability
    for new entry farms is based on yield expectations uninfluenced by
    ecological feedback. This is because new farms are typically initiated in relatively
    unspoiled areas. Expected profitability for existing farms is based on
    yields that are influenced by the environment. This means that new farms are
    initiated as existing farms are abandoned, mimicking the sequential exploitation
    of mangroves described by Huitric et al. (2002). A supply chain captures
    delays and momentum associated with planning and construction. Mangroves
    are modeled as a partially renewable resource. We assume that some mangrove
    is cleared for other purposes at a constant fractional rate. Also, a fraction of
    abandoned mangrove shrimp farm land is converted to other purposes. We
    assume that the remaining abandoned area eventually regenerates back to
    mangrove. A stock representing mangrove seedlings captures inertia associated
    with regeneration.
    Fig. 3. Simplified stock and flow structure of Mangrove Shrimp Farm Production sector. Variables outside the large rectangle
    are developed in other model sectors
    312 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    The Thai Coastal Inland Shrimp Production Sector models shrimp farming
    in the coastal inland adjoining the mangrove zone. The decision-making and
    stock and flow structure is similar to the Thai Mangrove Shrimp Production
    Sector. The only notable difference is that mangroves are not cleared by farm
    expansion and abandoned farm land returns directly to a stock of coastal
    inland available for farming.
    The Ecological Sector models environmental influence on yields of mangrove
    and coastal inland shrimp farms. The sector structure is shown in Figure 4.
    Fig. 4. Information structure of Ecological Sector
    An industry ecological footprint is calculated based on average farming
    intensity and total farm area. The indicated ecological effect on yields is a
    non-linear function of the ratio of mangrove area to industry footprint. The
    ecological effect on yields is a first-order exponential smooth of the indicated
    effect with time lag representing delays associated with accumulation of
    contaminants and with regeneration of environmental quality.
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 313
    Base simulation
    The simulation time horizon is 50 years. Euler integration was used with DT
    set to 0.125.
    The base simulation shown in Figure 5 shows a decided overshoot and
    collapse pattern of production similar to cases observed in Thailand, Taiwan,
    China, The Philippines and other countries. The variables shown are (1) Mangrove
    Area, (2) Total Thai Production, (3) Thai Mangrove Farm Production,
    and (4) Thai Coastal Inland Farm Production.
    Fig. 5. Base simulation
    showing Mangrove
    Area (1), Total Thai
    Production (2), Thai
    Mangrove Farm
    Production (3), and
    Thai Coastal Inland
    Farm Production (4)
    over a time horizon of
    50 years. Mangrove
    area is given in
    hectares. Production
    figures are given in
    metric tons (live
    weight)
    The base simulation can be described in a series of five development phases:
    1. Pre-investment phase, year 1970 to 1975. From year 1970 the mangrove
    area decays gradually at a fixed fractional rate representing exploitation for
    timber and conversion to other land uses. Shrimp farm area and production
    are zero.
    2. Exponential growth phase, year 1975 to approximately 1991. In 1975 shrimp
    farms are initiated in mangrove and coastal inland areas and production
    begins to grow exponentially in response to attractive expected profitability.
    Mangrove farm production increases faster than inland because
    land acquisition cost is lower.
    3. Decelerating growth phase, approximately 1991 to 1997. At approximately
    year 1991 the growth of production begins to slow due to declining yields
    caused by environmental feedback as the ecological footprint begins to
    exceed the mangrove area, and as the mangrove resource base is consumed.
    314 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    4. Collapse phase, year 1997 to year 2007. After reaching a peak around year
    1997 production drops rapidly as unprofitable farms are abandoned or
    converted to other uses and the rate of new entries declines.
    5. Post collapse phase, beginning approximately year 2007. With mass closure
    of shrimp farms the ecological footprint is reduced and environmental
    pressure on yields relaxes. Mangroves are not entirely depleted because
    appropriation cost has risen with increasing scarcity of mangroves. A level
    of coastal inland production much lower than the production peak in 1997
    is now sustained by the remaining mangrove stock. Mangrove shrimp farm
    production declines gradually toward zero because of greater fixed cost
    associated with mangrove scarcity.
    Comparison of simulated to historical data
    Figure 6 compares simulated behavior to historical data for the period 1970
    through 2000. The historical data (time path 1) represents production in the
    coastal areas of Thailand only. Interior shrimp production based on the
    estimates of Flaherty et al. (1999) and Szuster (2003) has been subtracted from
    aggregate production figures published by the FAO. The derived estimates
    suggest that coastal shrimp farming in Thailand has undergone a serious
    collapse (Szuster 2003).
    The simulation overestimates the early growth of production and production
    peaks slightly later than the historical data. It should be noted that the
    historical production figures are rough estimates (Rosenberry 2004) and the
    Fig. 6. Comparison
    of simulated and
    historical data for total
    production in coastal
    zones of Thailand.
    Estimated production
    figures for interior
    shrimp farming are
    not included in the
    historical data shown
    on the diagram
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 315
    simulated behavior is numerically sensitive to parameters and the shapes of
    table functions. Given that our concern is with the basic pattern of boom and
    bust, the simulated behavior appears to adequately track historical data.
    Policy analyses
    Our policy objectives are twofold: (i) a sustainable shrimp farming industry that
    can provide sizeable benefits of foreign exchange earnings and employment;
    and (ii) conservation of mangrove resources that are essential to the sustainability
    of the shrimp farming industry, capture fisheries, rural incomes and biodiversity.
    The policy debate on shrimp aquaculture is bipolar. At one extreme are proponents
    of high-cost technological solutions to reduce and eventually eliminate
    the dependence of shrimp farming on ecological services. On the other are
    advocates for sustainable shrimp farming based on conservation of natural
    capital and recognition of ecological carrying capacity (Kautsky et al. 2000).
    Technology
    Technological improvements include water treatment and recirculation systems
    to reduce dependence on the environment, and species selection and breeding
    programs to improve disease resistance. The benefits of these technologies can
    be construed as a reduction in the shrimp farm ecological footprint. To test the
    impact of gradual adoption of improved technology we conducted a simulation
    with exogenous 2.5% per year reduction in the industry’s ecological
    footprint. By the year 2020 the average footprint is approximately one third of
    the value in 1975. The results are shown in Figure 7.
    Production reaches a higher maximum than in the base simulation but a
    pronounced boom and bust pattern is still present. The simulation implies that
    farmers will be unable to internalize benefits from technological improvements
    if the shrimp farm population is allowed to overcrowd and consume the
    ecological carrying capacity.
    Eco-taxes
    A variety of eco-tax schemes have been proposed to promote sustainable
    shrimp aquaculture by discouraging over-exploitation of natural capital. These
    include a start-up tax on new shrimp farms to slow excessive growth of the
    industry (Parks and Boniface 1994), a tax on variable inputs such as feeds to
    encourage farmers to reduce farming intensity (Bailly and Willmann 2001),
    and taxes on farms located on lands unsuitable for sustainable farming (Miller
    1999). However, the enforceability of taxes assessed directly on farmers appears
    impracticable for the same reasons that enforcement of regulations on
    effluents and land use has proven ineffective (Miller 1999, Bailly and Willmann
    316 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    2001). Taxing shrimp exports appears to be a more tenable proposition. In a
    study of coastal resource management in Thailand undertaken for the World
    Bank, consultants recommended an ad valorem tax on shrimp exports to slow
    the growth of the shrimp farming industry and to internalize some of the
    environmental costs of mangrove destruction and coastal pollution (MIDAS
    1995). Earlier modeling work (Arquitt et al. 2003) suggests that an export tax
    alone will not push the system toward sustainability or protect the resource
    base because it does not discriminate between farmers who abide in environmental
    regulations and those who do not.
    Export tax with rebate
    The export tax and rebate policy was inspired by the “feebate” policies described
    by Ford (1995, 1999). We propose that an export tax and rebate policy may
    help promote a large-scale sustainable shrimp farming industry and reduce
    mangrove deforestation by indirectly taxing all farmers and rebating tax proceeds
    to licensed producers. Licenses would only be granted to farmers with operations
    located in designated areas deemed suitable for shrimp farming. Also,
    the licensed farm area for a given region would be limited to the estimated
    environmental carrying capacity. In essence the proposed tax and rebate policy
    is a means of enforcing zoning regulations and restricting total farm area.
    A policy implementation sector (Figure 8) was developed to model the
    export tax and rebate policy.
    A unit export tax is assumed, i.e., a fixed money amount assessed on each
    unit of exported shrimp. We assume that the tax in its entirety is added to
    Fig. 7. Simulation
    with exogenous
    improvement in
    technology
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 317
    merchants’ required margin and is thereby transmitted to all eligible farmers.
    After a delay a rebate equal to the unit tax, and adjusted upward or downward
    in accordance with the availability of tax funds, is paid to licensed farmers. A
    unit tax is used because it eliminates uncertainties associated with percentage
    taxes on changing export prices. Expected long-term rebate and expected
    short-term rebate are modeled with adaptive expectations (first-order smoothing)
    and influence expected profitability and the expected mark-up ratio
    respectively.
    The inflow of tax receipts to the tax fund is exports times the unit tax
    amount. An outflow represents disbursements to administration based on a
    fixed yearly fraction. Administrative functions would include verification of
    weights of shrimp sold by farmers, and the corresponding rebate amount owed
    the farmer. Another outflow represents disbursement of rebates, the rebate
    payment per farm times the number of licensed inland farms. An inventory
    Fig. 8. Simplified causal structure of policy implementation sector
    318 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    Fig. 9. (a)Sensitivity
    of Total Thai
    Production to export
    tax and rebate policy.
    (b) Sensitivity of
    Mangrove Shrimp
    Farms Production to
    export tax and rebate
    policy. (c) Sensitivity
    of Inland Shrimp Farm
    Production to export
    tax and rebate policy.
    (d) Sensitivity of
    Mangrove Area to
    export tax and rebate
    policy
    management structure seeks to maintain the level of tax funds at a desired
    level by adjusting the rebate amount. Only licensed farms are eligible for the
    rebate. The maximum area of licensed farms allowed is based on the perceived
    ecological carrying capacity, which embodies time lags associated with updating
    perceptions of mangrove stock and industry footprint.
    To test the export tax and rebate policy the Thai case model is used in a
    generic sense. Insights gained through these tests can be extended to other
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 319
    countries where shrimp farming industries are being planned or are in early
    stages of development. Figure 9 shows impacts on total production, mangrove
    farm production, coastal inland production, and the mangrove stock when the
    tax and rebate policy is implemented in 1975, the year of industry initiation.
    Time path 1 represents the base simulation with the unit export tax set to 0.
    Time paths 2, 3 and 4 represent cases with the export set to U.S. $1, 2, and 3 per
    kilogram, respectively.
    Fig. 9. (Continued)
    320 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    When the export tax is set to U.S. $1 the impact on the system is negligible.
    When set to $2 the overshoot and collapse pattern of total production is
    reduced; however, mangrove deforestation from the expansion of mangrove
    shrimp farms is still significant. When set to $3 the overshoot pattern is greatly
    reduced and mangrove destruction by shrimp farm expansion is negligible.
    Production still declines gradually because the mangrove resource base is
    being continuously eroded by conversion to other uses. The simulations shown
    in Figure 9 indicate that the export tax rate is a behaviorally influential parameter
    for the tax and rebate policy. To achieve the policy goals the tax must be
    set high enough to discourage the entry or continuance of unlicensed farming
    operations by reducing expected profitability.
    Part of the tax receipts under the tax and rebate policy could be allocated to
    supplement research and education programs encouraging farmers to adopt
    improved technology or management practices. Figure 10 shows simulation
    results when a U.S. $3 tax and rebate policy is implemented with a continuous
    2.5% reduction in environmental footprint associated with adoption of improved
    technology and management.
    Fig. 10. Simulation
    of Mangrove Area,
    Total Thai Shrimp
    Production, Mangrove
    Shrimp Farm
    production, and
    Inland Shrimp Farms
    Production with
    export tax and rebate
    policy and gradual
    adoption of improved
    technology
    In this case production climbs to a higher level than with the U.S. $3 export
    tax and rebate program alone and is sustained even as the mangrove resource
    base gradually erodes due to exogenous factors. As improved technology and
    management become more widely adopted, the average ecological footprint of
    farms decreases, causing the environmental carrying capacity for the industry
    to increase. After a recognition delay the licensing limitation is raised to the
    recognized carrying capacity.
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 321
    Implementation of this policy would necessitate the establishment of an
    environmental responsibility institution similar to that proposed by Saeed
    (2004, 1985). Such an institution would continuously monitor the mangrove
    stock, the industry footprint, and set appropriate quotas for shrimp
    farming permits. The institution could also monitor production costs in
    order to set the export tax to a level adequate to prevent entry of unlicensed
    farms.
    Discussion
    The export tax and rebate policy proposed in this paper attempts to limit the
    industry to the ecological carrying capacity and conserve the natural capital
    base by placing a prohibitively high indirect tax on the production of unlicensed
    producers, thus obviating the expenses and conflicts associated with
    command and control policies. Simulation experiments suggest that the tax
    and rebate policy can lead to a more sustainable production system. Is the tax
    and rebate policy realistic in terms of implementation? A number of key
    assumptions must hold for the policy to be successful. Among these are the
    following:
    • Production is predominantly exported. In the case of Thailand over 90%
    of shrimp aquaculture production is exported. If significant domestic
    demand exists or emerges, the farmgate price may not be forced low enough
    to discourage unlicensed production. Domestic shrimp sales may be more
    difficult to tax than exports.
    • The export tax is shifted to producers. In our model the tax amount is
    automatically added to exporters’ margin, meaning that the tax in its
    entirety is transmitted to producers and none is absorbed by exporters. The
    degree of tax transmission is an influential assumption that warrants further
    investigation.
    • Producers must have assurance that authorities will pay rebates. We model
    expected rebates with adaptive expectations (first-order exponential smoothing).
    In the real world adaptive expectations may not apply to cash rebates
    from government bodies. Advance payment to producers or issuance of a
    government bond to be adjusted at the time the crop is sold may be necessary.
    An alternative may be to pay the rebate by subsidizing the costs of
    variable inputs for licensed farmers.
    • An institutional structure for implementation must be put in place. Third
    party arrangements would be necessary to certify weights and grades of
    shrimp harvests at the time of sale in order to determine the amount of
    rebate owed to eligible farmers.
    • The policy must be implemented preemptively. For maximum effectiveness
    the policy should be initiated early in the development process before the
    322 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005
    mangrove resource base is depleted. The potential for sustainable shrimp
    production will decrease as the mangrove stock is depleted.
    A limitation of the tax and rebate policy is that it focuses on mangrove protection
    but does not directly address restoration of degraded mangroves. The
    policy, however, could support reforestation efforts by restricting encroachment
    on replanted areas.
    There is potential for the tax and rebate policy to work in concert with other
    policies for sustainable shrimp production. We have discussed how a tax and
    rebate policy could allow farmers to capture benefits of technological innovation
    and expand production sustainably. Eco-certification and labeling for
    sustainable aquaculture is another policy now being promoted by a number of
    international agencies and industry organizations.6 There is evidence that
    seafood consumers are becoming concerned about the environmental consequences
    of their purchases, and may be willing to pay a premium for seafoods
    that are harvested or produced sustainably (for a review of certification and
    eco-labeling for fisheries see Wessells et al. 2001). Price premiums for ecocertifed
    shrimp produced under a tax and rebate policy could help cover the
    cost of implementing the policy. Arquitt and Cornwell (2005) apply system
    dynamics to examine the influence of eco-certification and labeling on shrimp
    aquaculture.
    The Thai case study helped us develop a hypothesis of shrimp aquaculture
    boom and bust and provided a structure with which to perform policy
    experiments. The policy experiments, however, must be viewed as learning in
    retrospect. At the time of this writing Thailand’s mangrove resources have
    been depleted to the point where a mangrove-based shrimp farming industry
    cannot attain the high production levels shown in the tax and rebate policy
    experiments. It is possible, however, that a tax and rebate policy could help
    protect remaining mangroves in Thailand and help enforce zoning requirements
    for shrimp farms. There is now concern that shrimp aquaculture may
    expand into unexploited mangrove regions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
    and continue the boom and bust patterns. The model primarily applies to these
    unexploited regions where we hope it may contribute to preemptive policy
    design for sustainable shrimp production.
    Notes
    1. FAO is the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
    2. Estimates of average “by-catch” or incidental catch by shrimp bottomtrawling
    range between 3 and 20 times the weight of harvested shrimp. Bycatch
    is typically killed in the process of harvesting and thrown overboard.
    Bottom-trawling involves dragging a weighted net across the seafloor, causing
    serious marine habitat damage ( Johnston et al. 2002).
    S. Arquitt et al.: Boom and Bust in the Shrimp Aquaculture Industry 323
    3. An important service provided by mangroves is coastline protection against
    wave action. Preliminary reports after the tsunami disaster of December
    2004 indicate that villages located behind intact mangrove stands incurred
    significantly less damage than those unprotected by mangroves. Governments
    in the tsunami-affected region have announced intentions to
    plant mangroves to provide buffering against future tsunami events (FAO
    2005).
    4. Shrimp are farmed in other coastal ecosystems not featuring mangroves,
    e.g., tidal flats in subtropical regions. The ecological footprint will be different
    in other ecosystems but the concept can still be applied.
    5. The fully documented model in STELLA Research 7.2 is available from the
    corresponding author upon request. The model includes detailed sector
    descriptions.
    6. For discussions of eco-certification and eco-labeling policies for shrimp see
    the website of the Network of Aquaculture Centers for the Asia-Pacific
    (NACA): http://www.enaca.org.
    Acknowledgements
    The authors wish to thank the four anonymous referees for their valuable comments.
    We also thank Professor Andy Ford for his suggestions for improving the model.
    Finally, a special word of thanks is due to Professor Saeed, who supervised this
    research in its earliest stages at the Asian Institute of Technology.
    References
    Arquitt S. 1995. A system dynamics study of a commodity production system and its
    natural resource base: a case study of shrimp aquaculture in Thailand. Masters
    thesis, Asian Institute of Technology.
    Arquitt S, Cornwell B. 2005. Macro–micro linking using system dynamics modeling: a
    preliminary examination of eco-labeling effects for farmed shrimp. In Proceedings of
    the 2005 Macromarketing Seminar, St-Petersburg, FL.
    Arquitt S, Xu H, Johnstone R. 2003. Boom and bust shrimp aquaculture: a feebate policy
    for sustainability. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference of the System
    Dynamics Society, New York. System Dynamics Society, CD-ROM.
    Bailly D, Willmann R. 2001. Promoting sustainable aquaculture through economic and
    other incentives. In Aquaculture in the Third Millennium: Technical Proceedings of
    the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Subasinghe RP, Phillips MJ,
    Bueno P, Hough C, McGladdery SE, Arthur JR (eds), Bangkok, Thailand, 20–25
    February 2000. NACA: Bangkok/FAO: Rome; 95–101.
    Barbier E, Cox M. 2004. An economic analysis of shrimp farm expansion and mangrove
    conversion in Thailand. Land Economics 80(3): 389–407.
    Csavas I. 1995. Development of shrimp farming with special reference to Southeast
    Asia. Presented

  22. Sorry Graeme, delete it if you want but it is a very interesting study.

    The authors:

    Steve Arquitt is a
    research assistant with
    the Centre for Marine
    Studies at the
    University of
    Queensland, Brisbane,
    Australia, where he is
    working to develop
    system dynamics
    models for improved
    management of coastal
    ecosystems.
    Xu Honggang is
    Associate Professor of
    System Dynamics at
    the School of
    Geography, Science,
    and Planning at Sun
    Yat-sen University,
    Guandong, China.
    Professor Xu’s special
    interests are natural
    resource management
    and tourism planning.
    Ron Johnstone is
    Associate Professor
    and Deputy Director of
    the Centre for Marine
    Studies at the
    University of
    Queensland. His
    research interests
    include investigations
    into nutrient
    interactions between
    habitats and biotopes,
    encompassing
    System Dynamics Review Vol. 21, No. 4, (Winter 2005): 305–324 Received January 2005
    Published online in Wiley InterScience Accepted June 2005
    (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/sdr.313
    Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    305
    a Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. E-mail: sarquitt@uq.edu.au
    b Sun Yat-sen University, Guandong, China.
    * Correspondence to: Steve Arquitt.
    306 System Dynamics Review Volume 21 Number 4 Winter 2005

  23. Like with the terra firma land use, sustainability would also depend partly on our land use laws. So if the enclosure movement goes to far, or if homesteading wasn’t the result of intensive enough usage, then we could still get to unsustainability.

    Thats why I stressed in the case of homsesteading ocean property, it would be for very small patches of very intensive usage. Whereas the neoclassical nitwits would privatise huge areas of ocean, cutting us off from free access.

    Neoclassicals are right into these gigantic deep pocket auctions. Its this tendency that makes me such a supporter of Professor Quiggin on a moratorium with privatisation. Despite having strong disagreements with him in many areas.

    Because the neoclassical types are hard to reason with. And they cannot be trusted with privatisations at this point.

  24. So what I’m saying is that the shrimp farmers ought to be packing more into less when it comes to taking control of ocean surface or ocean bottom. That way they won’t adversely impinge on the general viability of the ocean itself.

    The possibility of taxes for surface and ocean floor but the total tax-free status of operations that float in between is probably where its at.

  25. Moderated Post:

    This overconfident claim from down the thread brings back ghastly memories of the Monbiot-Jones collusion:

    “Unfortunately for Plimer who wrongly says that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans – yes.”

    The fact is Plimer is probably right about this. No-one at this stage has absolute proof on this matter. If Plimer is not right then its likely a close-run thing.

    And I don’t know anyone who could be taken to be more of an authority on this matter than Plimer. Certainly not the people who the various stolen money organisations are hiding behind. They may as well be hiding behind their finger.

    We are talking about an informed speculation. None of us here are in a position to verify it absolutely, and certainly no-one can gainsay it. Its likely very much to be in the ballpart. The studies quoted in opposition are just totally ridiculous and really quite insane. Since the studies assume that landed volcanoes and undersea volcanic activity are of a similar magnitude.

    Nothing could be more stupid than this. And so the Monbiot-Jones affair is a disgrace. And Jones ought to be reprimanded at the very least.

  26. Incredible. So many powerful arguments I make cannot get through. Then the ABC moderators let this one fly:

    Graeme Bird :
    16 Mar 2010 8:35:21am
    “I don’t think you guys get it , the information that is being offered for your consideration is not something dreamt up by some bird-brain sitting in his underwear in front of the computer offering his ……”

    Settle down Wylie. You know women come and read this kind of thing. They may be wearing tight clothing. Some of the young Mothers are liable to faint upon reading your words. Then they might come to again, read your words, and faint all over again.

    You got to be a bit responsible for the images you are sending over the net.

  27. Rudd is almost as slimy as Clinton

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_woman_problem/

    Rudd did not seem to have the same carefree time as a student. We know he cleaned Laurie Oakes’s house and met Rein, but around Canberra Rudd is remembered less flatteringly as a dobber and a wowser. Fairly or not, fingers were pointed at him when a fellow Australian National University student was expelled from the campus residence after authorities were told he was living with a woman who later became his wife. Years later, as Prime Minister, Rudd stripped the respected public servant Hugh Borrowman of a decent diplomatic posting.

    There are those who say there is a connection between these two events, decades apart. I couldn’t possibly comment on that, but simply ask whether it is conceivable Rudd would carry a grudge for so long

  28. Yeah he’s a lunatic alright. But I always said that. And some of you fellows didn’t believe me.

    Here is another astonishing post the ABC has let me get through. A real nasty jab at Tony Jones.

    Democracy is action hey?

    Graeme Bird :
    16 Mar 2010 9:02:23am
    This overconfident claim from down the thread brings back ghastly memories of the Monbiot-Jones collusion:

    “Unfortunately for Plimer who wrongly says that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans – yes.”

    The fact is Plimer is probably right about this. No-one at this stage has absolute proof on this matter. If Plimer is not right then its likely a close-run thing.

    And I don’t know anyone who could be taken to be more of an authority on this matter than Plimer. Certainly not the people who the various stolen money organisations are hiding behind. They may as well be hiding behind their finger.

    We are talking about an informed speculation. None of us here are in a position to verify it absolutely, and certainly no-one can gainsay it. Its likely very much to be in the ballpart. The studies quoted in opposition are just totally ridiculous and really quite insane. Since the studies assume that landed volcanoes and undersea volcanic activity are of a similar magnitude.

    Nothing could be more stupid than this. And so the Monbiot-Jones affair is a disgrace. And Jones ought to be reprimanded at the very least.

    Reply Alert moderator

  29. Magnificent re-interpretation of a scene from the new testament.

    Supposing that the character of Jesus, as described by the new testament, is something of a fictional character…….

    …. this lecture reinforces my prejudice of Jesus as one of the most “zen” characters in all of literature. John Galt is a pretty zen character, just by way of comparison.

    http://mises.org/media/4732

  30. JASON SOON.

    How do you know this is wrong?

    “The Judeo-Christian tradition is targeted for elimination because it is perceived to be an obstacle to the imposition of an ideology of “sexual diversity”. This ideology goes much further than same-sex “marriage”, to cover sexual perversion, such as paedophilia.”

    You just kind of KNOW don’t you? You just have that sort of oriental knowledge right?

  31. Graeme, if this fellow can do it, you can

    http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/fully-sick-rapper-breaks-silence-of-quarantine-20100316-qb5d.html

  32. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lovelock_sceptics_kept_us_sane/

    Green guru James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, praises climate sceptics:

    I think you have to accept that the sceptics have kept us sane — some of them, anyway… They have been a breath of fresh air. They have kept us from regarding the science of climate change as a religion. It had gone too far that way. There is a role for sceptics in science. They shouldn’t be brushed aside. It is clear that the angel side wasn’t without sin.

  33. See I told you he was sound. He was just too old to realise that his younger colleagues were gypping him.

  34. Graeme

    set yourself up to do a daily rant and then post it on youtube. you just might become the next media viral sensation.

  35. Right. But being a virus is not what I’m about. It might detract from my project of education education education.

  36. Come on JASON SOON. Where is your plug for Steven Kates’ lecture at the Mises institute?

    Its a really neat lecture.

    Are you not an Australian-of-the-heart yet?

    This is a source of major pride. And I am most happy that I spoke well of him.

  37. Remember? When I would say I AM THE AUTHORITY OF ECONOMICS ON THIS BLOG, three times out of four I might right …. Kates alone possibly exempted.

    Always Kates would show up as an exception or a caveat.

    I hope he will not be vengeful towards me now that he’s a bigshot.

    Prestige-wise, he’s now second to Gerry Jackson in this country as an economist. Only Gerry beats him from a prestige point of view. Gerry’s vision is wider and deeper. But being well received at the mises institute is the ultimate status symbol for an economist in my view.

    Here I’m copping a wave of the sads. Poor Sudha. She went there and they were all eating out of her hands. They loved her. And they were all taking notes. All the bigshots. It was amazing.

    And there she was when I was out at Gosford. She was up at Newcastle. I could have taken all this annual leave and shown up at some of her lectures. Did you know she was there in 1974 at the original new beginning of the Austrian school!!!

    The pity of it all.

    Sudha we barely knew you.

  38. Graeme
    I don’t blog at catallaxy anymore, I only comment there. I’m expecting Sinclair to do the honours

  39. That is so feeble man!!!!

    Come on. You are an Australian now. Don’t leave it up to that Afrikaner wannabe!!!!!

    Come on man.

    This is your mate here. You stick up for your buds.

  40. I have put it on the open forum.

    But seriously man I don’t even have the log in to blog anymore. I have voluntarily deprived myself of that

  41. Well all you had to do is put it on the open forum.

    Its actually monumental. It may begin to repair the rift between the Austrians and the British-Classical School.

    Which means it will have a tendency to elevate Gerry Jacksons vision, and to further push the Austrian school in the general direction of realising that George Reisman is the ultimate arbiter of modern economics.

    Not to toss their own gear out. Or reject their heritage. But more to realise there is authentic genius in their ranks.

  42. His view is not perfect by the way. He seems to vastly underestimate the role of monetary instability.

    But he utterly destroys the case for specifically FISCAL stimulus.

    Its a total demolition.

    He may think he also undermines the case for quantitative easing/reserve asset ratio policy.

    But few are perfect.

  43. I’m missing the main point I see.

    You put it on the open forum.

    Advance Australia Fair And Righteous.

  44. Hey I have an idea.

    Maybe you could lobby Sinclair to give me special dispensation to have access to Catallaxy just to lavish great praise on Australia’s own returning hero, and long-suffering warrior in the cause of righteousness?

    After all, while no-one has heaped more abuse on Sinclair than I, I did recently acknowledge and praise a very good article he wrote, to do with the Rudd health usurpation scheme, undermining the genius of the self-imposed restriction that the more conscientious thief-team of Costello and Howard imposed upon their own greedy fingers?????

    I mean when he does do good I acknowledge it.

    I’m tough.

    But if I’ve calmed down, I’m usually pretty fair.

  45. Graeme – as soon as we can fix Steve’s access to catallaxy he’ll be able to post his glorious victory at the Mises Institute himself. In the meantime, I don’t want to bask in his glory.

  46. Graeme

    This makes a lot of sense.

    http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/01/can-the-us-economy-afford-a-keynesian-stimulus/

    Note it’s also being discussed on Naked Capitalism.

    Opposing stimulus spending simply doesn’t make sense as a sound economic principle. In fact it is illogical and nonsensical AFAICS.

  47. Thats not true Sal. Stimulus spending is the uttermost idiocy.

    Monetary expansion has its place. But nothing under economic science is more stupid than stimulus spending.

    The demand for consumer goods is NOT the demand for business activity.

    Stealing off one person, and spending the money on another, in no way affects TOTAL spending. Total spending is not constituted by government spending and consumer spending. Actually business-to-business spending is far higher then either of these too.

    Hence taking spending from one area, and then shifting that spending to another, in no way increases the totality of spending. But even if it were to , as policy it would STILL be the height of stupidity. Since we can hit any target we like through monetary policy.

  48. Stimulus spending always and everywhere creates unemployment. Since employment is A BUSINESS EXPENSE.

    So to have higher employment you need more of total spending spent by businesses WITHIN their business. Which means you many need higher total spending. As well as higher business-to-business spending as a proportion of total.

    Note the incredible unemployment in the States at the moment. The result of stimulus spending. Idiotically employed to employ people. But the predictable result was to throw millions out of work.

  49. Paul Krugman make this point. What’s your response?

    “Here’s how I see it: the opponents of a strong stimulus plan don’t really have an alternative to offer. They don’t even have a really coherent critique; as Brad DeLong points out, if you believe that a surge in private spending would raise employment — and even the critics agree on that — it’s very hard to explain why a surge of public spending wouldn’t have the same effect.”

  50. Krugman and Delong don’t understand economics.

    There is no argument there.

    What do you imagine Krugmans argument to be?

    Supposing someone steals 50 dollars you and gives it to me. How does that affect spending in total? And not just on consumer goods. On producer goods, shares etc? Well it just shifts it around.

    And if you small businessman and they steal it off you and give it to me to buy Chinese TV’s then how much have you got for salaries, wages and other business expenses?

    You’ve got less. Thats how much.

  51. Ask someone who knows. This doesn’t include Krugman and Delong.

    But just think it through yourself.

    If anyone claims that there is such a thing as fiscal stimulus…. once that meme-virus kicks in, just keep saying…….

    WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM. Since in all cases you are taking spending from one area and sending it to another.

    Only monetary policy means more spending in total.

    These people are just destroying everything. Its a full-blown tragedy.

  52. Paul Krugman didn’t make a point. He had no point to make.

    Fiscal policy TRANSFERS but does not increase spending. How could it? Where is the money coming from?

  53. Why would it be stealing or have zero effect on social wealth for the government controlled Treasury to act like a bank and loan money to investors who will build stuff that’s socially useful that will create jobs, enhance individual expenditure and savings and thus improve people’s wellbeing now and in the future?

  54. “Leigh is an honest Laborite. He does actually go where the economic evidence takes him.

    Sometimes he is wrong.

    He is worth 2 dozen of the tools featured on Menzies House.”

    SOON he’s a fucking moron. Mate What has gotten into you?

    Or is it my imagination that people like him, Gruen and others are responsible for this vandalisation of our national worth?

  55. Here is where the mantra works.

    If they loan money

    WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?

    If they borrow the money, then loan it, thats not extra spending.

    If they create new money, thats not fiscal policy.

    So always you say, WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM. And you just keep saying it and saying it and saying it until such time as you escape the Keynesian mind control.

  56. Well you got to spend $ to make $ don’t you?

  57. This is where the mantra comes in Sal.

    WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM.

    If they borrow it then lend it there is no new spending. If they create new money thats not fiscal policy. Thats monetary policy.

  58. The Treasury should act like a bank. Loan $ straightup without all the rip offs and dodgy deals of the banks and in the process undercut the banks.

  59. Well they can just print the damn stuff can;t they?

  60. So always you say, WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM. And you just keep saying it and saying it and saying it until such time as you escape the Keynesian mind control.

    Sal, one of the smartest policies (and I think Birdie will agree) is for banks to lend out more money than they have in reserve. This is the surest path to wealth creation and monetary stability that one can ask for.

  61. Wealth creation needs customers as well as manufacturers so I don’t see your point, Graeme. And in that sense as Keynes explained these two groups are effectively one in the same.

    In advanced Western countries post WW2 there was massive stimulus spending by gov’t and concomitant consumer spending and the employment rates were better than in the 1930s before war.

  62. What about even conservative economists such as Robert Lucas and Robert Solow who argue contra your statements that substantial investment and spending by BOTH government and the private sector can ensure sustained growth because apart from anything else it results in a more educated and better motivated workforce which realises the importance of innovation. All of this added up to a good case for MORE government intervention and expenditure according to these dudes.

  63. Catallaxy has Mr Bird rattled to the point where he now denies that the fiscal multiplier even exists.

  64. Chuck I think the key guiding principle or question all societies need to continually ask and discuss is:wealth creation for exactly what purposes (above all others).

    It’s not an end in itself, or shouldn’t or can’t be.

    We’re too clever and meaning seeking and in the end enough of us unselfish (or perhaps selfish, i.e. wanting to survive in the best possible way) for that, surely.

  65. Graeme I think the most widely respected economist in the world today who would be voted so by the vast majority of humanity today and in the future (retrospectively for our age) is probably this dude.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen

  66. Heh i saw an interview with Terry Eagleton who said the Oxford today is resembling the 70s in a way not seen since then, i.e. so much ferment and radical challenging by staff and students on matters economic and philosophical. Sounds good if it is true.

  67. that Oxford University

  68. Thing is Graeme. I think you’ve swallowed neo-liberal economic theory horseshit and when asked to explain you make as much sense as any of those other dudes who specialise in “economics, finance and marketing”. LOL! How infra dig, The final descriptor is a dead giveaway that these intellectual dwarves are not very bright PR/admen men for capitalist hype, waste and exploitation.

  69. Yes Sal they can print money. If its more spending you want this is the only method that is going to work:

    You introduce new printed money via debt reduction and you nuance the effect with by adjusting the reserve asset ratio.

    “Catallaxy has Mr Bird rattled to the point where he now denies that the fiscal multiplier even exists.”

    Chuck you fucking moron. There is no Keynesian multiplier. It would be useless if there was one. Not only does the Keynesian multiplier not exist. Its a self-evidently idiotic and wrong concept.

    You just got to get it through your feeble mind.

    We notice that immediately Sal is beginning to absorb that spending is to be increased by monetary measures. And you you dumb prick, come along and show yourself to be intellectually handicapped.

  70. Philomena. If you want to see all aspects of monetary policy, including the reason why the only sensible stimulus policy is the dual policy of new-cash creation combined with a reserve asset ratio …….

    …… the place to go to is

    talkfinance.net

    I’ve got dozens of posts there explaining everything.

  71. http://www.talkfinance.net/

  72. “We should all wish Andrew well in the preselection – we need MPs who will fight against the tyranny of corporate tax and stand up for the oppressed.”

    Oh my God. What is the matter with you two. He’s a dropkick. He’s got blood on his hands. He’s an incredible moron. And he triangulates with a tax cut and its all forgotten.

    On the same page we have Sinclair buying into the lie that the global warming hustle is the view of the scientists.

    Is there something in flouride that destroys many facets of long-term memory? Sinclair. As you know damn well the scientists, and the science tells you that this warming racket is a hoax.

  73. It doesn’t make the least bit of sense to the layperson Graeme. And therefore you will always lose the PR battle. If you consistently fail to address my legitimate nay irrefutable points let alone persuasively answer the arguments advanced, this means you will forever fail (not personally) but the arguments, objectively fail to convince Everyman/woman.

  74. There is no Keynesian multiplier. It would be useless if there was one.

    Well then how did Rudd’s stimulus package work so successfully?

  75. Well it should make sense. WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?

    You’ve just got to say it and say it and keep saying it until the scales fall from your eyes.

    You take 50 dollars off Peter and give it to Paul you have no reason to believe you’ve altered the volume of spending. In fact it is moronic to suggest so. Keynesians have this neat trick where they get people thinking that only consumer spending is spending.

    You take 50 dollars away from business spending and divert it to consumer spending, how is that less spending in total? It will be less employment in total if its 50 million and not 50 dollars. And obviously so. Since wages and salaries are a business expense.

    I haven’t refused to address your points. When Sal looks at various ways to increase spending through MONETARY policy, then that makes sense. But you cannot increase spending through fiscal policy. That is obviously impossible.

    If your points consist of quoting Krugman, and Krugman isn’t making any valid point, well what can I do.

    The fact remains that monetary policy can increase spending, since when we ask WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM the answer is simple, we are creating new money.

    But deficit spending cannot lead to extra spending. Because we are taking the money out of the system with borrowing.

  76. “Well then how did Rudd’s stimulus package work so successfully?”

    It didn’t work at all. It threw thousands of people out of work.

    It did increase GDP. But GDP is not the sum total of spending.

    I work for a business who only buys from other businesses, and only sells to other businesses.

    This is business-to-business spending. Our spending is what employs me just for one example. And lots of casuals too.

    Yet none of our spending is included in GDP. Because GDP specifically excludes all or most of business-to-business spending. Stimulus packages take spending out of business-to-business spending, where it isn’t picked up in GDP, and tack it onto government and consumer spending.

    Hence the stimulus package INCREASED GDP and REDUCED employment. As I could have told you it would in advance.

    GDP= C+ netI+G+X-M

    GDR= GDP plus business to business spending.

    So GDP doesn’t include that spending that directly leads to employment.

  77. Anti-Keynesianism works. The only caveat being that one doesn’t want to be stupid about the monetary side of things.

    Kates pointed out that Australia came out of the Depression first. The Labour party balanced the budget by 1931, and we were out of the depression in 1932.

    Harding slashed spending and got of of his depression very early. Anti-Keynesianism works, Keynesianism is a long history of unemploying people and buggering things up.

  78. “Graeme I think the most widely respected economist in the world today who would be voted so by the vast majority of humanity today and in the future (retrospectively for our age) is probably this dude.”

    Perhaps. But science isn’t a popularity contest.

  79. “What about even conservative economists such as Robert Lucas and Robert Solow who argue contra your statements that substantial investment and spending by BOTH government and the private sector can ensure sustained growt…”

    There is no mystery there.

    1. They are both wrong.

    2. They are using the wrong metric for “GROWTH”
    So when the GDP goes up with fiscal policy they think to themselves “ah. the Keynesian multiplier” and so they never click to the reality of it.

    If I asked them to prove there was a Keynesian multiplier they couldn’t do it. They’d pull some stunt and run away.

    Also for definitional purposes we have to differentiate between monetary policy and subsidising the banks so they blow up like a great big leech filled with blood.

    Interest rate policy is bank subsidy. Lending banks money at zero interest rates is bank subsidy. These practices are not monetary policy and they distort the allocation of resources and the structure of production. They increase the amount of debt out there. Unlike fiscal policy they CAN INDEED increase the volume of spending. But they ought never be thought of as monetary policy proper but rather enriching the very people who caused the recession in the first place.

    Some say its monetary policy. I prefer to call it enrichment of the culprits.

  80. yawn

    • What do you mean by that you stupid gook?

      What claim are you making?

      If you are claiming that there is a Keynesian multiplier spit it out. So supposing I steal money off you and give it to someone else? Is that likely to start a massive spending uptick from what would have otherwise happened, should the stealing, have not occurred?

      You see you ought to decide whether you want to be an economist or just an idiot.

  81. yes there is a multiplier but it isn’t very effective. see Robert Barro

  82. You are such a moron sometimes Jason Soon. Might you not ever wake up to yourself.

    Now you were saying. So you go out there. You steal a thousand dollars off someone and give it to someone else. That 1000 dollars is not sanctified in some way. And it is now a different thousand dollars then it was. It is now capable of being far more inflationary then before. Sanctified as it is by the stealing process.

    See you are supposed to actually understand your subject. As the fellow said in that show the Paper Chase.

    Do the work Mr Soon. And you won’t have to do the dance.

  83. So in fact there is no multiplier. You have no evidence. And in your ignorance you thought that dropping a name constituted evidence.

    So take it from here. The sanctified stolen dollars, now have this great inflationary power.

    Or you could go with the reality. The reality being that merely TRANSFER the spending, from where it isn’t picked up by GDP, to where it is.

    And Mr Barro picks this up in his stats.

    So we have the magic sanctified dollars theory that you are going with.

    And we have the reality that I’m going with.

    Just learn the material you moron.

  84. So you were in favour of the sanctified dollars theory.

    So what is your reasoning?

    YOU DON’T HAVE ANY. BECAUSE YOU ARE A DOPE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

    Where is your evidence.

    YOU DON’T HAVE ANY BECAUSE YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

    No statistics Barrow can come up with is going to show anything different to what I have proven. The spending is simply sent elsewhere where GDP can now pick it up.

    Thats the reality. You are full of shit.

  85. Are you in fact claiming, you dumb Gook, that GDP is the only spending in the economy?

    Is that your claim?

    See you don’t have a clue as to even what it is you are claiming.

    This is how people behave when they are in fact full of shit.

    They behave like a dumb gook just off the boat.

  86. The better potatoes grow on the highest branches. I have the proof (see Barro)

    Moronic? Yes or no?

  87. Right so lets go over it again because it appears everyone is so damn stupid.

    BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS spending is not included in GDP.

    If you remove spending from business-to-business spending, and redirect it to consumer spending you will not increase TOTAL SPENDING.

    You will not increase BUSINESS REVENUE.

    But obviously you will increase GDP.

    Do you understand that now you dumb Gook? Or did I go too fast for you?

    So what will Barro find? What will he find in his statistics? Thats right? He’ll find a weak multiplier? And why? Because the dumb bastard is basing the mulitiplier NOT ON SPENDING, but on GDP?

    Right. So now that you know that whose right? Whose wrong?

    I’m right?

    And you are a dummy. Because you are wrong.

  88. But how does stimulus spending increase unemployment? Do you mean by default or by direct means? If the latter please explain the mechanisms by which that occurs.

  89. Graeme, the first problem with your Catalexic acquaintances is that there are incoherent and provincial. A double negative whammy for them.

    http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/hbc-90006718

  90. “But science isn’t a popularity contest.”

    Economic theory isn’t science, it’s a soft science, at best, that incorporates (if it is any good) sizable dollops of social psychology and sociology.

    Social autism manifested in individuals undercuts this though, hence why right-wing economists are so narrow and one-dimensional and therefore their work not all that useful or of interest to the masses when economic arguments are frankly laid forth for public consumption and discussion.

    Being right didn’t make Keynes popular either. Though he was right about some things. In the 30s Depression with high unemployment rates and 1000s of banks failing most economists then thought the correct course of action was no action.

    Keynes said this was nonsense and immoral. This is true as much then as it is today. Traditional economists based their inaction prescription on Say’s law of markets which was shown to be hogwash.

    Keynes showed that economies depend as much on people’s perceptions of what is going to happen as on what actually happens. That significant levels of unemployment can be carried by societies without destabilising them or even being of concern to the ruling elite. And that investment is key for increasing employment and promoting recovery.

    From this came his argument that if private investment wasn’t happening the state should intervene through credit and interest rate policies to create jobs. Whether these jobs were useful or merely wasteful in this sense didn’t really matter, he said, because they provide cash that would be spent in real ways, generating income for others, which then would be passed on.

    Not much has changed in that thinking or even support for it, has it.

  91. Stimulus spending increases unemployment DIRECTLY. Since wages and salaries are a business expense, if you divert spending from business spending, to consumption, you are reducing employment DIRECTLY.

    Sal have you ever looked at an income statement? There is your answer right there.

  92. No that does not follow Graeme, business does not have to reduce employment simply because of the cost of wages and salaries. It can cut costs by other means.

  93. Economic theory is indeed science. The effect of the stimulus was utterly predictable. And that it created unemployment is undeniable.

    The problem is that we had other factors as well. The monetary policy had been tight, and it was loosened …. this would have meant more employment.

    The mining industry was booming, then it was put into a slump. That would have lead to unemployment.

    So you had two influences that would have caused immediate unemployment and one that would have lead to employment.

    Not everything about economics is utterly predictable. For example its not possible to know what a tax cut, unfunded by spending cuts would have done to private sector employment. It could go either way depending on what the tax cut was. But a stimulus package always will cause unemployment directly. Since it takes spending from business-to-business spending and diverts it to consumption, or to government spending.

    Good policy ought to have seen unemployment fall straight away net of export jobs. But immediately unemployment started increasing.

    Think of the situation in the United States. Unofficial figures have unemployment at at least 17%. Here we see the devastating effect of the deficit spending and stealing off everyone else to give to the banks. The result is entirely predictable. Everyone thrown out of work.

  94. It does not follow that if it CAN cut costs by other means that they WILL cut costs by other means.

    It follows directly that if you reduce business-to-business spending in one business firm that that business firm might choose to find a way to cut costs by other means. The cutting of those costs is a cut to costs of other business firms of cause.

    But it does not follow that if you do this with millions of dollars to thousands of firms that these firms WILL act perversely in the way you suggest. Because after all if firms act perversely they go out of business.

    So the stimulus packages effects are to throw people out of work. But pretty quickly it leads to higher profits. You get the perverse situation of an alleged “jobless recovery”. This is typically explained incorrectly by recourse to claiming that jobs are a “lagging indicator”. In reality there is no jobless recovery. GDP and profits are boosted. But GDP is not the sum total of activity, and boosting Wall Street and Washington isn’t the same as helping a recovery along.

  95. “The mining industry was booming, then it was put into a slump. That would have lead to unemployment.”

    Any slump was surely the result of a conjunctural reduction in demand from China, nothing to do with Australian government’s stimulus spending. And now the demand for our mineral resources looks set to pick up again, courtesy of China.

  96. “No that does not follow Graeme, business does not have to reduce employment simply because of the cost of wages and salaries. It can cut costs by other means.”

    This is a little bit like saying that more of a good will not be demanded at a lower price, since after all the buyers could choose to respond to a higher price by buying yet more.

    We want to see what the effects will be in reality. Not what the effects would be if we could get everyone acting perversely.

    Measures to stop people climbing Mount Everest may reduce people making it to the top of Mount Everest. On the other hand, someone might still make it. Or a situation could arise that people are STILL capable of making it up to Mount Everest if try redouble their efforts to do so. But we want to think about the effect of the action on what people actually do do. Not the effects of the action, if everyone suddenly started acting strange concurrent with that action.

  97. Um no, if the price of any factor rises, all else held constant, people will employ less of it (not at uniform rates, but cut they will). This is true of all inputs, including labour. In fact, Keynes believed this too – he called for real wage reductions during recessions.

  98. “Any slump was surely the result of a conjunctural reduction in demand from China, nothing to do with Australian government’s stimulus spending. And now the demand for our mineral resources looks set to pick up again, courtesy of China.

    Indeed. But what I”m saying is it can be hard to sort out the matter empirically. Since we know that the slump came from outside, you had that as a factor causing unemployment, then the “stimulus” (no such thing as fiscal stimulus) also causing unemployment, and the monetary policy, because it had been so tight, and now being loosened, causing EMPLOYMENT.

    Because of contradictory factors like this it can be hard to prove economic realities empirically.

    But we can certainly do this is a wider overall sense. Being as that Keynesian policy is virtually always a failure, and idiotic from conception. Whereas fiscal responsibility tends to get great results as far as employment recovery is concerned.

  99. “But GDP is not the sum total of activity”

    It certainly is not. It doesn’t include the unpaid labour of people within the privatised family system without which our economy could not function in the way it currently does.

    It does not include ecological and social externalities, such as the suffering of the unemployed, homeless, etc and the repercussions and toll on society for the fallout of their plight, It does not include the pollution and degradation of our rivers and agricultural regions and the effects on public health of chemical and atmospheric pollution resulting from a largely unregulated or restrained corporate capitalism.

  100. Right. I don’t know if anyone is contradicting that Fisk.

    But there are people who say that deficit spending causes employment. When in reality it throws people out of work.

  101. Right. But it isn’t even the sum total of MONETARY EXPENDITURE. In fact GDP is a small proportion of monetary expenditure. So even without bringing in all those other things you mentioned, it is very strange for people to claim that there is a Keynesian multiplier, because of effects to GDP, when GDP doesn’t represent a very large proportion of spending.

    This is where Soon is being an idiot. Pretending that Barro has some evidence for a Keynesian multiplier, a uniquely moronic idea.

  102. “Um no, if the price of any factor rises, all else held constant, people will employ less of it (not at uniform rates, but cut they will). This is true of all inputs, including labour.”

    Seems a bit simplistic and rule bound. Life proves otherwise. In the public service the price of labour continues to increase because of custom and practice, i.e. residual trade union strength and the ratio of wages to other costs in fact continues to improve to the detriment of expenditure on actual service delivery.

  103. Yes the public service is built on stolen money. The employer cannot steal money to pay for employment.

    So in the private sector if you force wages and salaries up you will get unemployment with total certainty.

    But of course in the public sector, if they are powerful enough to keep stealing more and giving themselves more money, then they are likely to be powerful enough to increase their budgets and their numbers as well.

    Economics is entirely rule-bound. One cannot force wages and salaries up in the private sector, and expect anything else but unemployment.

  104. The capitalist economy is built on stolen money, yours and mine and the majoritarian rest.

    I don’t for an instance think economics is rule bound and neither do most economists I would think. If there were rules then everyone’s life would be a lot easier and a lot less interesting. Fact is no one really knows what is the right policy mix and the prescriptions are all hypotheses. In this way your “science” of economics is like all other sciences, particularly the “hard”. Us feeling our way.

  105. Seems a bit simplistic and rule bound. Life proves otherwise. In the public service the price of labour continues to increase because of custom and practice, i.e. residual trade union strength and the ratio of wages to other costs in fact continues to improve to the detriment of expenditure on actual service delivery.

    My original comment was to include an accusation that you have clearly spent almost all of your working life in the public sector. I didn’t include it because I thought it would be too ad hominem. In hindsight, I should have left it in.

    Obviously, there is no equivalence between the public sector and the private sector. The public sector simply confiscates money (from the taxpayer). Costs are thus irrelevant to the latter, at least in the short to medium term. For this reason, private firms are obviously very sensitive to costs. The private sector has to convince customers to pay for services or goods. As labour costs are usually the biggest single cost to the firm, staffing levels will be sensitive to any change in labour costs. You can’t just “cut money from other areas” if your wages bill has blown out. John Maynard Keynes was aware of the relationship between unit labour costs and employment – he called for wage cuts during recessions.

  106. The capitalist economy is built on stolen money, yours and mine and the majoritarian rest.

    Really? How?

    I don’t for an instance think economics is rule bound and neither do most economists I would think.

    Er, yes they do. They may disagree on the tradeoffs and the significance of economic phenomena, but they don’t disagree that there are basic rules of economics, such as opportunity cost.

  107. But economics is rule-bound. If the economist thinks otherwise he doesn’t understand economics.

    The laws of supply and demand are real laws. The contention that increasing the money supply by a large amount will increase spending is a real law also. The contention that fiscal policy, will be ineffectual at increasing spending, as opposed to monetary policy, is also a law. One that many incompetent economists are unable to grasp.

    To not understand the laws of economics is to not understand economics.

    Businesses don’t work on the basis of stealing. But rather voluntary action. Only the government and banking industries work on the basis of stealing. The banking industry through counterfeiting, the government through counterfeiting and taxation.

    The counterfeiting of the banking industry is greatly assisted through government action. But then again its hard to separate government and banking in many time periods and places.

  108. Actually I have spent less than a quarter of my working life in the public sector and my time in the private sector has included working for some of the biggest corporations that exist.

    The public sector is not insensitive to costs, far from it. It simply is the repository and exemplar of residual trade union strength And an intrinsically good thing that is too in any society that strives to be worthy of the descriptor, civilised.

    This means that for the time being at least it cannot abrogate the first principle of attempting to adequately renumerate and – if you like – *privileging* the highly skilled and committed human beings whom it employs to deliver its essential social services.

  109. But they cannot give themselves pay rises without stealing the money first. Since the non-banking private sector has no such power to steal the money, then the effect of powerful trade unionism, in the private sector will be different.

    And we can say without controversy that strong trade union laws will wind up throwing people out of work.

  110. Employers steal from workers from the moment they hire them.

    We have to work unpaid for a week to a month before receiving a cent. And then we are not paid the full value of our work. That which is syphoned off by the employer in at least a large portion is simple theft.

    Prove otherwise.

  111. No thats not right. Employees cannot steal from workers. Rather they pay to the workers the only income that many of them have.

  112. “And we can say without controversy that strong trade union laws will wind up throwing people out of work.”

    Then how do you account for the fact that real unemployment has been higher in the period of declining union power than formerly in the recent past?

  113. It might seem that way if you don’t have a healthy economy. Since if you don’t have a healthy economy and you have very few choices, you feel compelled to take the first employment that you can get hold of.

    But the very fact of having such few choices is also a function of poor government behaviour, rather anything that a private employer can get up to.

    Of course in a situation of corporatism and cronyism these sort of boundaries are fudged. Since if you have that level of corporatism, its really hard to separate intellectually government and high corporate elites.

    So if we got to where the Americans are in finance for example, then it would be hard to distinguish business from government and the thieving principle would then seem to be universal.

  114. “Employees cannot steal from workers. Rather they pay to the workers the only income that many of them have.”

    Non sequitur.

    Wages are not charity.

  115. Graeme, are you or have you ever been a manager?

  116. “Then how do you account for the fact that real unemployment has been higher in the period of declining union power than formerly in the recent past?”

    You have to see how things have panned out on the ground over time. The later Howard years were pretty amazing employment wise. Unemployment kept falling even in pretty tight times. Meanwhile where I was our ability to negotiate higher wages was completely smashed.

    Now none of this would have been so bad, had their not been more monetary inflation, massive government spending, and the ability of the bigshots in the firms to keep giving themselves stock options and salary rises.

    If stagnating nominal wages had happened in a situation of good policy prices would have fallen. And so my inability to get pay rises through the union power wouldn’t have been a double-edged sword.

    But as things stood it seemed a bit rich I can tell you.

    Nonetheless this work choices did work in reducing unemployment. That it appeared to do so in a less than totally fair way ought not detract from this reality.

  117. “Graeme, are you or have you ever been a manager?”

    I’ve owned my own business. And occasionally I’ve had supervisory roles. Usually unofficially.

  118. “But the very fact of having such few choices is also a function of poor government behaviour, rather anything that a private employer can get up to.”

    Cute, very cute, but absolute rubbish.

    Individual national governments are far from being the main players in determining the economic realities we face. If you believe that you’re living in la-la land.

  119. Owning your own (small) business historically really seems to have been a retrograde thing from the point of view of decent politics and economic progress. It must have something to do with being divorced from the world of collective endeavour and interchange. A recipe for idiocy.

  120. The theory of marxist exploitation isn’t good economic theory. However when policy is bad, and if there is a sort of inbuilt advantage to big business …. if there is credentialism in employment …… when there is rampant money creation ….. then matters become highly blurred.

    This blurring ought not be considered and indictment of capitalism, nor ought it be regarded as confirmation of Marxist ideas about the employer ripping off the “surplus value”

    But supposing you consider Carols Slim in Mexico. And he’s become the richest man in the world, by using corruption and bribery and grabbing hold of the telecommunications industry in Mexico after privatisation. An industry that he neither founded nor built.

    So now he gets to take a premium on telephony charges. Now its very hard under these conditions not to think of this as exploitation. The matter is a highly blurred matter.

    Marx seems to speak to us on the wider sociological level. On the level not of technical economics, where he falls down, but on the wider political economy, where the bigshots can sort of collude with government to bring a certain slant to matters.

    Its true that a lot of us don’t seem to have famously good options in the current situation. Particularly as many of us are armtwisted into debt, if we want our own house and so forth.

    I don’t know the answer to this, but it ought not affect our appraisal of economics under more ideal and well-run conditions.

  121. “Individual national governments are far from being the main players in determining the economic realities we face. If you believe that you’re living in la-la land.”

    Well this is partly true. But consider that it is the result of decades of policy that favours the larger corporations.

    Its a bit of a chicken and egg story. I can put on my wider politics-sociology hat and identify with what you are saying. But if you and I want to talk strict technical economics, thats where a lot of the realities on the ground have to be ignored.

    If we had the last few decades say, of a sort of economics that didn’t favour big business, then even the slant which leads people to look at Marx plausibly wouldn’t be there.

  122. Let me give you an example. The banks in New Zealand when I was young really couldn’t have been particularly powerful. Trading banks and Savings banks were separated. Savings banks tended to act locally. Trading banks could create some money but they followed the impetus of government. If the two were part of a counterfeiting racket then the government was definitely the senior partner.

    Now I can say that under capitalism the banks would have almost no influence. Supposing you say this is naeve. That in the larger countries the New York bankers would control which politicians tended to get elected. So they were inevitably able to exploit free enterprise doctrine to gain even more power. And that they were always going to get their people planted in the government revolving door.

    You might say that this is all inevitable. And that I’m fooling myself that government could implement good policy.

    You see I wouldn’t really disagree with a lot of this. If you are to talk this way I’d be more likely to see you as exaggerating rather then talking in a nonsensical way.

    But STILL it is important to section off economics and analyse it in its most pure form, divorced from this sort of vicious cycle of corporations corrupting government which corrupts corporations ….. .and so forth to ever increasing cronyism.

    So what I guess I would want you to do is to put on your economics hat in some cases. And put on your wider socio-political hat in others.

    Because a lot of what you are saying I can agree with, for the most part on a socio-political level.

    But if we are talking pure economics thats a different thing.

  123. “if there is credentialism in employment”

    I don’t know that that is the major problem now at all. In both the private and public sector it is possible if arbitrarily it may seem for people to advance and prosper, regardless of formal credentials. This is in general a very good thing.

    I think more important than credentialism for success in most areas of employment today, sadly, is the ability to have your face fit, neatly slot into the comfort zone of those who are already there running the show.

    Brave new world that has such people in it.

  124. “You see I wouldn’t really disagree with a lot of this. If you are to talk this way I’d be more likely to see you as exaggerating rather then talking in a nonsensical way.”

    That’s quite generous and gracious of you since I know for a fact you never are guilty of doing either of these things.

  125. “Owning your own (small) business historically really seems to have been a retrograde thing from the point of view of decent politics and economic progress. It must have something to do with being divorced from the world of collective endeavour and interchange. A recipe for idiocy.”

    I don’t think so. I don’t think Fisk is naive either to the machinations of bigshots. Its just that we are in the habit, when talking of economic theory, to talk purely of economic theory.

    So I might be ten minutes into the conversation prior to realising that you are coming from a different angle. From the wider angle. Now you’ve got to ask yourself is this always useful?

    And at the same time libertarians have to ask themselves is it always useful to be imagining how things COULD WORK under idealised libertarian conditions.

    Both modes of thinking can be dysfunctional if one sticks to them and doesn’t approach problems from different angles.

    For example you will find it hard to learn good economics if you were to always smuggle these wider, issues of political power and the ability of big corps to grab some of that political power.

    And for an example of the other situation, libertarians are often arguing the most idiotic policy measures that will reduce sovereignty, since they are often too wedded to how things would work in their more make-believe world.

    An example would be the neoclassical economists claiming that we don’t have a private debt problem. Of course we do. But they will say we don’t and their illogic is that under free enterprise we wouldn’t have one.

    But this doesn’t alter the reality that we have this debt problem.

    Then again if I was explaining to you that under free enterprise we would not have developed this debt problem …… and you might say, well don’t be ridiculous, this naieve. Obviously the international bankers will see to it that we are all enslaved to debt …….

    ….. well this might get in the way of appreciating the pure technical economics side of the case.

  126. I must say the technical stuff leaves me cold. But then that’s the difference between poets and visionaries and plumbers and accountants.

  127. “Its just that we are in the habit, when talking of economic theory, to talk purely of economic theory.”

    Theory can never be divorced from people, reference to people. What would be the point?

  128. Ha ha. Right.

    I don’t think I’m flippant about corporate power. After all I want to phase to 100% backing in banking.

    And I want to have pty ltd to mean 100% equity finance.

  129. “Theory can never be divorced from people, reference to people. What would be the point?”

    For the sake of analysis. To get the theory right and as good as you can get it. Or to learn the theory. You have to break things down to analyse them.

    When all the analysis is done you might still want to clip the wings of the bigshots.

  130. Employers steal from workers from the moment they hire them.

    We have to work unpaid for a week to a month before receiving a cent. And then we are not paid the full value of our work. That which is syphoned off by the employer in at least a large portion is simple theft.

    Prove otherwise.

    You aren’t working “unpaid” for a full month. You are providing services, at the end of which you are paid. This is no different to me hiring an electrician to work on my house, and paying him on the completion of the job.

    Your second argument elicits the reply: so what? As an employee, you haven’t invested anything in the company and are thus not entitled to anything but the marginal product of your labour. Your employer risks bankruptcy to provide you with work and in return you have the privilege of working a wage risk-free. This is a fair and just arrangement – people who save money and risk it on capital investment are heroes who provide us the very foundations of our high living standards. They deserve to make a return on their capital. Every attempt to abolish this system has ended in mass murder, genocide, famine and/or economic depression and breadlines. For some reason, you don’t think there is anything wrong with these consequences.

    The other point I would make is this – there is always a >0 difference between what you are prepared to pay for a product and what you actually pay for it. This is called consumer surplus. According to you, anyone who buys a product is therefore ripping off the company who sells it. Odd.

  131. Owning your own (small) business historically really seems to have been a retrograde thing from the point of view of decent politics and economic progress. It must have something to do with being divorced from the world of collective endeavour and interchange. A recipe for idiocy.

    Small businessmen and women have to cooperate with a vast network of suppliers, customers and employees, the very definition of interchange. Government bureaucrats just steal money from people and provide a sub-standard service for that. It is thus not surprising that bureaucrats have exterminated hundreds of millions of people in the last century.

  132. I’d have to endorse pretty much everything Michael says here. We mustn’t muddy the waters talking about excessive cumulative advantages to big business. Rather we must deal with that problem directly.

  133. Humphreys vs Rudd

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tamed-idealist-after-pms-seat/story-e6frg6nf-1225842558731

  134. 221 Billion dollars in deficit for the month of February alone in the US.

    That ought to be amazingly stimulatory right SOON. After all. It is your belief that the government stealing or borrowing makes those dollars SANCTIFIED and special in some way. And your stated belief is that these sanctified dollars then become magical high-velocity dollars. Creating knock-on effects, simply by virtue of the magical quality of them being stolen or borrowed.

    I’ll tell you what. See if you can get the moron Humphreys to back you up on your sanctified dollars theory. After all he told me that cash balances are a resource. He doesn’t think that the cash balances are what BUY resources. Dumb bastard thinks they are a resource in and of themselves.

  135. The historic origins of private wealth and private property are important for understanding capitalist property relations today.

    To clarify my remark about employer theft, private property began not as Proudhon et al thought, with theft, but with the treatment of all common property – the Common Wealth – as the private possession of the king (or equivalent) whose life and welfare were identified with that of the community.

    The separation and division of the property of royal or priestly estates began with the bestowal of gifts by absolute rulers (gods’ representatives) upon fellow nobles, supporters, servants etc in reward for services done. When it passed from the common wealth it could be passed on, subdivided or used to augment wealth.

    By around 1700BC when the Code of Hammurabi was promulgated, detailed laws dealing with private property – its transfer, loan, bequest – reflected the dev’t of this new legal entity of private property.

  136. I think there are serious matters arising from the reality that land wasn’t taken into possession via sound homesteading principles. We ought not go quite so far to make it an alternative to original sin. Certainly that history is a good reason to be easy on poor people. And to try and take the tax burden off them.

    A smaller government at least has the potential, to be easier on poor people. Since a smaller budget means you don’t need their money THAT MUCH.

    That land was not taken to private property via the intensive effort put into improving it by the fellow who roped it off.

    Generally speaking we want roped off land to be used pretty intensively, or not have it roped off at all.

    We want this to be part of our exploitation of the ocean as well.

    That land was not taken into ownership by the best methods possible may lend weight to a sort of Henry George-lite position. I myself would not be happy about further land tax except in the context of government falling in size and when monetary reform had already been dealt with. But eventually we want a lot more nature corridors. But on the other hand we have a lot of resources locked up in nature reserves that ought possibly exploited without doing grave harm to biodiversity.

  137. “The Second Austrian revival is dated from the collapse of the financial system. http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=1d638a70b2&e=aefe4de8f1

    The Austrians are running hot! Pity that the guys at the Mises Institute have nailed their colours to the strong philosophical form of apriorism which is philosophically crass, is not necessary to extract the benefts of the tradition and creates problems with other Austrians and the mainstream of economics.”

    Thats Rafe. The epitome in intellectual excellence with the exception of his explicit epistemology. Which is just no good.


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: