Posted by: graemebird | April 30, 2010

Blindingly Fast Results On Productivity Improvement Easy To Come By.

The first thing we have to do is find a better metric for measuring productivity. We have productivity as a concept. And productivity as a metric. Now its usually the case that no one mathematical-metric, to measure a concept of this sort, is adequate. Perhaps we need several measures. Our economists tend to look for the one best metric. This is because they are acknowledged dummies. When we see me here concentrating on one metric it is for brevity alone. Most particularly GDP is a bad metric wherein any quarter-to-quarter comparisons are to be made. GDP is a lot better as part of a formula, if we are making comparisons between two different economies, or between two different decades. But whenever we try and use GDP for quarter to quarter comparisons we wind up with stupidity and Keynesianism as the result.

Now its very important to understand that the monomaniacal tendency to only use one metric at a time is fundamental to the economists dysfunction. They will either ignore this point or come up with dozens of lame reasons and distractions to stick to this bad habit. Since if we were able to make them an offer they couldn’t refuse, so that they had to use a few metrics in every setting, then people would tend to find that the metrics based around gross domestic revenue, produced understandable results, more in keeping with common sense. When we see this zeitgeist in place that makes dumb blokes like Mark Hill believe a dumb concept like the Keynesian multiplier, and for Sinclair Davidson to lie about this same concept to the Senate, then we are seeing a system with all types of dysfunction. I was on a well-known economists site not long ago, trying to sell him on using more than one metric. He was fixated on nominal GDP for the purposes of deciding on monetary policy. This was an incremental improvement on what his fellows were up to, but he was utterly fixated on using one metric only. And he thought he had found the one true measure. This formula-monogamy, when it comes to measuring concepts for the economy as a whole, is a big part of why these economists are such incredible slow learners.

I will be concentrating on one metric. But only for the purpose of this thread.
Here is the main metric we ought to be using to measure productivity for the economy.

(Gross Domestic Revenue/Consumer Price Level)/(Number of Hours Worked in the Economy)

Note that we have banished GDP from the numerator and replaced GDP with GDR. Gross Domestic Revenue is Consumer Spending + Government Spending + Gross Investment + Exports – Imports.

Just to show that this is not the only measure I could use, so that I won’t be accused of formula-monogamy…… I could pull out GDR from that productivity metric and instead plug in:

Gross Investment + Exports.

The full formula of productivity then becomes:

((Gross Investment + Exports)/(Consumer Price Level))/Number of hours worked.

I actually like this second measure a great deal. It will be a more motivating metric, since it will be more responsive to good policy. It will also have the function of being a “leading indicator.” Whereas the first formula would be more a measure of how things are, the second will give us a better feel for how current policy will effect future economic progress.

Back to the first formula:

(Gross Domestic Revenue/Consumer Price Level)/(Number of Hours Worked in the Economy)

Up front let us see a situation where this metric could be misused if we decided that productivity was the only thing we were to worry about. What we could do is reduce the denominator to increase the absolute value of the metric. We could fire as many taxeaters as possible, but at the same time we could restrict work hours and increase the minimum wage. Doing all of the above our tunnel vision would indeed lead to massive productivity increases in the short-run via the use of this metric. Obviously this would not be a good thing as people were sitting around on the unemployment benefit.

Another way to abuse the metric would be to blow out the numerator via currency debasement. We could massively expand the money supply, but in an effort to stop this being neutralized by faster increases in the consumer price levels we might use regulation to force credit card balances down and otherwise restrict consumer finance. Now this might also work for awhile. But the currency debasement would reduce the efficiency of Gross investment, thus not giving us a fair measure of productivity.

Another measure we could take, that may or may not be good in an of itself, but that would overstate this metric, would be to have policies that favoured smaller business, thus multiplying the number of legal entities. All these extra legal entities would increase the number of times goods changed hands between legal entities and this would show up as a higher growth rate in Gross Domestic Revenue.

Another objection is of course one that comes up with regards to GDP. Where non-commercial work is concerned, for example home-making, well this is of course not included in official metrics. As valuable as such work clearly is. Still because we have only commercial hours worked in the denominator, this is less of a problem for this metric then it is when you are plotting GDP or GDR straight.

A further objection would be if we were so desperate to increase our measure of productivity at the expense of despoiling the environment. Pouring poisons into the oceans, air and water. This sort of thing. So always we have to remember that even though we have come up with a better metric this doesn’t mean its a perfect metric. There is never one perfect metric. This is something that the economists act like they do not comprehend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

PRODUCTIVITY OF CAPITAL GOODS INPUTS.

Its completely unnecessary to try and confuse labour productivity with other types of productivity. Note that in the Judith Sloan article, she used some mystery metric called “multi-factor productivity.” Whatever this mystery metric is made of, what we can see is that it brings a layer of arbitrariness and lack of transparency into the situation. Furthermore productivity of capital inputs will likely go backwards in a progressing economy. Reducing productivity of capital inputs is not necessarily a bad thing. It could mean that we have capital accumulation, which is a good thing.

WHAT FACTORS WILL INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY OF CAPITAL INPUTS.

1. Improvements in technology.
2. Management adaptations in the use of this technology.
3. Cultural changes leading to more “around the clock” rostering.
eg. responses coming about as a result of the Ken Henry congestion tax.

Now all these might be seen as good things. So why not mix them up? One reason is we can keep them separate in a different metric. So there is no reason to mix them up. The urge to do so is part of the obsession with the ONE BEST METRIC that economists seem to have. A second reason is that we expect productivity of capital inputs to REDUCE with capital accumulation. And capital accumulation is the key thing that we are after. Just in passing if we want a really good measure of the productivity of capital inputs, in order to judge the results of policy, we would also wish to have a metric that factors out this effect of capital accumulation. A measure of capital accumulation might be GDR/GDP which indicates how long and sophisticated is the structure of production. This might be a corrective factor to measures of capital inputs productivity. Although it might be that a better correction factor could be found.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Back to our main measure of human productivity:

(Gross Domestic Revenue/Consumer Price Level)/(Number of Hours Worked in the Economy)

Now my boast is that we can increase productivity very quickly. In a matter of months. Indeed we can. If we sacked all the taxeaters and they sat around spending their redundancy money and on the unemployment benefit this would give us a positive result that was partly a real positive and partly a false positive.

The key to getting fast increases in productivity is to massively increase the resources available for gross investment, in the context of business decision-makers knowing that they had to invest now in order to be able to reduce their prices later. The best first step to doing this is to put ourselves in massive budget surplus by going through a list of all the federal agencies that we can close right away, without getting people killed. We follow that up with closing those government departments that need to be closed carefully over time. Then we follow that up by arm-twisting the States into doing likewise.

We also want to convince all the sacked public servants to forego any redundancies by giving them tax exemptions that are more valuable to them then these redundancies. The formula for tax exemptions need to be handled in such a way as to produce a ready-made electoral constituency for hard money and falling prices. As well these guys would clearly have access to the benefits that centrelink offers. But in accepting any such benefits we would rig it that they were disproportionately eating up their tax exemptions by accepting this money. Also since fractional reserve banks are fundamentally part of the same parasitical racket, in the course of getting rid of fractional reserve banking, we might be prudent to offer these same faux-redundancies to people working in finance. This may appear to be a despicable thing, to be so generous with bank workers, but we need to be practical from an electoral point of view.

Growth domestic revenue growing at about 1% per quarter is probably appropriate in the longer run. But getting debt levels down to where this would be practical is a longer run thing. So I will assume that in our first year of reform we will target gross domestic revenue at 3% in the first quarter 2% in the second, 1% in the third and 1% thereafter. This gives us Gross Domestic Revenue growth of just over 7% in the first year of reform.

Lets look at our primary productivity measure again:

(Gross Domestic Revenue/Consumer Price Level)/(Number of Hours Worked in the Economy)

We see that under these reforms Gross Domestic Revenue will increase 7%, and prices will likely fall a little bit. Labour hours will be much the same. Hence we will get very strong increases in labour productivity straight away. Too the extent that we don’t we will likely get an improvement in our exports and balance of trade.

So using our second metric:

((Gross Investment + Exports)/(Consumer Price Level))/Number of hours worked.

We might find productivity improvements where the first metric didn’t show them yet. If the improvements in productivity were almost all on the spillover to an improved balance of trade then a third metric would reveal this fact. That third metric might be:

((Gross Investment + Exports-Imports)/(Consumer Price Level))/Number of hours worked.

So we can rest assured improvements in productivity almost immediately. But if we wrongly use GDP:

(Gross Domestic Product/Consumer Price Level)/(Number of Hours Worked in the Economy)

Then we are likely to get a false negative with these policies. As a matter of fact productivity may well be increasing hand over fist but our idiotic GDP metric could very well be pronouncing us in recession. Profits would be very low after all. Business would likely be squealing. All the bigshots may well be complaining and saying that we were in recession. Yet your average punter would never have had it so good.

Now people this is no small thing, this dysfunction in the economics profession. We have to sort it out.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Let me guess.

    1. ban fractional reserve.
    2. mass sackings of tax eaters.
    3. profit.

    • One and two yes. Actually the actions necessary would reduce profits. The idea is to take the tax off profits. Because there will be a lot less profit around.

      I’m just thinking how stupid people are. Look at THR always talking about marxist economics. Talking about profits falling. He has no clue. But these matters have been resolved, so he’s sort of half right but doesn’t care to know what the reality is. If he wanted to know how it is that average profits wind up falling he could just ask. Good policy tends to reduce before tax profits.

  2. Mr Edney,

    Waltzing in here pretending like you are Mr Bird’s new best friend is not going to cut it. You might not be a greazy wop or a inscrutable oriental, but you are a crony capitalist pig just like Cambria and Soon, and a science fraudster to boot.

    Mr Bird has serious points to make. Don’t turn this blog into a pig sty with your worthless comments.

  3. I’m sure that Bird can look after himself glover without needing Quatermain, Hansen and your assistance.

  4. Bird

    Obama isn’t gay then?

    NATIONAL ENQUIRER CLAIMS OBAMA CHEATING SCANDAL…

    ‘Hotel security video could topple Obama’s presidency’…

  5. Yeah he’s cheating with another bloke. Where is the evidence?

  6. Look at this. The Italians exhibiting the Cambria understanding of economics.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/02/weekinreview/02marsh.html

    Cambria swore black and blue that you cannot cut spending during a recession. He has no knowledge of economics. Look at what happens when you have that many dumb wops all in one place.

    We are missing out on the most wonderful opportunity. The opportunity of the century. The idea is just to send all these banks broke. Everyone could just repudiate their debts. A great way to get these parasitical banking scam-artists out of our lives. All the banks should be bankrupted. We have to do this. We really have no choice. We will carry these parasites at great cost to ourselves.

  7. It appears that everyone except black Africans have some Neanderthal genes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html?pagewanted=2&ref=science

  8. btw thanks for the compliment but I’m not behind your twitter account

  9. Right. But you have form. You denied black and blue that you were Winchester. As soon as it was clear that you were Winchester your powers of characterisation declined.

    It seems that attempts to hide the author, when creating a character, is an integral part of character development. None of the three fakes have been able to do as good a job since their identities were revealed. Look at THR’s excellent work as Kevin, the Chinese Eastern suburbs rapper. He was really serious about not letting on who he was. Being able to fake this process appears to be part of the art and science of character creation.

  10. Which of course brings us to a second suspect.

  11. Neaderthal appears not to have died out. But rather may have retreated to the niches where he has a military advantage over humans. The deep forest at night.

    Lloyd Pye thinks that Neanderthal is one of the four hominids. Sasquatch being another. He calls the one he thinks is Neanderthal “The Alma” and there is record of a Russian Alma female having hybrid babies. So that 1-4% gene may have been something that has happened over time. There may be human genes in the hominids and hominid genes in some humans.

  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(cryptozoology)

    “Myra Shackley and Bernard Heuvelmans have speculated that the Almases are a relict population of Neanderthals, while Loren Coleman suggests surviving specimens of Homo erectus.”

  13. More evidence that the cretin Mark Hill understands nothing about economics.

    I SEZ:

    “Cambria swore black and blue that you cannot cut spending during a recession. He has no knowledge of economics. Look at what happens when you have that many dumb wops all in one place.

    We are missing out on the most wonderful opportunity. The opportunity of the century. The idea is just to send all these banks broke. Everyone could just repudiate their debts. A great way to get these parasitical banking scam-artists out of our lives. All the banks should be bankrupted. We have to do this. We really have no choice. We will carry these parasites at great cost to ourselves.”

    THE IGNORANT FOOL MARK SEZ:

    “No, JC mentioned that if you had a good fiscal policy and budgetary prioroties, there wouldn’t be much more to cut than welfare…..”

    Thats fucking a tautology you fucking moron. Let me repeat. Cambria, being a stupid cunt, swore black and blue that one cannot cut spending in a recession.

    Did you catch it this time you fucking moron?

    Again:

    Cambria swore black and blue that one cannot cut spending in a recession.

    Did you read it this time you fucking idiot? Thats what his claim was!!! And it wasn’t in the context of some fantasy, wherein we were already a minimalist government you shit-for-brains.

    Lets go again just to make sure you’ve got it:

    Cambria, being a stupid cunt, swore black and blue that one cannot cut spending in a recession.

    Am I going too fast for you Mark you blockhead?

  14. “No, JC mentioned that if you had a good fiscal policy and budgetary prioroties, there wouldn’t be much more to cut than welfare, which does have a staboliser element and is politically undoable.’

    Here is the ignorance. There is no such thing as an “automatic stabiliser” in any fiscal sense you fucking ignorant cunt. Because fiscal policy DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING. It redirects it you fucking idiot. I suppose we might concede that there could be a regional stabiliser effect. If it is the case that regional areas have higher rates of unemployment. But thats still a redirection of spending. Not an increase you dummy. What a fuckwit you are.

    “Other than that, if Bird wants to live in a paradise with broke banks, he can always move to Greece in a few months time.”

    I’m sorry. I don’t see an argument here. I said we have an opportunity to get bank parasitism off our backs and we ought to take it. Here I guess I was speaking on behalf of the Europeans. Since they can get rid of their parasitical banks simply by repudiating their debts.

    So obviously if you have parasitical activity and you get rid of it, you are going to be better off. But no. Mark too stupid to understand that.

  15. Cambria is a liar. He has now changed his little mind but he won’t admit it.

    Lets get this straight. Cambria, being an idiot, swore black and blue that you must not cut spending during a recession.

    Dumb cunt hey? Just shows what little he knows of economics.

  16. From ABC Unleashed:

    Graeme Bird :
    06 May 2010 10:26:40am
    We’ve got to stop calling this a “Greek Bailout.” Its no such thing. Are we so much like Pavlovian dogs, bitch-slapped around by bankster abuse, that we cannot see this thing for what it is? Its just another bank bailout. Its just another way we will be subsidising bigshot bankers for their wealth-destroying activities. They are supposed to send capital resources to wealth-creating activities. Instead they send these resources to subsidise budgetary slackness and vote-buying.

    Why oh why don’t most of the rest of you want to see these rich-slobs out on the street? We will never be free of these wealth-destroying banker-elites if we do not apply the free-enterprise rules. You destroy wealth you are out on the street. Pretty simple.

    Reply Alert moderator

  17. Graeme Bird :
    06 May 2010 10:54:43am
    Banks do lend to bankrupts. And they should pay the consequences of destroying wealth in this way. Politicians and cops are two groups easy to corrupt. So in fact the banks dysfunctional behaviour goes beyond merely wealth destruction.

    Greece must have every government body in surplus and then they ought to renege on their debts. They would be doing us all a favour, to get some of these useless banker millionaires out on the street. These are people who ought to be contemplating their exalted self-worth from the prism of the local version of centrelink.

    Reply Alert moderator

  18. It gives me the shits when the ABC take such a long time to approve comments. I have a whole string of comments I’m trying to get through on this idiots thread:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2888700.htm

    The results of my investigations into the Kennedy hit. JFK, Bobby and Martin Luther King were all murdered by government action. Government (but not administration) action is also proven in the case of 9/11.

  19. Logged moderated post:

    JFK, Bobby and Martin Luther King were all murdered by government action. Government (but not administration) action is also proven in the case of 9/11.

    Its not as if these conclusions are even open to rational contradiction. These conclusions follow directly from the decision to follow the evidence. If you don’t want to follow the evidence you get to believe anything you want to believe.

  20. Mr Bird,

    Cambria the senile wop probably can’t remember that he once said the opposite. I think I have raised this issue with you before Mr Bird.

    Cambria is a trader and his mind must work like the volatile froth which dominates a ponzi-money fueled market. It rushes too and fro drifting along whatever way the wind is blowing. He is trained to forget anything concrete, tangible and true in the pursuit of being able to sniff the scent of the latest bubble with which to defraud honest creators of wealth.

  21. Exactly. Good explanation. I just had him down as a dumb wop.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    One of the many smoking guns that prove government action in 9/11

    98 seconds into the video there is a clear shot of the appendage that the experts are talking about. You cannot miss it. Its Starboard side. Which means left if viewed from underneath.

    Its not a shadow as some moron at ABC Unleashed is claiming. Anyone who claims he cannot see it is lying.

  22. oh my god

    which govt Bird?

    are you now saying Bush was behind 911?

    you nutter

  23. No of course not. I’d expect it to work akin to the Kennedy hit. Except, in the case of the Kennedy hit, the plot was workshopped all the way up to LBJ and Edgar Hoover. Sort of helps to explain their immensely impressive co-operation later on, dealing with Southern racists.

    Secretive government organisations ruthlessly reinforce their mistakes. Hence it could be that by now the organisational virus that started with the Kennedy hit, has metastisized, to such an extent, that you have black projects able to operate ruthlessly outside of the administration, who are after all out-of-town blow-ins.

    I haven’t yet seen anything linking Bush or any other administration official to the planning of this thing. You would however wonder if they could be intimidated after the fact.

    LBJ and Hoover didn’t formulate the plans for the Kennedy hit. They just went along with it. I didn’t claim that it was specifically an LBJ murder (one of many it turns out.) They are the two most responsible however. Since strident opposition from either of them could have put an end to it.

    Its a fact that the US government was involved. You aren’t going to think so because you don’t believe in following the evidence. If you decided to ruthlessly follow the evidence then you would have no choice in the matter.

  24. Those Jew Bastards.

  25. Graeme, last time I looked most Europeans think the US gov’t was behind 9/11 and did from the beginning and one can only surmise what much of the rest of the world thought besides that the US “had it coming” which it most certainly did.

  26. I don’t know if Jews are over-represented in spook-town Ron.

    The problem is that with the Kennedy business, we know virtually all the people who were involved. We know the whole story. This 9/11 is different. It will involve an immense number of people. But what is the structure of it? Where do most of the people come from? Is there a node with the bankers? With the military suppliers? With the non-profits like the Ford and Carnegie foundations?

    Could it be confined to the Pentagon and the CIA?

    It will be big and multi-departmental. It may be multinational.

    “Ok so we all knew Bird was a Truther but he only used to believe there was more to it than met the eye. But now he’s completely jumped the shark. He thinks the US govt was behind 911”

    Right. Even before youtube it was obvious that regime intelligence was involved. I wouldn’t have suspected the Americans at all. So as it started to become clear that the plan was too big for dumb Arabs to carry off. Hence I switched my suspicions to the leftover Soviet regime apparatus. Such was my aversion to thinking that the American would have done this thing. As it turns out the Americans built on what was already afoot.

    The planning for this contingency may have gone back decades.

  27. I see the far right BNP bombed out in the British elections. Catallespians will be sad. LOL.

  28. Bank defaults by governments and heads of state are nothing new. Greece has been bankrupt before and so has Italy and England and other European states. Elementary historical knowledge about such matters goes a long way, but is something the far right lacks because it’s mostly comprised of ignorant dullards.

    State bankruptcy has usually come about because bank loans cannot be repaid because state expenditures have been unmanageable not least because they have been associated with failed or protracted foreign wars. There is a direct correlation if not cause and effect mechanism between the US financial crisis and its massive foreign war and military expenditure.

    9/11 was an important means for the US to over-ride the Vietnam Syndrome which we see was never really overcome. Thus the US has to withdraw from Iraq and is unable to expand its exploitative, aggressive wars in the region, aside from the deeply unpopular Afghanistan fiasco.

    State bank defaults if unavoidable are to be welcomed, even, since they can clear the decks politically and open things up for a potentially better resolution for the majority.

  29. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PRODUCTIVITY AS A TOPIC? WHAT I’VE WRITTEN HERE IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE AMERICAN SCENE. WITH CURRENT POLICY SETTINGS THE AMERICANS WILL NEVER RECOVER FROM THEIR RECESSION. THEY WILL BE PERMANENTLY IMPOVERISHED AND WILL EVENTUALLY COLLAPSE, IF POLICY ISN’T MASSIVELY CORRECTED.

  30. I think that the Americans ought to withdraw from these countries. But the move ought to be made on its merits. We don’t want to mix up original sin with that decision. We Australians ought not have anything to do with this war however. We have an ally who we cannot trust. One who has run out of control.

  31. “Graeme, last time I looked most Europeans think the US gov’t was behind 9/11 and did from the beginning and one can only surmise what much of the rest of the world thought besides that the US “had it coming” which it most certainly did.”

    Those two propositions are somewhat in conflict with eachother. I’m pretty slow on the uptake. Most Europeans seem to have beat me to this conclusion by seven and a half years. Its really only this month, May 2010, that I’ve finally come over.

    You hear various things and one doesn’t necessary go to a great deal of effort to confirm them. I heard that about 30 billions within Washington’s budget may be black projects. I cannot vouch for any figures.

  32. Graeme, you appear to have deleted a few of your main blog posts, just wondering why.

  33. If I’m hung over first thing I do is take those blog posts private. Then later I check to see if they are a reasonable representation of my attitude and if not I wipe them.

    On the other hand I think you may be reacting to a few posts I merely brought to the front. So for example I had the post about how bad and wrong taxing profits is. I believe in a tax system that lets the poor off the hook. I believe even in taxing bigshots. But taxing profits retained in the business can never be acceptable.

    Anyhow I brought that one to the front because it became topical. And later I returned it back to its rightful position, based on when I first wrote it. Same with another couple of posts brought to the front.

  34. Graeme Bird :
    08 May 2010 10:16:41pm
    Imagine a war breaks out in 15 years time. You are watching it on the TV. You see a Raptor flying and suddenly one of its wings come off. That will be “directed energy.” It could be microwave laser. None of us have any good way of knowing where they are with this technology right now.

    Where 9/11 is concerned multiple explosions are seen, running up the buildings, in non-random patterns. There is simply no doubt that the buildings were rigged up. But whoever did this would have left nothing to chance. So who knows what other technologies were brought to bear? Whatever was used it was enough to have melted iron running down to the basements. All three basements. So forget any JIVE about it being melted aluminium.

    The US is a country of 300 million people. A country whose Federal government spends more money than any other in history, with a massive amount of secrecy, in many areas of this government, that was a function of the cold war and all those thousands of nuclear weapons that were pointed at it.

    What precedent do we have to exclude the possibility of a government sector running right out of control and doing any number of illegal things? We don’t have any such precedent. Nor is the current fetish with discounting all conspiracies, a true representation of any sound understanding of history. From Caesar, up until the present, conspiracies have been pretty thick on the ground. Perhaps moreso in some times and places. Try reading up on the Byzantines for example. The whole place was awash with intrigue for great chunks of that milenium long history.

    If we are coming into a new age of conspiracy, then people may simply have to accept it. In any case there is no excuse for not coming to grips with evidence. Video, audio, witness and scientific. Its all there.

    This reasoning from smarminess and a sense of unjustified superiority isn’t cutting it. This form of smug pseudo-reasoning, never made it into my Schaums outline on logic.

    Reply Alert moderator

    • “The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory…”

      STOP RIGHT THERE YOU FUCKING MORON. WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT YOU ARE. EVEN ONE (1) ANOMALY CAN UNDERMINE ANY THEORY. THAT OUGHT TO BE FUCKING OBVIOUS YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

      THATS IT. YOU ARE ON MODERATION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU ATTEMPT NOT TO BE SUCH A BRAZEN-AND-BELLIGERENT DUMB-CUNT.

      • Never heard of Michael Shermer but by most intelligent accounts he’s an intellectual lightweight so anyone citing him as an authority on anything automatically gets the discount wand.

        Sorry Ritchie. But you don’t seem to get this is a blog of ideas. Cutting-edge ideas put forward by people who think. If you don’t think or feel or do anything useful intellectually or emotionally, then you best stick to washing the car – or equivalent.

      • “Never heard of Michael Shermer but by most intelligent accounts he’s an intellectual lightweight…”

        Who exactly is saying that Michael Shermer is an intellectual lightweight? Please post who they are and their qualifications.

        I SAID SHERMER IS AN INTELLECTUAL LIGHT-WEIGHT. BECAUSE HE IS. HE’S NOT THE BLOCKHEAD THAT PLAIT IS. BUT HE’S REALLY NOT VERY BRIGHT.

        WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH THE SO-CALLED “SKEPTICS” IS THAT THEY NO LONGER RESPECT THE PRIMACY OF REASON AND EVIDENCE.

        THEY NOW BELIEVE IN THE TRUTH OF AUTHORITY, NOT IN THE AUTHORITY OF TRUTH. A TOTAL TURNAROUND IN THE MOVEMENT SINCE THE 1970’S.

        GOOD CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE MOST ASSUREDLY CUTTING EDGE IDEAS, AND ALMOST BY DEFINITION. SINCE THEY EXIST ON THE BORDER OF WHAT IS AND IS NOT KNOWN. WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT GOES ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AUTOMATICALLY. HENCE CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE CUTTING EDGE, SINCE THEY ARE AN ATTEMPT TO USE DELAYED OR SECONDARY INFORMATION, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ACTUALLY DID GO ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

        HENCE CUTTING EDGE HISTORICAL SCIENCE.

        IN THE SAME WAY AS THE JOB OF NATURAL SCIENCE IS ALWAYS ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT KNOWN ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD.

  35. Congress Of Australia. Different from the American Congress. Less talk and more action:

  36. I gave these blokes a bit of a talking too about responsible ethics. By all means, a do what you need to do to take control of the situation. But these repeated hits to the head and head-stomps. Well thats Mark Read level psychopathy.

    The instructor ought to have his people practice both the motivated viscious take-down and the harm-minimisation approaches. If you are going to be all or nothing about it, don’t bother learning martial arts. Just carry a concealed unregistered handgun, with poison tips.

    All payback and self-preservation measures ought to be ethically calibrated. The fact is people do stupid things now and again. Their punishment need not always be permanent brain or spinal damage or facial disfigurement.

  37. Hmm. Africans may be “the only pure modern humans”.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,693198,00.html

  38. “Those two propositions are somewhat in conflict with eachother.’

    Not necessarily.

    If the US gov’t was behind 9/11 for the purpose of softening up the American people for extended war and invasion with subsequent massive loss of life and $ expenditure involved in pulverising Iraq, that doesn’t negate the possibility that 9/11 may also have occurred as an external (to the US) reaction to longstanding and continuing US foreign policy which in a circular or reciprocal way provokes and elicits equally predictable foreign and US national response.

    And so the wheel of suffering, waste and catastrophe endlessly spins…Thanks to the US.

  39. The US is also responsible for the economic state of Greece today. Its historic meddling and exploitative record in Greece is yet another source of shame for the US the most anti-democratic and racist of national states in world history.

    • Well. Some rogue elements in the United States I’m sure. We don’t want to blame all Americans for the sort of crazed behaviour that Perkins has owned up to.

    • This is exactly the sort of behavior we have to find a way to avoid in Australia. Bob Ellis thinks the CIA was involved in bringing the Whitlam Prime Ministership to an end. Thats certainly a bad enough slur on our sovereignty. But in the future its China that we’ll have to try and neutralize. And I don’t see how thats possible, with so many Chinese agents in the country.

  40. Birdy, did you see this? Multiculturalist tribute from young Arnhem Land Aboriginal men to Greek Australians in NT community who assist and work with them.

  41. Do your own research.

    And conformist believers are by definition neither intellectual nor cutting edge.

  42. Unbelievable. What a complete fuckwit Ritchie is. To make such a full-blown attack on reason, evidence and the scientific method. Truly the voice of tribalism and the dark ages.

  43. Another 146.5 billion dollar gift to the banks. Ludicrously called a “Greek Bailout.” Its a bank gift. Thats all it is. This is huge fraud on the part of the financial system. The Americans and the British people seem to have bought into this bullshit. But the rest of Europe isn’t going to wear this without hitting the streets.

    How much more are we going to give as a present to the banks. We still have the Irish, the British, the Portuguese, The Italians and so forth. Even two trillion more dollars isn’t going to bail the bankers out. Because if you impoverish mainstreet, how the fuck does mainstreet then get up off its ass and pay back all these ponzi-loans that banks have extorted into existence?

    You see this racket all works fine so long as there is enough left over for wealth creation. What happens when we are already working the long hours, and it isn’t enough for government and financial sector parasitism?

    There is simply no getting out of this recession. Yes of course you can jack up positive GDP for awhile, but this is no measure of recession outside of quackademia. There is almost no economic health anywhere in Europe or the Americas.

  44. Graeme Bird :
    09 May 2010 9:09:50pm
    Its such a one-sided argument isn’t it? Here we have two competing conspiracy theories. The Arabs-alone theory. The augmented take-down theory. We pit one hypothesis up against the other and we find that the Arabs-alone theory has NOTHING going for it. Nothing at all.

    Then we see that the augmented take-down theory, has ALL the video evidence. ALL the audio evidence. ALL the circumstantial evidence. ALL the witness evidence and ALL the scientific evidence on its side.

    And even more. We see that the usual sheeple are in contempt of the evidence, and are vigorously pushing, the truth of authority, as opposed to the authority of truth. And its not hard to tell whose on the right and wrong side here. Its just the usual suspects.

    Reply Alert moderator

  45. Graeme Bird :
    09 May 2010 9:34:17pm
    There is no physical explanation for the towers coming down, that is consonant with the Arabs-alone conspiracy theory. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar. Since the first two explanations that were even loosely “official” were in defiance of Newtons third law of motion. In other words these explanations were incompetent, or baseless lies.

    So we HAVE NO physical explanation that can back up official lies.

  46. Graeme Bird :
    08 May 2010 1:35:51pm
    Why would such a weapon be not one of the contributing causes? You think you are being sarcastic. Thermate appears to have been used. You’ve already seen the appendage fixed to the plane. A clear shot 98 seconds in. Directed energy and laser are indeed in weapons research projects. Many weapons research projects are indeed classified. A microwave laser arrangement could quite plausibly be used to assist in bringing a building down.

    The whole point is that the American government has become massively large and whole chunks of it are secretive.

    Reply Alert moderator

  47. Graeme Bird :
    08 May 2010 11:29:40am
    It appears that it happened via controlled demolition, using thermate. That is where the evidence is pointing. Its at least possible that other methods were used, that would come under the general topic of “black projects.” There is a sizeable research budget for such secret military projects.

    There seems to have been a lot of overkill used. Setting up a false generic story, by force-feeding the press is more important than using nuance to pull the project off.

    There is abundant evidence for such force-feeding. Notable amongst the evidence is the BBC reporting that building seven had fallen, when the building was clearly still in view, behind the BBC reporter presenting this “news.”

    Reply Alert moderator

  48. Graeme Bird :
    08 May 2010 12:45:47pm
    Now you are just embracing irrationalism and contempt for evidence. Yes the same objections apply to Newtons view of gravity. Newton didn’t have an explanation for gravity. He just had a few mathematical formulas. So the mainstream doesn’t have a serious view of gravity. They are after all public servants. And this is indeed a scandal.

    Molten iron in all three basements is no irrelevancy. To say so is pure irrationalism. The Arab youngsters, with their box-cutters, were not able to leave the molten iron in the basements. If you are committed to the contempt of evidence and embracing irrationalism, you might want to exempt yourself from these discussions. Since if you follow the evidence this implies government (but not necessarily administration) involvement. Whereas if you are in contempt of the evidence you can believe any conspiracy theory you choose to.

    We have to understand that we are in a unique time in human history. Never have we had these huge governments, with gigantic budgets, wherein the left tentacles know nothing about what many of the right tentacles are up too. The US appears to have become a sort of airbrushed Pakistan. If it doesn’t decide to downsize to its constitutional limits then the Republican experiment will end in disaster and wickedness.

    Reply Alert moderator

  49. Graeme Bird :
    08 May 2010 1:58:19pm
    “I agree that the Kennedy hits and Martin Luther King hits are cases where it is likely that there was secret involvement by members of Government. On the other hand you’ve also got to remember Watergate, where it was shown that a simple break in by a president could not be covered up.”

    They would have got away with it. But a major newspaper and the FBI, decided to maliciously bring that administration down. W. Mark Felt was number two at the FBI. You had the number two guy at FBI meeting with two young reporters in the shadows. If the FBI and some of the big newspapers in New York decide they want to expose the 9/11 coverup then we may be in luck. But Otherwise we probably have to survive another 50 years to find out who the many culprits are. Each of them will have the alibi, that if they didn’t go along with it they would have been assassinated.

    Reply Alert moderator

  50. Birdlab, my stalker, can barely make a post without lying:

    “Hilariously, Bird is now claiming the WTC was brought down by a death-ray…”

    Never once have I made any such claim. Still the moron Sinclair jumps on it and starts talking about gravity waves. Whereas I’ve never talked about gravity-waves. I don’t even know if there is such a thing. Gravity travels in waves? How does it then exhibit a pull-force? Who knows what Sinclair is talking about. He apparently believes in the Keynesian multiplier. He cannot explain it, cannot bring evidence in favour of it. But still he believes it.

    We have a lot of superstitious people in quakademia it seems.

  51. We already know for a fact that the three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Here is architect Richard Gage, explaining why the Arab youngsters COULDN’T have brought the three buildings down with two planes alone.

  52. “They must be stopped before they kill again.’

    That ought to be obvious. Once you murder your way into a corner, you are likely to kill your way out. There is no upper limit to the amount of lives that are on the line here. The culprits will be pushing for a major war in order to hide the killings necessary to stay out of trouble. How else can they get out of trouble? When it is manifest that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

  53. Google “fatty Osama”

  54. ““Free banking is the only method avaiable for the prevention of the dangers inherent in credit expansion. It would, it is true, not hinder a slow credit expansion, kept within very narrow limits, on the part of cautious banks which provide the public with all the information required about their financial status. But under free banking it would be impossible for credit expansion with all its inevitable consequences to have developed into a regular — one is tempted to say normal — feature of the economic system. Only free banking would have rendered the market economy secure against crises and depressions.”

    Well yes of course. You need free banking and no fractional reserve.

    On the other hand if the fellow is advocating fractional reserve then his ignorance and unreason in this matter doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

  55. that was Mises you idiot. and yes he advocates free banking and no position on fractional reserve

    MISES WAS NOT IN FAVOUR OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE YOU IDIOT. YOU ARE SUCH AN IDIOT YOU THINK “FREE BANKING” MEANS “FRACTIONAL RESERVE”. MISES DID NOT USE YOUR TERMINOLOGY IDIOT. HE DID STOP SHORT OF SAYING THAT FRACTIONAL RESERVE OUGHT TO BE OUTLAWED. HE WAS ALWAYS AGAINST THE PRACTICE HOWEVER.

    “FREE BANKING” LIKE ANY PHRASE, YOU IDIOT, ONLY MEANS WHAT THE SPEAKER INVESTS IN THE PHRASE. HOW “FREE BANKING” GOT TO MEAN “FRACTIONAL RESERVE” AND NOT “FREE BANKING” I’LL NEVER KNOW. BUT MISES WAS NOT IN FAVOUR OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE. RATHER HE WAS IN FAVOUR OF FREE BANKING.

    FRACTIONAL RESERVE IS NEVER A GOOD THING. DOESN’T MATTER WHO SAYS OTHERWISE. FREE BANKING HOWEVER IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING. BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME AS FRACTIONAL RESERVE. CAPICHE?

  56. http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/05/mises-and-free-banking-why-is-there-a-debate.html?cid=6a00d83451eb0069e20133ed61540d970b#comment-6a00d83451eb0069e20133ed61540d970b

    There *are* passages in Mises where he argues against “fiduciary media.” (I think those have to be read in context, as I argued in that series of posts last year.) Along comes Rothbard, taking on the mantle of Mises’s student and interpreter, who reads his own 100% reserve position, derived, I would argue, at least as much from an ethical position as an economic one, into Mises and makes it part of the Austrian “canon” in MES and later writings. So, by transitivity, if Rothbard=100% reserves and Rothbard=Mises, then people read Mises that way too.

    And “coming of age” as a libertarian in the late 70s and early 80s, (in the “Pre-White” years 🙂 ), 100% reserves WAS the Austrian alternative to central banking. I believed in it at that time. If Murray said it was the Austrian position and you could find some quotes in Mises that appeared to back it up, then it must be Mises’s position as well.

    In the post-White years, the story is more complicated I think and is as much about the internal politics of the Austrian movement as it is about economic theory and the actual texts in question.

    To read Mises as a 100% reserves supporter is to disrespect him as a historian of economic thought and a great monetary theorist. The guy knew his shit and he understood monetary theory better than just about anyone who claims his mantle on any side today. To think he rejected the basics of monetary theory that inform the ME/FB argument is to say that he didn’t understand some pretty fundamental economics.

    The Rothbardian reading of Mises, both on banking issues and the related issue of the cycle, has taken many folks down a particular path of understanding that seems to prevent them from stepping back and looking at what Mises actually said.

  57. Right. I see you are getting it. But its your bonheaded approach to things wherein if Mark Hill calls fractional reserve “free banking” then you expect Mises to mean the same thing from the same phrase. But free banking is not the same as fractional reserve. And fractional reserve is always an attack on the price system.

  58. “The Rothbardian reading of Mises, both on banking issues and the related issue of the cycle, has taken many folks down a particular path of understanding that seems to prevent them from stepping back and looking at what Mises actually said.”

    This is too funny.

    This is typical of a certain sort of ubiquitous genuflecting before obscure, long-dead male geezers by gormless academic rightists and is reminiscent and smacks of nothing so much as earnest, benighted Western Stalinists circa 1967 quoting the beloved leader or some long forgotten and discredited state propaganda stooge or charlatan elevated by said leader to the position of seer and soothsayer.

    Truly, “libertarians” of the economic right are today’s Healyite nutters.

  59. When you practice pyramiding of any kind, illegal or not, you are attacking the pricing system. There is also no need for it, since with copper, silver, gold, and platinum, we could easily have enough metal stored to cover the money supply.

    One form of fractional reserve would be far less of an attack then what is the norm. That would be a licensed arrangement for local coin-makers. If the local coin-makers weren’t allowed to get into general bankers. And if they could have a ONE-THIRD ONLY legal ability with fractional reserve. So there was one third in the coin itself. One third at the place of business in ingot form, and one third loaned out.

    Since the money supply would be a stable one third above the stored and coined money, it would not be as damaging as other forms of fractional reserve.

  60. Thats right Philomena. Mises may have been a great economist. But Jason is being a moron not dealing with the issue straight. Its the authority of reason he ought to be working with, and not relying on things, by reason of authority.

  61. Graeme, polemical reliance on philosophical or technical texts even of the greats, mindlessly hoping for the efficacy of their concrete application in dealing with today’s socio-economic conundrums is a fool’s game.

    History and texts are important but there is no substitute for a flexible open mind and the ability to think outside the box, to realise there are never permanent enemies or allies in politics and that being motivated by caritas and social concern rather than individual or group hatred and bigotry gives an incalculable probably unbeatable advantage to practitioners in all endeavours, individual and collective.

    This the confused, rather forlorn and ineffectual economic Right has yet to learn.

  62. “Abbott is peddling the global cooling myth saying that the world was warmer during the times of JC (ie Christ and Caesar, not the idiot known as Cambria)

    He really has to be the worst alternative prime minister since Creation”

    Its rog who is the idiot here and Abbot who is quite correct. We have been on a downhill cooling trend for 5000 years and each of the warmer periods (like the medieval and 20th century warming periods) are lumps in a general downhill trend.

  63. Which makes me wonder about the sudden burst of stupidity from John H. You always think John H is getting better. But he shows bursts of mental weakness in the face of propaganda.

    The Roman warm period is nowhere near as strong against the downhill trendline as the 20th century warming is. Yet the average temperatures were higher then they are now. So I wonder what could have gotten to John H. He is fundamentally a backslider and weakminded in the face of the science fraud.

    Abbot is right. John H and rog are wrong.

  64. I only say these terrible things about John H, because of my admiration for John H’s sense of what science is all about. Out of the people that were on Catallaxy only five people had a good sense of the scientific method. Myself, John H, Currency Lad, Rafe was absolutely superb in practice, but not in theory, and I have to assume Professor Kates.

    The next tier down was dover beach and Sinclair Davidson. Since Sinclair is a professional scientist its a bit disappointing that he cannot lift his game and be more like Rafe. Fisk slots in above Sinclair and Dover. And will probably be the smartest of all one day. I assume he’s a bit younger than the others.

    Then after that the rest of them have no idea about the scientific ethos. They used to talk about the “generation gap” between the World War II crowd, and their baby boomer offspring.

    But this massive leap in understanding between what constitutes good science and what doesn’t, thats a far bigger leap in my view.

    Now the thing is I stand out as the best. Rafes stated epistemology (as opposed to his excellent more visceral epistemology, which reminds one of Hutt) is just silly. John H has had a head injury and he is superb but he falls to pieces in the face of his colleagues being full of shit. I imagine he is like Lovelock. Superb but taken in by his colleagues. But Lovelocks got the excuse of being really really old. I cannot judge Kates properly. I don’t think he can speak openly given his position. And CL has shown on a couple of occasions that he’s not willing to apply his abilities and follow the rules, all the way through, without fear or favour.

    I’m certainly not ranking Currency Lad lower on the grounds of being a believer and a Catholic. I don’t think Nicholas of Cusa or Aquinas have to apologise to anyone for their religion either. And I’m not making excuses for losing my temper. I already said I ought not have done so.

  65. Elsewhere we have two women who are fantastic on this score. Jennifer and Joanne. And look how they are treated? Jennifer shows up in town and where is her standard blog party? Where is her get-together at the Clock Hotel? The invitations weren’t forthcoming. The party was not organised.

  66. Get over it Bird you are just jealous of my scientific understanding, because you can’t do maths.

  67. I can do maths. I’m excellent at maths. Twice I missed out on getting 100% by making some irrelevant and stupid mistake. The first time it not labeling the x-axis. My maths teacher illegally went through my paper before sending it off. He wanted one time to have one of his students get 100% and he was putting all his hopes on me. It cut him up bad. Of course he could have cheated and just written a small x right there his own self. But where we come from we wouldn’t even think of doing such a thing. He wasn’t far from retirement Mr Clayton.

    Anyhow he gets to the staff room all cut up, and the old lady, who replaced him as head of department, was bearing witness to this fellow being cut up about never ever in his entire career having anyone get 100% in a nationwide test. So I’m not sure if my Mother was laughing at him, trying to rub salt into the wounds, or trying to cheer him up.

    But my Mum says ….. Its not the end of the world. Bridget might get 100%. I think he just glared at her, like Washington might have glared at someone before drawing his sword. He wasn’t real real happy.

  68. Gaede is great at maths apparently. Its got nothing to do with anything. Its simply superstitious to think that you can work backwards from the formulas, to try and pretend you can find out anything that you don’t already know.

    I’ve felt the buzz in fourth form physics class when you feel like this might be possible, in that all the physical units start canceling. This is the same buzz that Jason Soon and Humprheys felt when they found out they could jimmy the loan market with fractional reserve to increase loanable funds. But thats just macromancy, whereas your silliness is Pythagorus on mushrooms and hard hooch.

    “No formula that mankind has ever come up with to describe physical reality works, except within a prescribed range. None. Nor will mankind ever come up with a formula that contradicts me on this matter.”

    The above is Graeme Birds first law of physics.

  69. “If only Reagan could have seen it:

    Video: American troops celebrate victory in Red Square.”

    Right. But this will be Obama, angling for a serious war. He is there to destroy America. And he’s doing a magnificent job of it. I find it all very sad. I won’t kill him while he’s still pretending to be President. I’ll wait.

  70. “No formula that mankind has ever come up with to describe physical reality works, except within a prescribed range. None. Nor will mankind ever come up with a formula that contradicts me on this matter.”

    The above is Graeme Birds first law of physics.

    Your law?

    139
    “A physical theory must always have an associated domain of validity.”

    Title [The Investigation of the Physical World
    Author [G. Toraldo Di Francia
    Publisher [Cambridge University Press
    Place Pub [Cambridge
    Date [1976 Eng. trans.

  71. But did he specify those fucking formulas? Those special relativity morons give all sorts of mystical weight to formulas. I have never seen people get so fucking het up about something like Maxwell’s equations. They may as well be Allah’s equations for the rancour that doubting them gets you.

    No formula is right. None of them.

    Of course you are right. This is the way we all used to think before the modern decay of science.

  72. Sure Bird. “Illegal marking” of coordinate geometry. Can you find the triple integral of a function or explain null space?

    1. “Can you find the triple integral of a function”

    I’ve done easy examples like this before. I think this comes under “linear algebra.” Its easy enough to learn that one up. The terminology is so much in the distant past. But if I’m onto the right thing you might wind up with:

    (x-5)(x+3)(x+2).

    2. ” or explain null space”

    No such thing. Too easy. What a stupid mindless concept that would be.

  73. Mr Bird, as far as we can all see your role in the rightwing enclave of the Oz blogosphere remains as it reportedly began, i.e.

    You Came
    You Saw
    You Conquered

    and the cringing minions of the right are all still struggling to remain afloat in your wake.

  74. Great word-portrait of trader sociopaths.

    “If there is a new Mussolini in the US to maintain order, he’s good with that. If they start putting people on trains to resettlement camps in the southwest, he’s ok. If there are starving people in the streets, it doesn’t bother him because he lives in a gated community. If the middle class gets crushed by a new market crash that is ok. He made a killing shorting the Crash of 1987, and was able to enjoy the resort where he spent the winter even more than ever because they were so few people there.

    “I would like to say he is an outlier, a one of a kind. But he is not. He is typical. He is driven purely and almost solely by personal greed, and he makes no bones about it. Life is a war, and he wants to conquer you.”

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/05/goldman-sachs-overreach-hubris-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JessesCafeAmericain+%28Jesse%27s+Caf%C3%A9+Am%C3%A9ricain%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

  75. Right. Its come to that. Under hard money, without fractional reserve or any other pyramiding schemes, after all transitional problems have been dealt with, then there is no conflict of interest between Wall Street and main street. But right now the system is so horribly corrupt that its gotten to a stage (matters to do with superannuation funds exempted) that a gain for Wall Street is almost that same loss for the rest of us.

    What hurts matters so much at the moment is that your average punter doesn’t see these country bailouts as financial sector subsidies, and pretty much straight looting of the non-financial sector, by the bankers, bigshot brokers and various other financial sector hangers-on.

    As Carl Boomerang Williams pointed out on Catallaxy, while you all were sleeping, the night before last, the bankers, through their politician junior partners……

    (((((this appears to now be the case in the first world Northern hemisphere, that the bankers have reasserted themselves as the true ruling class. Though this be a subjective estimate. As is the subjective estimate that they are not quite the senior partner where we are))))))…..

    … the bankers through their politician gimps, managed to steal a trillion dollars.

    Who would have thought that a new nobility could arise in our midsts, that could steal a trillion dollars between dusk and dawn? It boggles the mind.

    For years on Catallaxy I tried to teach people monetary economics. But always the stupid people, the monetary cranks, the Keynesians, (crypto and otherwise) the banking industry know-nothings, and the general run of bully-boy sheeple, relentlessly filibustered the threads, such that almost nothing could be learned by the non-participatory readers. See how humans, when they group together, usually tend to act like they were part of some conspiracy, even if few or none of them are.

    Its such a simple subject you know. If you rely on the right people to teach you and are willing and able to block out the numbskulls and faux-experts, who charge in and disrupt matters, whenever anyone mentions the subject of money.

    But its an easy subject. And if people could have learned it while they had the chance, then they would see this new trillion dollar banskter heist for what it really is.

    Some lefties and even some of those terminally handicapped with the Keynesian outlook, have started finally to get a grip on monetary economics. For example this essay by Professor Keen, is a fantastic piece of work. I see the essay I’ll link below, as not only a fine essay from an economics standpoint. But also I see it as an impressive application of the scientific method.

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

  76. Here is Danny Schecter, discussing these appalling thieves.

  77. DON’T COME HERE TO FUCKING TELL LIES. AND I DON’T APPROVE OF YOUR ONGOING GRATUITOUS VENDETTA AGAINST THIS PERSON AT CATALLAXY. CAN’T YOU FUCKING REALISE THAT YOU OUGHT TO PULL BACK FROM THIS SORT OF GANG-BANG STYLE ABUSE? YOU SEE A GENTLEMAN LIKE GREENFIELD. YOU JUST HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT THIS HAD GONE TOO FAR ONCE, AND HE PULLS BACK FROM THAT.

  78. Look at this incompetent gutless moron John Key. Firstly the gutlessness:

    “Wellington – New Zealand Prime Minister John Key will not meet the Dalai Lama during his scheduled visit to Auckland next month, a spokesman for the trust organising the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader’s programme, said on Wednesday.

    “There can be only one reason for that, and that reason is China’s political and economic influence in New Zealand either directly or indirectly,” Neil Cameron, of the Dalai Lama Visit Trust New Zealand, said in a statement.

    “The issue of human rights abuses in Tibet by China no longer concerns New Zealand governments.”

    Such a fucking worm, he doesn’t feel like he can have a chat with the old fellow.

    Now might we expect that this alleged conservative has held out against the wave of resurgent Keynesianism?

    Not on your life. Read what he says here? Where are the spending cuts. The blockhead must be conforming to the Cambria idiocy that you cannot have spending cuts in a recession.

    “MONICA ATTARD: Now you’ve put up a $25.1 billion stimulus package over six years, two thirds of which will be tax cuts. Will the tax cuts be enough do you think to stimulate the economy at this point in time with conditions worsening by the day?

    JOHN KEY: Probably not solely in its own right, I think they will provide important stimulus. I mean we’re pretty stimulatory for the year ended March 2009 our stimulus will be around about 2.8 per cent of GDP, I think Australia is still under one per cent.

    WHAT THIS MORON KEY IS SAYING IS THAT THE NEW ZEALANDERS ALREADY HAVE DEFICIT SPENDING AND THIS BLOCKHEAD IS GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE. THIS FUCKING BANKSTER IS SAYING THAT NEWZEALAND IS BLEEDING RED INK EVERYWHERE AND HE’S GOING TO ADD 4.2 BILLION MORE TO THIS RED INK, JUST WHEN CONDITIONS ARE TELLING US THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD ALL THIS SPENDING.

    So we were fairly stimulatory before we even started you know the tax cuts that we’ve been rolling out. The following year we’re a bit under one per cent for stimulus so again around we’re roughly where Australia is at. Yeah I think that’s part of the equation but you can only do so much in that regard.

    We will be bringing forward infrastructural spending, I think that’s important. We’ve got quite a big infrastructure deficit over here but I think the real gains can also be made in stripping back some of that red tape, some of the bureaucracy, some of the things that are holding our businesses back because whether you’re in Australia or you’re in New Zealand, the government is a decent slug of the economy, a third or 40 per cent in our case over here with local government combined.

    SO THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR SPENDS 40% OF GDP AND HERE IS JOHN KEY, SHIT-FOR-BRAINS, INCREASING THIS AMOUNT.

    But in the end, over half the economy is being driven by the private sector and it’s their confidence to invest and their willingness to invest, that ultimately create a momentum.
    So we could help them and send the right signals, but we need them to be part of the solution and what that means is yes there’s some things the government can do on the sheer fiscal side and there’s some things the Reserve Bank can do on the monetary interest rate side. But it’s ultimately the private sector seeing a better patch that will help them invest as well.”

    ITS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS MORON EQUATES BANK LENDING WITH BUSINESS INVESTMENT.

  79. John Key used to work for Cambria. Maybe he still does.

    ITS NO JOKE THE DYSFUNCTION OF OUR CULTURE JASON. YOU OUGHT NOT BE GLOATING ABOUT IT. ULTIMATELY ITS YOUR BENEFACTORS THAT WEAR ALL THIS CAPITAL DESTRUCTION. THINK OF THE BULLET WE DODGED WITH MALCOLM TURNBULL. WHAT A DISASTER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

    IT IS TRUE THAT THE TWO OF THEM LOOK LIKE THEY ARE WORKING FOR THE SAME HEAD NAZI. THATS SOCIETY. DON’T YOU GET TIRED OF PLAYING THE “YOU SAID CONSPIRACY” TRUMP CARD. IT HAS NO BASIS IN LOGIC YOU DUMB GOOK.

    WHY DO YOU DO THIS? ITS JUST EXACERBATING. SURELY YOU WOULD WANT TO ASPIRE TO MORE FULLY USE YOUR NATIVE GIFTS, INSTEAD OF DEVOTING YOURSELF TO THE MOB AND ALL THINGS STUPID AND UNSCIENTIFIC.

    I WAS READING A BOOK BY EDMUND BURKE YESTERDAY AND WILL READ IT SOME MORE. ONE JUST IS REMINDED THAT PEOPLE TOOK PRIDE IN USING THEIR BRAINS ONCE UPON OF TIME, RATHER THAN MISUSING THIS VITAL ORGAN. WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE MAN? YOUR PEOPLE MUST HAVE HAD THEIR AGES OF REASON, OR ELSE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AT THE CENTRE OF WORLD PROGRESS, DURING SO MUCH OF THEIR HISTORY. SURELY YOU OUGHT TO IDENTIFY WITH THAT HIDDEN PART OF YOUR CULTURE RATHER THAN MERELY TRANSFERRING BELLY-CRAWLING FEALTY TO THE EMPORER, INTO THE SAME BELLY-CRAWLING FEALTY TO THE RIFF-RAFF, THE QUAKADEMICS, AND THE PYRAMID AND CURRENCY DEBASEMENT COTERIE THAT APPEARS TO HAVE STUNNINGLY REGAINED POWER OF LATE.

  80. Moderated from elsewhere:

    “…How so? There was paper and scraps of paper blowing all over the place after the buildings went down…”

    People ought to stand up and think before they sit down and type. Why would anyone equate papers from INSIDE THE BUILDINGS with papers from INSIDE THE PLANE?

    If the Arabs alone story is true, no paper from inside the planes could survive. Smashing into the building, at that pace, the whole plane being instantly ripped to shreds, covered in burning fuel, and people expect Atta’s passport to survive, but no other papers from within the plane at all to survive, just those papers. Just those papers but no others.

    No lets just stop being silly. Clearly the passport was planted as part of the media-force-feeding needed to get away with the covert operation. Do the Arabs-Alone conspiracists look at animations and things? Or do they simply make it all up in their heads?

  81. Mr Bird,

    For once the silver-tongued china-com agent speaketh the truth. John Key used to work for Cambria and even if he not taking orders, is still clearly owned by his corrupt wop mindset.

    We should expect nothing less than a complete descent into a crony-capitalist state. New Zealand will soon resemble 1990’s Russia. Pity your homeland Mr Bird.

  82. Well it is my homeland and it is very upsetting. Because all this red ink being spilled everywhere means that all sorts of people will not be able to get meaningful jobs.

    Red ink throws people out of work. Always did, always will.

  83. Look at bonehead Mark Hill. Instead of counting on evidence the shit-for-brains has substituted the editorial policy of alleged academic journals. Even here he’s talking bullshit.

    “What’s wrong with it? Warming exists but the degree of certainty in accounting for 50% of the recent warming to human activity is less than what academic journals accept. ”

    Actually its not possible to know what is going on in Marks head here. Probably not even by Mark.

    Does anyone remember evidence? What a fucking moron. The culture really is unwinding. Think of how healthy the culture was in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Now its just falling to pieces.

  84. How about the idiocy and anti-economics of the new Rudd-Swan nurses subsidy. Unbelievable. Wonder if Gruen and Leigh participated in that one. Of course the Financial review, disgraceful paper that it is, proclaimed this new incompetent policy as a revolution.

  85. admit it graeme. this is a good article by Kirchner

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/population-zealots-aim-at-the-wrong-targets/story-e6frg6zo-1225865198595

  86. “No formula that mankind has ever come up with to describe physical reality works, except within a prescribed range. None. Nor will mankind ever come up with a formula that contradicts me on this matter.”

    The above is Graeme Birds first law of physics.

    Philip Anderson who won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work on superconductors had a similar view. Instead of arguing for underlying order, his view was that there’s a hierarchy of order, that each level of organisation in the world, and in biology in particular, is independent of the order in the levels above and below.

    “At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalisations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry…you mustn’t give in to the temptation that when you have a good general principle at one level that’s going to work at all levels.”

    • Exactly. Think of any formula. Newton’s formula to do with gravity. Works well for planets in our solar system. Works well around the house. Take it to galaxy-wide level and its already useless.

  87. Mr Bird,

    I have just checked up on this Anderson fellow and it seems that he does not really share your opinions. He is into Quantum quackery it seems. One would also assume him to be a global warming bed wetter given his siging of a petition for urgent implementation of socialism in response to it.

  88. Mathematics is not the be-all and end-all either. Just ask John Barrow, currently the Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at Cambridge. He said science exists only because there are limits to what Nature permits and that all our scientific theories show us there are things the theories cannot tell us.

    Barrow built on Kurt Godel’s theory that there are things mathematics cannot tell us, and argued there are limits that arise from our humanity and the evolutionary heritage we all share, which determine our biological nature, and e.g. our size. There are limits to the amount of information we can process. The great questions about the nature of the universe may turn out to be unanswerable, a theoretical impossibility even, he says, because for one thing the speed of light is limited.

  89. Dude has to eat and pay the mortgage doesn’t he? What is he going to do? Come and ask me to help him ease into a base level manufacturing job?

    Until the science maffia is thinned out in the next really big tsunami, you will find that every government scientist has to speak their language, just to be able to pay their credit cards.

    Nimitz used to break the speed of light with microwave, traveling through air. Now he’s got to pretend he’s sending it through a small “wormhole”, something that doesn’t exist, just so as to keep his work alive.

  90. Barrow wrote “Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits”.

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0jRa1a4pD5IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+barrow+%2B+Impossibility&source=bl&ots=uyg3Otvi9x&sig=JQRcMhNKMZFCYWWuNk9JsTB5Njg&hl=en&ei=c0LqS7mNIIG8sgOFvdzcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

  91. Look at this fuck-nuckle Mark Hill:

    “Bird doesn’t realise how out of his depth he is”

    What a dickhead. What he’s talking about is me assuming that he was discussing linear algebra. So you are very clever Mark (fucking dummy). But I was right; There is no such thing as null space. That isn’t changing very soon. Its purely a concept in a branch of maths to do with vectors. So no such thing.

  92. Mark lying that he cannot get onto my site. The cunt kept asserting that there was a Keynesian multiplier. He kept lying that there was one but refused point blank to back his claims up with evidence or argument. Then he hedged his bets by saying that it existed but wasn’t significantly different from zero. Not significantly different from not existing in other words. he Keyenesian. Total shit-for-brains. And a liar too. I told him he wasn’t to lie about it, and had to come up with evidence an not wrong assertions. And now the lying cunt claims he’s banned.

    If he stops lying and makes an argument, not an assertion, I’ll let his post through. But the mentally handicapped cunt seems to not know the difference.

    Now he lies and claims he said something sensible about the global warming fraud. He didn’t.

    Look at bonehead Mark Hill. Instead of counting on evidence the shit-for-brains has substituted the editorial policy of alleged academic journals. Even here he’s talking bullshit.

    “What’s wrong with it? Warming exists but the degree of certainty in accounting for 50% of the recent warming to human activity is less than what academic journals accept. ”

    WHAT IS SENSIBLE ABOUT THAT?

    Actually its not possible to know what is going on in Marks head here. Probably not even by Mark.

    Does anyone remember evidence? What a fucking moron.

  93. Yes Ariel. Barrow knows what he’s talking about. But he’s not likely to apply his understanding to abuse the high physics dummies.

    I’m just watching him lecturing. Very interesting. Good tip.

  94. Graeme, I know you have an idée fixe that taxation is evil, but it must be said that Greece’s economic woes historically have flowed to a large degree from the fact that its modern state has had great difficulty in instituting an in anyway adequate system of frigging taxation.

    Today it still has one of the lowest tax intakes in the EU. For this reason it has been forced to rely on foreign loans and investment which have had a deleterious impact in multiple ways not least because this has undermined Greek nationhood and the possibility of genuine national independence.

    More of this medicine is NOT going to help Greece today at all.

    What Greece does need therefore is to implement a genuine transformation of its tax system, including a clampdown on tax evasion by the wealthy. This would have a dramatic impact on the deficit would it not? Greece’s narrow tax base is due also to its unusually wide range of tax-exempt activities. Where’s the economic logic behind spending cuts to pay back loans or reduce the deficit when government spending on necessities, infrastructure, workers’ wages and entitlements, etc., were not the cause of the budget deficit and national debt, but rather the absence of progressive taxation policy?

    And since tax evasion is endemic among Greek businesses and the rich, cutting the income of the one section of society that does pay tax, the poor and salaried workers, will reduce taxation revenues further will they not? Where’s the sense in that?

  95. Supposing Barrow and Anderson applied their ideas in such a way as to ridicule the Physics holy grails of special relativity and quantum physics. Clearly they would not be publishing books or like Barrow, speaking before fascinated audiences. Rather they would be labeled as cranks and they would be next to unemployable.

    So its not hard to retard science by bully-boy behaviour. If you think this is a difficult thing answer the question “Why would it be?” Most particularly when there are legions of real shit-heads ready to go to bat to keep matters in a state of retardation.

    People will filibuster in favour of fractional reserve, of the global warming fraud. of special relativity, the Arabs-Alone 9/11 conspiracy theory, you name it. People are such thoughtless belly-crawling nutballs that they will endlessly bend over in worship of the “consensus” and type to preserve this irrationalism. And it is the existence of these lick-ball types that makes the preservation of true idiocy, not only possible, but easy.

    We might call this “Mark Hill Effect”. But then naming this phenomenon in this way might prevent us from calling it “The Andrew Reynolds Effect” or “The Joseph Cambria Effect” at some later date.

    You all know who you are.

  96. “What Greece does need therefore is to implement a genuine transformation of its tax system, including a clampdown on tax evasion by the wealthy. This would have a dramatic impact on the deficit would it not? ”

    If as you say the tax base is narrow, with all these loopholes, then yes taxation reform would be helpful. But you are going to have so much more chance of being successful, without being really really cruel, if you can slash spending.

    You don’t have much room to move. Think of how much spending we, for example, would have to cut to stay within these limits:

    “GRAEME BIRDS DEFINITIVE STATEMENT ON WHERE TAXES OUGHT TO COME FROM:

    Taxes ought to come

    1. at the very beginning of the process, for things that are inherently limited in supply (land close to good infrastructure, high-grade ores close to infrastructure)

    2. right at the end of the process (goods and services tax)

    3. be very close to being user-pays (eg. congestion tax) …….

    4. Be a tiny tiny tax rate spread as broadly as possible (1% total assets or balance sheet tax, 1% total revenue or income statement tax)

    5. …… on bigshots and at such a rate so as not to distort their investment decisions or materially bugger their lifestyle …. (15% income tax after monetary reform for individuals earning above 200,000 …. But up to 30% prior to monetary reform going ahead.)

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Anything outside the above ought to be sent to the fires. Any tax reform contemplated without explicit plans to reduce the size of government ought to be treated like leprosy.”

    You see if you are going to preserve old age pensions, increase some of them, although setting up a slow weaning process (increasing benefits age one day in two) …… if you are going to do that, then we could have no time for surplus government departments. We can afford to give people generous taxation exemptions, to get them out of government and the finance industry …. .But we just have no room to move to continue government departments that don’t save lives or to suffer fractional reserve and other bank subsidies.

    I don’t know about the political side of things. But you can afford to be a little bit redistributionist from an economic point of view, but it can only be a small thing or you’ll screw it up. But such a small redistributionist angle would have a very large effect over a long period of time, given growth-deflation as the monetary norm.

  97. The implication of the above is also that Greece has no time for and no business paying back debts to the finance industry or to Governments ….. that is to say it has no time to pay back any entities that created the loans out of thin air. And they ought only pay back individuals, perhaps priotised on compassionate grounds.

    Because if they have to stay within the above limits to taxation, on both moral and economic grounds, where is the largesse to pay these culprits back?

    It isn’t there. So to avoid real hardship they must get straight into surplus and then they must repudiate almost all their debts.

  98. Doesn’t Jason Soon ever get sick of his leftist reversalism?

    Apparently, not believing in bank communism makes you a communist. He reckons that being opposed to giving trillions to rich bankers …. 1 trillion in a single night just two days ago ….. is being a commie.

    But Mark Hill, Soon and Cambria are self-confessed believers in bank subsidy. What loathsome belly-crawlers they all are.

    Yes Matt Tiabi is a bit of a lefty. He’s certainly no ignoramus for a kid. He’s actually made me feel a bit more positive about things since it showed that at least one young journalist was capable of good journalism.

    We can put up with lefties who are good at what they do. Now obviously I don’t really want a Senator or a Congressman Tiabi, unless you have heaps of serious Austrian-economics types to balance such a prospect.

    But with Orwell, Fisk, Hersh, Hitchens we appreciate great journalism, despite the leftist handicap.

  99. If commonsense isn’t enough here is a computer-animation which proves that the Atta passport must have been part of the media-force-feeding that covert ops needs to be able to achieve for the BIG CONSPIRACY to take.

  100. Moderated from elsewhere:

    “This is proven by the drop in outgoing longwave radiation from the atmosphere.”

    It didn’t drop. Where did you hear this nonsense from. When the temperature has increased, the long-wave radiation going outwards has increased.

    Where did you get this notion that it dropped. Prove it. You are just passing on lies mate. Outgoing long-wave radiation drops when we cool. Not when we warm.

  101. Graeme, the main problem with the Catallaxian crew that you haven’t quite broken with (I know that can be difficult when your illusions are shattered and yet the emotional ties and political expectations are still there) is that not only are these dudes in the main congenitally unconvincing, incoherent, counter-productive whingers and arsehats, they’re complete and utter joyless, humourless MISERY GUTS.

    People flee like terrified rabbits from that shit, something the Left learned a long time ago and which is why it by contrast is so much more culturally rich and creative and entertaining and therefore persuasive than the likes of the “libertarian” right C21 Oz style at least.

    George Orwell, Robert Fisk and Seymour Hersh. Ah what a contrast to anything the right can produce. Orwell played a major role in bringing about government support for social welfare schemes and Fisk and Hersh contributed mightily to turning public opinion against the occupation of Iraq.

  102. I don’t really appreciate these guys for their advocacy. I find that all pretty incoherent. I just wanted to know what the facts are on the ground. I’ll do my own advocacy, so long as I have reliable reporting of facts. I find Fisk pretty repulsive actually. But he does seem to get the heartbeat of a place when he’s working there.

    People ought to turn against war if their soldiers or the other guys civilians are getting hurt at too high a rate. In practice they turn against it when their government shows that they don’t have a full-proof plan to win, or that they don’t want to, or even care about winning. Now I wish this wasn’t the case, but that is how the public sentiment appears to work.

    Its a good thing that Saddam and his hateful sons, and a lot of the top Baathists were killed. But even before the Iraq was launched, the original Middle East experts had lost control of matters. And the hateful State Department and even more despicable CIA appeared to be running things, throwing the Middle East experts to one side.

    The neocons were pretty smart guys. They fell too much into the idea of war-as-welfare. What they did not realise is how big, bloated, and absolutely useless the Washington machine had become. All the neocon types I followed advised going in with a proxy army of Iraqis, and handing the country over immediately, and getting out right away. Perhaps a bit of military aid to the some Kurdish factions, and one or two Shiite factions the only harm minimisation.

    Effectively the State Department and CIA managed to get hold of policy, cock everything up, and shift the blame onto these alleged “neocons.”

    As Paul Craig Roberts says, the US is fundamentally a failed state. I didn’t comprehend how bad a shape they were in and therefore misjudged matters since the hated neocons were in fact people with sound expertise, if a little weak on economic understanding.

    http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1678/article_detail.asp

  103. The idea that a dominant state or regime can export democracy at the point of a gun or through armed force is counter-intuitive, nonsensical and thus logically and morally indefensible. It’s also anti-libertarian.

    And it’s been historically proven to be impossible.

    Therefore the neo-con project as projected for public consumption was at best self-justifying spin and catastrophic tomfoolery, at worst cynical cover for the pursuit of imperial anti-democratic greed and exploitation.

  104. Well they managed to export it to Germany and Japan. So its a mixed story. But the idea was to stop regimes from creating or assisting terrorism.

    If you kill the top leadership of a regime doing this, and split the country into smaller states, and then beat it, that ought to make the point.

    But the fact is American Spooktown found out the plot, and wrapped an even bigger plot around it. They turned what would have been a failed attack, or a small one, into this huge traumatising event. So it was the sickness in American spooktown that was the real priority to root out. And the Islamic problem would have been an easy deal to solve if the machinery to solve it was healthy.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Birds new law of war is: Never borrow money to fight. It will prevent you from firing the people who need firing, in order to make that war successful and most of all ….. short.

  105. “He returned and soon became one of the key leaders behind the successful Make Poverty History campaign. ”

    Successful?

    “This fellow has done great work but don’t people find his bio a little … grandiose?

    http://www.hughevans.com.au/about

    Do you know he’s done great work? Fred Hollows did fantastic work. Fernando De Soto has done outstanding work. I don’t know about you SOON. But I just cannot vouch for many other people in this area of endeavor.

  106. Hey Graeme, your mates at Catallaxy have been comparing you to a Mr Theodore Rout . Are you an associate of his? You seem to have a similar outlook on science and mathematics.

    http://home.pacific.net.au/~t_rout/

    http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/strange/routhighcourt.htm

  107. Well thats high praise indeed that you are giving to Mr Theodore Rout. But does he deserve this praise?

    Tell me in your own words what you make of Theodore Rout. I’ll go out of my way not to find out anything about Mr Theodore Rout, already an impressive gentleman it seems. One suspects the girls who go in for distinguished older men would by now already be finding this man deeply sexy. Just thinking about him would make them wetter then the sudden unexpected gift of flowers.

    Now I’m not saying I know anything about Teddy Rout. Or Trout for short. I’m not saying I do. I’m not saying I don’t. But supposing I know nothing about this strange fish.

    Well under the circumstance that I indeed know nothing about him, I can give you my personal word of honour that I shall not attempt to find out about him directly, but rather, I shall try and get opinions of him, via my critics, in their own words. Lets see how that goes shall we? Let us test the appraisals of my critics.

    Now usually when people make these comparisons, they are trying to damn me as a white supremacist, or a racist, or generally not a nice fellow. I just thought I’d say that up front, to show that I’ve already got my “paradigms in parallel” methodology going.

    Part of my enhanced version of the scientific method lies in THE POWER OF IGNORANCE. In the sense that one wants to max out on apriori, inductive and deductive reasoning, before knowing all the facts. Since each data-point, then becomes a way of ranking and re-ranking paradigms in parallel, as the new data rolls in.

    One might protest “What new data????” and I would say “Hey fucknuckle ….. the fact is this snatch of information is new to me…..”

    Good methodology requires that the available information is revealed a bit at a time, and that therefore each new fact is NEW TO ME, and can be treated as if it were equal to totally new knowledge, to the world at large. I can treat anything I don’t already know, as if it were a deep secret, revealed only to me for the very first time, and identical to something suddenly found out, resultant from, an expensive, government funded study, with all players and consultants in the study, people of the most respectable credentials, and with high standing in the world of academia and letters.

    So lets start with the appraisal of T. Kilgore Trout, in the words of my detractors. In my detractors own words.

  108. Bird,

    I’m glad you noticed the similarlity to Kilgore Trout. I was wondering if he was real at first but it seems he is.

    As far as I can tell Mr T. Rout is not a “white supremacist, or a racist, or generally not a nice fellow”.

    He is however someone who is deeply frustrated with the state of mathematics and science establishment and have tried to take their ignoring of his work to the supreme court so you should find common ground.

  109. Don’t try that on you slimy slimy little piglet. Loading you statements in such a densely packed way because you think, that I, Graeme Bird, the very maestro and prodigy of maths in my youth, is no good at Maths. And so in your piggy way you think you can stooge me. But I tell you its too late for that you smelly self-aatisfied beast.

    Those days are over. For now we have cut and paste:

    “Now I’m not saying I know anything about Teddy Rout. Or Trout for short. I’m not saying I do. I’m not saying I don’t. But supposing I know nothing about this strange fish.

    “Well under the circumstance that I indeed know nothing about him, I can give you my personal word of honor that I shall not attempt to find out about him directly, but rather, I shall try and get opinions of him, via my critics, in their own words. ”

    Thats what I said and I didn’t say but nought else. You think you are so clever don’t you? On a deeper level you don’t. On a deeper level you know you are full of shit.

    “He is however someone who is deeply frustrated with the state of mathematics and science establishment and have tried to take their ignoring of his work to the supreme court so you should find common ground.”

    Well there we differ. What god does he think the Supreme Court would be? These are people too scared to ask a black man for his birth certificate.

    If it was me I’d just say “You Mac Daddy. Hand over the certificate, pee-imp-HO.

    Or I’ll CUTYA.

  110. Where does you education tax dollar go? I’ll show you where:

    #

    If one examines Iron Man existentialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic narrative or conclude that narrativity serves to oppress the underprivileged. The ground/figure distinction prevalent in Cameron’s Avatar is also evident in Smith’s Mallrats.

    The primary theme of the works of Favreau is the difference between class and sexual identity. However, the characteristic theme of Rand’s analysis of the textual paradigm of narrative is the defining characteristic of poststructuralist society. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic narrative that includes art as a whole.

    “Sexual identity is intrinsically dead,” says Woody Alan; however, according to Groucho, it is not so much sexual identity that is intrinsically dead, but rather the paradigm, and subsequent genre, of sexual identity. In a sense, a number of narratives concerning precapitalist deconstruction may be found. Lyotard suggests the use of dialectic subcultural theory to analyse and read reality.

    If one examines textual theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject precapitalist deconstruction or conclude that narrativity is capable of significance, given that culture is equal to consciousness. Thus, if dialectic subcultural theory holds, the works of Rout are reminiscent of Bird. Gillard uses the term ‘dialectic narrative’ to denote the bridge between class and truth.

    The primary theme of the works of Abbott is the dialectic, and eventually the fatal flaw, of postpatriarchial society. However, the main theme of Fisk’s critique of dialectic subcultural theory is the common ground between sexual identity and class. Several sublimations concerning the failure, and hence the dialectic, of cultural society exist.

    But Davidson suggests that we have to choose between precapitalist deconstruction and constructive neocapitalist theory. Debordist image states that expression must come from the masses.

    Therefore, Bataille uses the term ‘dialectic subcultural theory’ to denote the role of the artist as observer. Foucault’s analysis of cultural predialectic theory holds that the Constitution is responsible for hierarchy, but only if dialectic narrative is invalid.

    Thus, the subject is interpolated into a modernist narrative that includes narrativity as a reality. Debord uses the term ‘dialectic narrative’ to denote the economy, and eventually the meaninglessness, of neotextual reality.

    But if precapitalist deconstruction holds, we have to choose between dialectic subcultural theory and cultural postcapitalist theory. Lyotard uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote a cultural paradox.

    Therefore, the premise of precapitalist deconstruction states that the purpose of the writer is social comment. Foucault uses the term ‘dialectic narrative’ to denote not, in fact, dematerialism, but subdematerialism.

    But the primary theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of the reader as participant. Any number of narratives concerning precapitalist deconstruction may be revealed.

    Therefore, Soon promotes the use of pretextual patriarchialist theory to challenge class divisions. Neilsen implies that we have to choose between dialectic subcultural theory and Sontagist camp.”

    Thats where your tax education dollar went.

  111. Mr. Bird:

    Are you making any attempts to contact this Mr. Rout, as he seems right up there in terms of the science method and research. You and Mr Rout seem to be on the same wave length and would be able to do great science together.

    I VIEWED THE EVIDENCE OF MY DETRACTORS AND IT APPEARS THAT TROUT IS MORE LIKE THEM THEN MYSELF, EXCEPT LESS TRIBAL AND UNORIGINAL.

  112. Steve Edney certainly has an appropriate moniker Birdy. What a jerk.

  113. Confession from Jason Soon that he is a communist and a lick-ball house-nigger.

    Can someone tell me anything else that one could conclude? Given that the European banks just stole a Trillion dollars. One nights stealing. A trillion. Earlier this week.

    Cambria, the total fucknuckle Mark Hill, and Jason Soon, have all come out in favour of bank communism

    Or else what do you make of this gimp-talk:

    “Bahnisch should team up with the Bird, the way he goes on about the ‘banksters’

    So the logic goes ……… how?

    How does the logic go?

    I said how does the logic go Soon, you spineless cunt. You nigger. Jason Soon is a yellow nigger.

  114. Who out there is too stupid to see that the European bailout is direct stealing of a trillion dollars by the banks?

    Who out there still doesn’t get it?

  115. Graeme, the banks’ theft of our money is not communism it is capitalism.

  116. “Graeme, the banks’ theft of our money is not communism it is capitalism.”

    I’m really going to have to tell you off this time Philomena. Stealing money and giving it to the banks is not capitalism.

    Its not.

    Its got nothing to do with anything that Adam Smith talked about. Its very poor practice to use definitions tendentiously.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Meanwhile the boot nigger, Cambria,has also come on board in favour of bank communism.

    I’d be happy to call it cronyism if you would too. That might be closer than bank communism. That whole thing about privatising profits and nationalising losses ….. thats the crude anti-capitalist deal that Cambria, Hill and SOON support.

  117. He’s a yellow nigger and a dirty Jew Bastard.

  118. Whose got mental health issues? Well lets try Sinclair Davidson. Claims there is a Keyensian multiplier to the Senate. Yet cannot come up with any evidence for it. And yet the claim implies that the government can TAG money that its borrowed or stolen, and that tagged money thereafter moves faster, and buys more, yet without being inflationary.

    So Sinclair has endorsed this idiocy. So has Mark Hill. So has Jason. And so has the stupid wop Joseph Cambria.

    Why don’t they see if Trout agrees with them?

    Maybe they could go to Trout for confirmation of their nutty idea. But they have all claimed that the Keynesian multiplier exists. Without argument or evidence.

    We are talking really stupid cunts here. Total failure in the ability to distinguish a redirection of spending, from an increase in spending.

  119. “In a wonderful chapter called ‘History Written All Over Us,’ Dawkins shows that animal anatomy is like a medieval palimpsest, carrying traces of our evolutionary ancestry. Human goose bumps, for instance, serve no function: they’re remnants of the muscles used by our mammalian ancestors–and our living relatives like cats–to erect their fur, making them warmer and giving enemies the illusion of greater size. Modern genome sequencing has also uncovered vestigial DNA: useless, broken genes that are functional in our relatives and presumably were too in our ancestors. Our own genome, for instance, harbors nonfunctional genes that, in our bird and reptile relatives, produce egg yolk. Embryology–the study of development–brings more proof to the table. The pharyngeal arches of the early, fishlike human embryo are derived directly from the gill arches of fish, though they go on to become, among other things, our larynx and eustachian tube.”

    http://www.thenation.com/print/article/improbability-pump

    • Right. In my first statement on methodology/epistemology on this forum I said the following:

      “LETS PUT A FEW BELIEFS THROUGH A BRIEF CONVERGENCE TEST. And lets see how they pan out.

      Evolution: Without convergence you would have nothing. But we can have some rightful certitude about it. Though we cannot have rightful certitude about excluding some alien intervention (ie intelligent design) somewhere along the line. We cannot really have much confidence in any VIEW of evolution..

      The reason we can have some confidence in the general thrust of evolution is that evidence for it converges from all sides and all angles. Any one thing on its own and you would have next to nothing.

      The idea that the Universe is expanding and accelerating in its expansion:

      It fails the convergence test. We can have scant rightfull certitude about this since the theory leans on the theory of red shift almost exclusively. What they ought to do is map out all the stars that they can get independent evidence for before they jump to the conclusion of how far that star is away and how fast it is moving. This is a very sloppy effort from those science workers.

      The existence of the historical Jesus:

      At first blush this is open to question. Since outside the movement there is only Josephus as an independent source. I would say we would have near certitude but not total certitude. However this is one case where recognising that convergence is the only source and ultimate test of rightful certitude could inspire some effort to clear up all doubt. Or to conclude that some doubt will likely always remain.”

      It looks from the above that my ideas haven’t changed in four years. Actually they’ve changed massively. After that definitive statement on epistemology, cruelly rejected by Club Troppo, for the blog-post of the year competition that year (it ought to have won easily)……. After that definitive statement of method was laid down I’ve followed it ruthlessly. And therefore I couldn’t even really help it that my ideas have completely changed. For example I wasn’t a million miles from conventional thinking on evolution back then. I just was pointing out the fact that we really weren’t in a position to prescribe the mainstream view of evolution, neglecting all others. The fossils don’t speak to us. They each are weak lines of evidence. But though all lines of evidence for evolution are extremely EXTREMELY weak …… the fact is that there are many lines of weak evidence that CONVERGE.

      People get irate at you for pointing out these various alternatives VERSIONS OF evolution. They suspect that you are smuggling Jesus into it or have some other ulterior motive. But at the time I wasn’t really thinking of smuggling very much into it at all. I saw that the mainstream theory was a bit deficient in some aspects and I had some minor suggestions. I didn’t believe myself in alien intervention, because of the vast distances involved.

      Now I’m pretty sure that evolution is a multi-planet phenomenon. I’m pretty sure that evolution in the galaxy is basically terraforming assisted. I can go even further than that. I cannot say that there was alien intervention in our species about 200, 000 years ago. What I can say is that the argument that there was is the leading paradigm in my view. And I suspect that this is fundamentally an extension of the idea that intelligent beings will tend to engage in terraforming. The arguments for this view too extensive to go into in this post.

  120. Alleged plan to quickly cut world population in half. Worst of all is an alleged idea to release a race-specific virus on the Chinese people. Of course its likely not true. In fact it could be a way of discrediting the speaker. But if you let people get away with something like 9/11, this is one way for the same people (or others) to get away with anything.

  121. Some examples of Bird’s violent tendencies…

    Cambria you worm. I’ll beat you senseless if I ever meet you. You know that don’t you you parasitical worm.

    Stop fucking lying Cambria or I’ll kick you so relentlessly you’ll need a gynacologist.

    If I see you I’ll bash you Cambria. This constant lying is just jot acceptable.

    Shut up Cambria or I will kill you you lying cunt.

    But you are lying. And you ought to stop. Because if I could get hold of you I’d break your glasses put you on the ground and physically pummel your face into the concrete.

    Regarding scientist John C Baez:

    I’D JUST BASH THIS CUNT ON SIGHT IF HE TRIED TO RIDICULE ME. SEE WHO WOULD BE LAUGHING THEN.

    I’m pretty sure he made a thinly veiled death threat against Barack Obama too, didn’t you Birdy?

  122. Look I don’t take myself too seriously. And I don’t really get irate when people lie about me once or twice.

    Its repetitive abuse that really gets under my skin. In the case of the above reactions , that you so ably catalogue, they were directed at people (the one about Baez was not really directed at him, although it may seem to have been) who have repetitively lied about me, or repetitively stymied my ability to get some absolutely vital points across about economics.

    Now supposing if me and others had decisively managed to get these points across, in lets say 2007. In this case we could not have avoided a recession. But we could have avoided any bailouts, mass unemployment, and the general corrosion of lawfulness, fair play, and resurgent Keynesian insanity that started with Paulson, and that now threatens to lead to massive violence, tyranny, and perhaps total economic breakdown.

    So when I started in ozblogistan, I started as a crusader. With an important message. A massively important message. And the people who I have lost my temper with ……. well sometimes I have regretted it. I still regret bitterly losing my cool at Jeffrey Tucker and even worse, Helen’s friend going under the name of the latin for “God In The Machine”.

    I mean she was a really cool chick. I really liked her a lot. And I was extremely mean to her. And I don’t think I’ve ever really got over it.

    But those faux death threats and faux threats of violence that you catalogue above. I can never feel regretful of losing my temper in those cases. And in fact I’m really happy that you’ve collected them. Thank you. Probably in every case I’m dealing with people who are obstructing the truth from getting out there. And they are obstructing the truth successfully. So I cannot get uptight about blowing my top in response to this repetitive nastiness.

    This is why I can never be happy about anyone being nasty to people like Currency Lad. To people like Homer. This swarming that goes on is really no good. But also I can never tolerate nastiness towards people like Helen who has copped so much in the past. A tiny fraction of which may even have been justified. But once they start with the swarming abuse they never seem to stop. I cannot put up with abuse of Jennifer. Who lost her job, basically because she was true to the scientific ethos. ((I cannot stand people being abusive of Joanne either, but thats no live issue, since she is so powerfully effective at looking after herself.)) And I’ll not put up with any nastiness towards Philomena. Even from friends and people I respect.

  123. I am so surprised you haven’t been arrested yet.

  124. From elsewhere:

    “Do you understand why CO2, CH4 and H2O are called greenhouse gases?”

    Well you can call them that if you want to. But particular word-usage isn’t going to heat anything up. And no its not true that they prevent infrared from radiating back out into space. The deflect some sections of infrared and they absorb some. But infrared radiates back out into space just the same.

  125. If CO2 does not prevent infrared from radiating back into space, how come Venus with an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 has a mean surface temperature of 460 deg C?

    • Venus radiates heaps of infrared radiation out into space. Massive amounts. A great deal more IR radiation out, then total radiation in. We aren’t getting anything like the proper coverage of this issue. What did you imagine Venus radiated out? Ultraviolet?

  126. Hi Graeme how’s it going?

    • Very good tal. Much much better than usual for a whole stack of reasons. Its almost like I won the lottery. But its really just a few things falling into place.

      How you going? Where are you now? You are in Melbourne aren’t you? You ought to talk to me off air. birdsnewworld@mac.com.

  127. Summary. Exactly the same reasons why Death Valley is so hot.

    1. High Air Pressure.
    2. A way of recirculating hot air that makes it all akin to a giant convection heater. This convection heater aspect of Venus is so extreme that it causes super-rotation of Venus’ belts of clouds.

    High air pressure mostly. Closer to the sun than the earth. Doesn’t have the phase-change material of water to act as a cooling agent. And actually it would be hard for water to act as a cooler on Venus, because water vapour would be so ubiquitous that you wouldn’t have the special buoyancy that helps the water cycle take a lot of energy out to space everytime a cloud forms or if it rains.

    Looking from the alternative paradigm of strata and heat budgets, the various strata of Venus are a great deal stronger than on earth. Yes because of the higher air pressure. But also because of the very slow rotation of the planet. Venus rotates so slowly that a Venus day is longer than a Venus year.

    Suppose you have a Kettle with the top open. What is the maximum Kettletian temperature at sea level? Well its 100C isn’t it. Because thats the biggest heat budget the Kettle can contain. But if you had much higher air pressure, the temperature could get higher, before the strata between air and water is disrupted.

    There is a lot more going on with our climate and Venus’s than we can know about because this science fraud has obstructed valid research.

    For example the EM radiation (ie light) that travels from the photosphere of the sun to the earth is only one form of energy transfer hitting the earth. There is also electricity which travels through Birkeland currents. And on top of that there are charged particles in the solar wind, and in the cosmic rays. Moving charged particles are also effectively an electrical current.

    Now where you have an electrical current you have heat generation, once you get resistance. Could the thicker Venusian atmosphere turn all that electrical energy to heat energy more effectively? I haven’t been able to find out.

    Further there could be differences between Venus and Earth as to the resistance to this electrical energy, that we would find out, if we knew what the Hell planet earth was doing with all those electrons?

    Note that electricity is lazy and homesick as Hunter Thompson described it. The earth sucks in all these electrons, but where do they go?

    I hypothesise that the electrons are being sucked up into new matter creation and that the earth is growing, and that its growth and speed of rotation may well be related. I hypothesise that the electrons have an easy path into the earth and would follow P-holes down into the planet because of well trodden paths of electron movement and because of an ongoing electron dearth as the electrons may be “hidden” in the nucleus during new matter creation. So that a nucleus probably has many many many more electrons then we are lead to believe and far more electrons than protons.

    Now if you don’t have this easy flow of electrical energy, and you don’t have this new matter creation on Venus, then it might be that the Venusian atmosphere represents more of a resistor and the electrical energy more fully transforms to thermal energy under these conditions.

    Even all that aside we know for a fact that it is air pressure that allows so-called greenhouse gasses to more readily convert light to thermal energy. Whereas with little air pressure the greenhouse gas tends to merely scatter the light …. here I’m looking at it down at the molecular level.

    So the air pressure is the key. Its not so much that the greenhouse gasses are entirely ineffectual. Its more that they become greatly more effectual as the air pressure increases.

    Witness Death Valley.

    The temperature of Venus at the surface ought to be not that much more extraordinary than the temperature of magma 70 kilometres below where we are.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There is far more else to Venus we don’t know about. Many theorists suggest that Venus is an interloper to our solar system. Venus may be very new to our solar system. Venus’ position in our solar system may be unnatural and the result of two solar systems colliding with eachother. Researchers should be looking for the potential of Venus slowly cooling over many decades. Or looking for other facts about it.

    What we can know for sure is that if Venus rotated as fast as earth and if its atmosphere was the same air pressure as earth, the CO2 make-up wouldn’t make a great deal of difference. It could make some difference but not a great deal.

    In a way we see this. Because if you travel up Venus’ atmosphere to where the air pressure is equivalent to earth then the temperatures aren’t terribly uncomfortable at that altitude. A bit warmer than earth sure. But nothing to make the average person pass out.

    • Graeme, you may be putting the cart before the horse. The air pressure on Venus is so high because of the high temperatures.

      NO THAT ONLY MAKES A LITTLE BIT OF SENSE. I ALREADY MENTIONED DEATH VALLEY. TAKE A COPY OF YOUR COMMENT NOW. BECAUSE I’M WIPING THE REST UNTIL YOU ADDRESS PROPERLY WHAT I’VE ALREADY WRITTEN.

      In other words the runaway greenhouse effect that occurred on Venus caused the temperature to rise, thereby increasing the air pressure.

      RIGHT. ONE COULD IMAGINE ON MANY PLANETS A RUNAWAY AIR PRESSURE WARMING EFFECT. THAT WOULD BE A FAR BETTER WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS. HIGHER AIR PRESSURE MEANS HIGHER TEMPERATURES, WHICH THEN COULD LEAD TO FURTHER ACCUMULATION OF HEAT, LEADING TO MORE AIR PRESSURE. AT EVERY STAGE OF THIS WARMING, THE ALLEGED GREENHOUSE GASSES ARE MADE MORE EFFECTIVE AS THE AIR TEMPERATURE INCREASES.

      From http://www.answers.com/topic/venus

      ((((((((((“The temperature gradually increases with decreasing altitude until it reaches 850°F (730 K) at the surface, where the pressure is 90 times that at the Earth’s surface. The high value of Venus’s surface temperature is not due to its being closer to the Sun than the Earth. Because its cloud layer reflects to space about 75% of the incident sunlight, Venus actually absorbs less solar energy than does the Earth. Rather, the high temperature is the result of a very efficient greenhouse effect that allows a small but significant fraction of the incident sunlight to penetrate to the surface (about 2.5%), but prevents all except a negligible fraction of the heat generated by the surface from escaping directly to space. “))))))))))))

      YOUR OWN EXPLANATION IS FAR BETTER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE QUOTED WHICH IS BASICALLY WALL TO WALL BULLSHIT. BETTER TO REASON THINGS OUT IN YOUR OWN WORDS. I’M GOING TO PUT EXTRA BRACKETS AROUND WHAT YOU HAVE QUOTED SO IT DOESN’T SULLY YOUR OTHERWISE GOOD POST.

      OK I’VE CHANGED MY MIND. I WON’T WIPE THIS BECAUSE BASICALLY YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. RUNAWAY WARMING ON EARTH WILL HAPPEN ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH RUNAWAY PRESSURE INCREASES. NOT SO MUCH WITH THE SPECIFIC NON-WATER-VAPOUR CONSTITUENCY OF THE ATMOSPHERE. SO A GOOD POINT BUT YOU HAVE SOMEHOW PITCHED IT AS A GREENHOUSE GAS THING WHICH IS NOT VALID.

      NOW. TALK ABOUT DEATH VALLEY. DON’T YOU AGREE THAT AIR PRESSURE HAS A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH IT?

      ONE THING WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS IF EARTHS FAST ROTATION WILL MAKE IT HARDER THAN VENUS TO ACCUMULATE SUCH AIR PRESSURE. THIS IS SOMETHING NOT BEING TALKED ABOUT. HOW MUCH ATMOSPHERE IS EARTH LOSING ALL THE TIME. UNDER GROWING EARTH ASSUMPTIONS IT OUGHT TO BE LOSING A GREAT DEAL AND REPLACING IT AS IT IS LOSING IT.

      • Bear in mind that CO2 is heavier than air. So as CO2 levels climbed, if they did indeed climb as temperature rose, this too would add to air pressure. So you could see a scenario, supposing that CO2 levels got really high, that this indeed could lead to runaway air pressure/warming. Of course we are many tens of millions of years away from this sort of disaster. While we have our large oceans, with all that available water, any high-tech society will be able to bring the temperature of the planet down. To stop this hypothesised runaway air-pressure/warming effect. Its important that we call it what it is.

      • NO LYING ON THIS SITE. TALK ABOUT DEATH VALLEY. DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT HIGH AIR PRESSURE HAS A GREAT DEAL TO DO WITH THE HIGH TEMPERATURES IN DEATH VALLEY.

        THERE IS NO LYING ON THIS SITE. SO YOU CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS IS IN FACT THE CASE, AND AT THE SAME TIME LIE AND CALL IT A RED HERRING.

  128. Glad to hear things are going well for you. I’m doing fine, living just out of Melbourne. You take it easy ya hear X

  129. Love those kisses tal.

  130. Look at what our pigheadedness towards conspiracy does to the innocent victims of it. Check this girl out. What a straight-talking honest girl she is:

  131. Here was your question:

    “If CO2 does not prevent infrared from radiating back into space, how come Venus with an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 has a mean surface temperature of 460 deg CO2”

    And your question was answered. No use lying and calling the answer a red herring, whilst still agreeing with it. Venus radiates out heaps of IR. Mars also has a high percentage of CO2 in its atmosphere. This cannot make Mars hot. Because the air pressure is not there to make CO2 effective at absorbing, rather than merely deflecting ir and there is also the electrical energy transmission to take into account which you dishonestly sidestepped. You also dishonestly sidestepped the super-rotation of the clouds, revealing the convection cooker aspect of Venus. Not unlike Death Valley at all. Which you lied brazenly calling a red herring.

    I also agreed rather magnanimously that you could have a runaway air-pressure/temperature effect, with CO2 contributing, since CO2, being heavier than air adds to air pressure. But there is no chance of this for a high tech society, whilst we have all these oceans. This is many tens of millions of years away.

    So what is your problem? Your question is answered. Now tell me if I’m wrong why is Death Valley so damn hot?

  132. “Venus radiates out heaps of IR”

    MORE THAN IT ABSORBS. IT RADIATES OUT MORE EM ENERGY THAT IT ABSORBS. MOST OF THAT BEING IR ENERGY.

    Please substantiate this assertion. How much is “heaps”?

    ARE YOU CONTESTING THIS MATTER? BECAUSE I AINT DOING FREE HOMEWORK FOR YOU.

    Death Valley conditions have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

    TRUE. LIKE VENUS THE MAIN SITUATION IS AIR PRESSURE AND OVERTURNING. THATS THE WHOLE POINT DOPEY.

    You made an assertion that the reason that the temperature on Venus is so high is due mainly to contributing factors such as those found in death Valley.

    YES I DID. AIR PRESSURE AND OVERTURNING. DEATH VALLEY HAS LOWER THAN THE EARTHS AVERAGE OF GREENHOUSE GASES. SINCE ITS A DRY AREA. PROVING THAT AIR PRESSURE IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PROPAGANDA WOULD HAVE US THINK. WHEREAS GREENHOUSE GASES ARE OVER-RATED. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXAMPLE OF DEATH VALLEY. AND THE EXAMPLE OF MARS.

    This is not the case as I have previously demonstrated.

    YOU DIDN’T DEMONSTRATE ANYTHING. YOU HID BEHIND A BULLSHIT QUOTE. YOU MADE A GOOD POINT ABOUT AIR PRESSURE WHICH I HIGHLIGHTED. I FELT LIKE ALERTING THE MEDIA, SINCE THIS WAS THE FIRST GOOD POINT YOU’D MADE IN AWHILE. CO2 CAN INCREASE AIR PRESSURE IF THERE IS ENOUGH OF IT. THATS WHEN YOU HAVE A HEATING PROBLEM AND NOT BEFORE.

    GREENHOUSE GASES MAY HAVE SOME IMPORTANCE BUT DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE MUCH. IN ANY CASE BASIC PHYSICS TELLS US THAT ITS AIR PRESSURE THAT MAKES GREENHOUSE GASES MORE IMPORTANT.

  133. Only about 1% of the heat radiated by the planet Venus is able to escape its atmosphere.

    A COMPLETE LIE. AND TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. WHY ISN’T VENUS NOW HOTTER THAN THE SUN IF THAT IS THE CASE?

    This is the danger of the methodology of tendentiously relying on the quotes of experts to come to the conclusion that you wish to come to. I don’t know what this expert meant by this bullshit. You don’t know what he meant either. But you decide that you are going to take the literal meaning of what he said ….. that literal meaning being utter rubbish. So this is a no good way of forming any sort of rational conclusion. You have to actually try and understand the problem conceptually. Not in every detail of course. Every controversy that comes up, if you had to understand the nitty-gritty, would require you to go back to university for six years. But you have to apply rigorous logic to the work of the various contesting experts that you encounter. You have to audit them for their logic. Obviously this fellow is:

    1. A well-credentialed nutcase. A species particularly thick on the ground at the moment.
    2. Chose his words poorly in this one case and perhaps thats the reason this quote got bandied around.
    3. Chose his words in a way that makes sense to people in on the jargon, but you and me misunderstand what he is saying, since we have the expectation that he’s speaking normal English.

    Venus is hot yes. But its not so hot that the vast majority of the energy it gives off is not in the infrared. Reflected light aside, the surface of Venus still gives off mainly infrared light. And maybe he’s saying that this light is recycled 100 fold before it finally escapes. But who knows what he is saying? You ask him? But never rely tendentiously on pre-trawled quotes. Because if you are going to do that you have no real methodology at all, and can believe anything you wish to by this faux-methodology.

    “And maybe he’s saying that this light is recycled 100 fold before it finally escapes.”

    Supposing he did mean this? Would this not be consonant with what I was saying before about STRATA-AND-HEAT-BUDGETS? Would this contention, better-worded then the Professor was able to manage, not work in well with what I was saying about overturning, leading to the super-rotation of the banks of clouds?

    Perhaps he screwed up with this obviously wrong statement as an attempted condensation of some of the things I already explained, that you chose to sidestep? But who knows what he was saying? All we can say about it is that the quote is irrelevant, and the general method ought to be that you at least think you understand what you are saying, and you argue by saying stuff IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

  134. I want to emphasize this: Death valley is the hottest place in the US. But has lower than average greenhouse gases. Since it is a desert area. This shows how the effect of these greenhouse gases is over-rated. Whereas the effect of air pressure is under-rated.

  135. Superb, what a web site it is! This webpage presents useful information to us, keep it up.

  136. This post will help the internet visitors for setting up new web site
    or even a weblog from start to end.

  137. There is something people should understand here. As good as Ali and Frazier, Foreman and Tison were there has been this sort of conspiracy to keep white guys out of the heavyweight divison.

    So they say that white guys can’t jump and white guys can’t dance. And these jibes can be somewhat pointed. But jumping and dancing is for pooftahs anyway. Because the fact it that white guy CAN box. And in the heavy-weight division we have been sorely ripped-off.

    And I mean this in some sort of tawdry small LITTLE type of way. I mean this in a big fucking way. I mean this as real abuse against our culture. Not white-guy culture, but just OUR CULTURE.

    I’m not talking one cunt reprising Brando in the back of some car. And we can all make jokes about Aussie Joe Bugner. But in sober reality he’s one of the meanist two-fisted demons of HURT ……. who ever shook the ground as he walked in fitting tribute to the last batch of bipedal giants that came and went 65 million years ago.

    When you are THAT good. THAT smart. THAT fast …….. and you know about five fucking languages, and should you get into trouble walking into a bar, ………. and supposing you have a hair full of grey, a gammy knee, and a lower back that hasn’t been quite right in a long time.

    But imagine how Aussie Joe would clean up a bunch of these pierced, ring-wearing twenty something metro-males no matter what condition he walked in with … and he would still be disappointed, that the fight was so short, and he would be eager for more.

    As great and good as Aussie Joe was, and don’t fucking laugh, because he was just fucking awesome … there is one white guy, that with the right finishing school, would have even been better then BOOZNER. I speak of the GOVERNOR.

    Now just watch the younger man, as he talks to the Governor. See the fear in his eyes. Once you see that sort of fear you know its a first-round knock-out.

    So you go into the ring. You’ve kept yourself strong just like Lenny said. You see the fear in the other gentleman’s eyes.

    Thats a first round knockout.

    I’ve run out of beers and I’ve broken all this glass and I’ve ruined my one day off. Right now all I want to do is watch that Magyar Aussie Joe Bugner beat up a room-full of fast-twitch athletes, that could never face him on the street in a leap-year of Sundays. And this aint no white-guy race thing. Because deep in my heart, if we could rig it that there is no video foreknowledge, then David Tua would always win the first fight. I don’t believe this is an even controversial proposition.

  138. Wonderful speech in the Senate by David Leyonhelm. Astonishing. Its like the first time I saw UNFORGIVEN. I knew it was going to be good. I didn’t realise it would be THAT good. So when I heard that David had scored a Senate seat, that was the only matter of interest that the election held for me.

    Its so cool that he’s just not backing off. He’s completely sticking to the representation of exactly the ideas that he claimed he would.

    Bear in mind that my cracking the shits with Judaism happened roughly within the last year. Whereas my dealings with the exemplary Senator were more of a 2007 vintage. So it would be completely unfair to have my support for David tarnish his good self.

    Here is Davids senate speech. May he maintain his senate seat as long as he lives.

    • Mr B

      I am a bit concerned about the Jew-Bola. Mrs B saw a Very Sickly Darkie waiting for the Bus outside the RSL yesterday and she is not a Doctor but he was coughing and Spluttering like he had a solid dose.

      Do you have any Home Remedies you might recommend if the Jew-Bola strikes home? Obviously 96 hours in the infra-red sauna turned up to 11 would be a good Quarantine. Just wondering if perhaps some raw goat liver would work as a Prophalactyc.

      Of course avoiding Darkies and Hebrews is always the best remedy!!

      • I was wondering if raw milk and mild bleach err alkali water might defeat ebola. Any plans on testing this Graeme?

      • You can make me laugh even though people who know me would know I never have a real hatred for our brothers whose ancestors come from remote locations. But then my ancestors who hail from places like Ulster and County Cork and whose more remote ancestors hung out on the badlands between old England and old Scotland and could fight at a moments noticed but who learned a better level of kindness as a result of this stress just the same.

        Now Ron I want you to be very tactful to a man named SINGER. I believe he’s from the Guinness drinking Singers who live across the hill from a place where only the black Irish can drink and down the road from Lepracaun valley.

        Now suppose you figure I’m lying to you. I’m not lying to you. But I actually think this potato-eating Singer gentleman, may be on the level. I ask you to give all courtesy and tactfulness to his ideas.

  139. Alkaline water, used with good timing, and raw milk, again used with good timing, won’t defeat ebola. But it will help. Since anything that improves general health helps in fighting disease. Currently there is this massive international attempt to spread Ebola.


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: