Posted by: graemebird | May 20, 2010

The Demand For Cash Balances/Savings DIFFERENTIATED: Preferred Monetary Policy Smuggle.

Its an absolutely mandatory undertaking to phase out

ONE(1) Fractional reserve

TWO(2) Fiat currency


Many very reasonable people, who are authentic students of economic-science, object that moving to 100%-commodity-money …….. would be frightfully expensive. The economics-adepts, sometimes say that the maintenance of an 100%-backed money-system ……. would be an ongoing expense and a waste of resources. Those who say this, and want to stick with the current situation, are just ignorant. But I cannot write-off all my many critics so blithely. For it might be argued:

“Why not get to 100% fiat backing and then just stick it out? Why go to the expense of 100% backing? When it might be argued, that fiat could perform largely the same function? Or if it wasn’t QUITE the ‘real deal,’ (the argument goes,) then at least it would be cheaper?……. Surely!!!!!!?”

In summary the argument for 100% fiat would claim that it would be a better monetary system …… or failing that almost as good …. but that this system would be vastly cheaper than the 100% commodity-backing…..

So the argument would be ….. “Look you would get 90% of what you wanted, AND ON THE CHEAP!!!!! Why not settle for 100% fiat-backing?”

Now superficially this does seem plausible. But the costs of 100% commodity money are virtually entirely dependent on 1.what sort of transition strategy you want to entertain and 2. what sort of commodity money setup you aspire to. If we were to have 4-6 monies, representing a cross-section of extraction industry activity, then the maintenance of this system would essentially be costless. Matter of fact it would save money.

Well how about the transition? The way to make the transition essentially costless, or at least very cheap, is to set up policy, wherein the private monies crowd out your fiat currency a little bit at a time. You have the tax incentives in place to go from one to the other. You have the incentives strong enough for the transition to be MADE BUT NOT RUSHED. So the fiat currency sticks around for some time but loses a tiny bit of market share every day.

Now how to do this is to tell treasury that you want the mint not merely to recover costs. But rather you want to have these various charges wherein the mint has to recover super-profits on its costs. Remember this is being achieved without recourse to central bank scams, or private fractional reserve racketeering. Rather than merely recover costs, you instruct Treasury to match various taxes on the use of fiat currency, such that the mint is recovering its costs, and making a profit for the Feds to the tune of (lets say) five times the costs of the minting of the money. This is important: They are not trying to maximise profits. They are merely trying to multiply some multiple of the costs of printing and maintaining the fiat money. If its profit maximisation they were after their behavior would be perverse.

Back when the leader of the opposition was John Hewson, and more generally back before the introduction of the GST, the State governments would have these nasty little charges on pretty much any transaction you made with a bank. When I was working for a bank in Victoria, we had to extract taxes from our customers, on behalf of the government, for pretty much any transaction the customer would make.

“Abolition Of FID And BAD Taxes

In August 1998, as part of its tax reform package, the Government announced its desire for the FID and BAD taxes to be abolished.(1) The plan was for these taxes to be repealed as a condition for the States and Territories to receive all of the revenue from the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The Inter-governmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations of 13 November 1998 provided for the FID and BAD taxes to cease to apply from 1 January 2001……..”

The FID stands for “Financial Institutions Duty”

“Prior to its abolition on 1 July 2001, financial institutions duty (FID) was levied on the value of receipts on financial institutions, and on the average daily liabilities of short-term money market dealers.”

BAD stands for Bank Account Debits tax “Bank account debits (BAD) tax is levied on the value of debits to accounts with cheque drawing facilities.”

In retrospect we see how the banking elites program us in certain ways. They ought to have gotten rid of payroll. Instead they got rid of these two taxes. Essentially these two taxes were taxes on fractional reserve usage. But I seem to remember we would charge for people depositing their own money into their own account. Which I found a bit hard to take. Particularly as I was the evil sod, who had to fill out the voucher, making the immoral extraction, for the benefit of blood-sucker-central.

Anyway the idea would be to

1. bring these two taxes, or taxes similar to these two, back.

2. As well you would charge income taxes on interest earnings at the top income tax rate. But you want to do these nasty things only for fiat currency. And only enough so that there is a slow buildup in the usage of 100% backed private commodity monies, rather than a mad stampede in the transition.

3. Also once you hit 100% backing for your fiat currency, policy should be arranged in advance, that this fiat currency will phase itself out, whilst monetary policy is conducted in such a way that this currency stays in the “growth deflation pocket.” That is to say that Gross Domestic Revenue, denominated in fiat currency, ought always be growing, but so slowly, such that consumer prices are falling all the time.

Now of course the new commodity monies would face no such charges as the fiat currency. Interest earnings for the 100% commodity money, would be exempt from any income tax, for both individuals and companies. What is more; coining, and coin maintenance revenues, would be considered tax exempt activities. The only tax on extracting, refining and monetizing commodities would be royalties alone. Other than royalties, the tax department would be blind to any revenues a company gained from these sorts of activities.

Now its pretty clear that these other monies could easily start crowding out the fiat currency. But what we don’t want is the fiat currency losing its value or gaining too much in value either. We want its value to grow slowly, even as these other monies, are crowding the fiat currency out.



I would propose a three-speed monetary policy in this case. Always all governments and government entities would run surplus budgets. We might wish to accumulate debt and consumer price information in real-time.


When the massed debts of every legal entity in Australia were decreasing, and we were below the growth deflation pocket, then the outstanding fiat-currency could be growing at 1% per fortnight.


When we were in-or-above the growth-deflation pocket, and debts were still decreasing, we would keep the same level of outstanding fiat currency. But if the situation was that…


1. The fiat currency was losing value, so that you had gross domestic revenue (denominated in fiat currency) growing so fast that consumer prices were rising, and……

2. worse still, the total nominal massed debt (of all legal entities) was growing in nominal terms. (as measured in fiat currency……)

When the conditions 1 and 2 prevailed, thats when you could be sidelining the fiat currency at the rate of 1% per fortnight.


I would introduce this fiat-currency monetary-policy, along with a situation where debts held before the program started ……… Where the old debts could be registered, and paying them off would be a tax deduction. Paying off the old fractional reserve debts would be a tax deduction for both interest AND PRINCIPLE. Hence you would have fast money growth, but only in conjunction with obsessive retiring of debt. Obsessive retiring of debt would tend to leave consumer prices falling even in the face of quite high monetary growth.

Part of my program is also to make limited liability company’s 100% equity financed. So pty-ltd’s, would pretty-much be required to get out of debt. They could either get out of debt by

1. paying off their debts through retained earnings. Or…..

2. by paying off their debts via raising money through the stock market. Either way; the paying off of both principal and interest, would be a tax deduction, for the purpose of this program.


If the policies of all three layers of government favored paying off the old debts, under this scheme, then you might ask “How would you ever phase out the fiat currency? Since the debt reduction would be so radical that high rates of currency growth would come with falling prices? So you want to phase out the fiat currency? But in practice you would be getting more and more of it? 1% more of it most fortnights? Surely you haven’t thought this scheme through Graeme?”


No you see, as soon as

1. the commodity currencies started increasing the money supply

2. The real value of these commodities plateaued ….. THEN

3. Finally people-generally, would be confident enough, to enter into debt contracts with the new monies. …. SO:

4. Then-and-only-then, would the fiat-currency-reduction at 1% per fortnight consistently kick in, under the suite of policies I’ve been describing.

When that time came, you would need to have that outstanding-currency-reduction …… simply to maintain the value of the fiat currency. This is because fiat-currency is really just paper. Once the commodity-monies started gaining serious headway, under normal circumstances, the value of the fiat paper abruptly crashes. Particularly as the fiat paper would (under this suite of policies) face so many tax-DISadvantages.

So the 1%-reduction per-week policy, is necessary to have an orderly and non-disrupting phase-out of the fiat currency.

The phase-out would start in earnest once, despite all policy heading in the other direction, debts for the country entire, started increasing in nominal terms again. This would be a sign of growing commodity-money-usage, generally and for the purpose of debt-contracts. Therefore the 1% reduction in outstanding fiat-currency RULE …. would kick-in ……and would be in force much of the time …….. THEREAFTER.


Don’t worry if you cannot follow all the implications of this combined suite of policies for the moment. Its likely too much all at once. It probably appears to you to be a gimmicky set of policies. Perhaps you would wonder what was the point of going to all this trouble? Actually this set of policies achieves what might have been thought to be impossible. It makes the transition to hard money palatable, and something that no-one in the electorate ought fear.


It is just so hard to get out of this conundrum. For sound allocation-of-investment-resources, we need to be in the growth deflation pocket. If we aren’t in that pocket then investment resources will be being misused. Misdirected. Abused. Wasted.

Plus if we are not in growth deflation we will be tending to accumulate debts. As a society we will tend to become further and further under bondage to the bankers. We will tend to become the chattel of the bankers. We will tend to lose freedom, in the deeper sense, even if on paper our surface-level political freedoms are respected. But then you cannot hide the true nature of things forever. So presently in time, the de-facto loss of liberty, will transmute into an open tyranny, sooner or later. Forces will be at work to make our society less egalitarian, less fair, more corrupt, more violent and just generally more crappy. Currency debasement debases all the human values, and not just those of a monetary caste.


Every day we stay outside of the growth deflation pocket is a day of missed opportunities for our society. Every day that we inflate, such that we are above this range of growth (in NOMINAL gross-domestic-revenue) is a day wasted, a better-world postponed.


((((((Oh Growth Deflation….. “Life is precious and its slipping away and I’ve been waiting for you most of my life….”))))

If growth-deflation is so desirable and so ardently to be sought after, from a wider societal point of view then why can we not leap at it? Why wait another day before going after the better way to live?

Well you see most of us; almost all of us, have assumed debts on the basis of…..

1. continuing fast monetary growth

2. The expectation that many of the assets we have bought with debt, will appreciate in nominal terms.

Fast monetary growth makes old debts easier to pay off. But especially under fractional reserve, fast monetary growth arm-twists us into more and more debts, and brings the rest of society further and further unto bondage to the financial sector, and the big end of town.

Now let us consider the average poor bugger married to a nesting wife who wanted him to buy a home under these conditions of monetary insanity? This couple WILL HAVE DEPRIVED THEMSELVES, in enslavement to the banking racketeers,for the last twenty years:

(A)They may have neglected their kids
(B)neglected each-other
(C)their health
(D)their relationship
(E)some old passions they had meant to pursue …….
(F)All for the purpose of getting in on the land appreciation bandwagon.

The social contract that has been foisted on us, at the very least since (lets say) 1971, was that if you don’t work your ring off to gain real estate, chances are, you and your kids will move to the bottom of the sociological scale. But if you choose to work your ring off in bondage to the banks, and devote yourself to thinking about the inherently tedious and mind-numbing topic of real estate your entire life ….. then you may get lucky, receive some massive windfall profits …. and you may well get to retire famously rich, creating next to fuck-all wealth in the process.



Lets get back to our couple, arm-twisted into this different strategy, by the hateful world, that fractional reserve created.


What does the hard money-man have to offer such a couple now? Only despair. What we are saying is that the asset that they based their life around, will implode in value by two-thirds. Meanwhile their debts will get harder and harder to pay off. The woman is still good-looking. But after 20 years of hard work, not so drop-dead gorgeous, as to easily get another reasonable and kind man, to devote himself to her. They had two kids which they did not spend as much time with as they had wanted. And the two of them would rather have had 5 kids. Or perhaps in the case of another couple, the chance to have kids, slipped through their hands. All because of the bondage that fractional reserve fiat has foisted upon us.


Believe it or not, the suite of policies I describe above, will make our debts easier and easier to pay off, even as the value of our savings increases…….


……Now thats a miracle. Some of you people may not understand what an important miracle this is. But the unwavering fact of history, is that paper money never lasts. Its value always returns to the approximate value, of the paper its printed on.

This time will be no different. The collapse of the paper money means mass-death, starvation, violence, war, pestilence and death. You think this subject isn’t all that important. But its absolutely vital. Niall Fergusons’ research into the causal factors behind mass-murder identifies monetary instability as a vital cause. Some of you guys that have been hoarding gold and silver for the last ten years ought to remember this also. Though you might think you are covered and heading for the ultimate, and deserved WINDFALL ………. do not wish for the catastrophic collapse of fiat-currency values: Such a collapse will bring commie-fascists in its wake, as it always does.

Our fiat currencies are on the downhill slide. So matters will get worse and worse, until the paper monies collapse. Then everything will go downhill from there. The verbal habits of Marvin-The-Robot, from the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy become inevitable.

You won’t believe the people you will be dealing with are even human. The nastiness that they will exhibit will make you think you are living amongst monsters.


So we need to get out of this predicament. And we need to make it electorally palatable that we get to a sane set of circumstances as soon as possible.


The suite of policies, as described above, will introduce hard money, in such a way as to make old debts vastly easier to pay off. The expected capital gains will be less, yes its true, and that must be admitted up-front. Because the days of stooging older people must finally come to a close. Tangentially-speaking; Making rental income tax-free might help from an electoral point of view, and to maintain the capital value of the typical couple I am talking about in the above example.


Generally speaking, hard-money libertarian reformers, must skew policy in accordance with age. We have to learn to care passionately about the old diggers. When I say “we” I mean the rest of you. Start growing a heart and getting to read off the correct sheet-music.

If now older Australians, have belatedly started making decisions on the basis of them catching up with post-1971 realities, and then we turn the tables on them again, then they will die in despair.

Our older mates dying in despair is unacceptable. Bad in-and-of-itself …………………… But on top of such manifest ethical considerations ……….. this sort of callousness ……. will make the move to sanity and reason ……….. electorally impossible ………. and hence the four horsemen will await.


The above combination of policies does not rip off the thrifty fellow with stacks of $50 notes in his safe at home. The policies mean that his thriftiness will be rewarded, even as those less thrifty will find their debts easier and easier to pay off.


Supplementing the above transitional monetary-policies …. will be a whole lot of other policies rewarding older people for working part-time to add to their pensions. Discriminating in their favor more generally. And going out of our way to shield our older diggers and lasses, from being the victims of this most righteous change in our affairs.


Here is a post I made to do with the technical issue of the difference between SAVING MORE and INCREASING CASH BALANCES. These two different strivings, may seem to be a part of the very same activities. The reality is that SAVING and BUILDING CASH BALANCES are actually two different pursuits. Differing pursuits with substantially different consequences and ramifications. Fractional reserve bondage has obscured the difference between these two undertakings.


Whilst it is true, that I was explaining a technical point in economics, you will see that I managed to smuggle in something close-to, in-principle ………….. my preferred approach to making the great monetary-transition ……… and also to monetary-policy …… more generally.


“Holding money is an act of saving and it does not cause a divergence between the natural and market rate of interest. Holding money shows that people are more future oriented because they prefer holding the money instead of using it for consumption purposes.”

Thats a fair way to look at matters. But we want to, for theoretical reasons, differentiate between savings, and the demand for cash balances. If we assume that savings are lent AT-TERM, and cash balances are ON-CALL, then we can separate the two behaviors in our minds. We can see that for individuals, the building of cash balances does not always mean saving more. And one could imagine saving more without building cash balances, if one lived in a world wherein people tended to have high cash balances in the first place.

Having high cash balances can serve both a speculative and an insurance function. The demand for insurance would probably be a lot lower in a hard money/high cash-balance world.

Supposing we have a medium-sized country, (not the United States) split into State, Federal and local governments?

Supposing that this country has four private monies, and one government-sponsored money. The government-sponsored-money is meant to serve the interests of defense.

In this scenario, as a matter of national policy, the Federal government asks for its taxes and charges to be paid in Gold and Fiat.

Supposing also that the State government must be paid in silver, the local governments in silver. Suppose that export-import business is conducted mainly in Platinum. But on top of that, for defense reasons, the Feds offer tax discounts to be paid in what is a quasi-government money. To Whit:

“Synthetic-diesel stored in a robustly-hardened situation.”

So over time many service stations develop hardened underground storage for this digitized diesel money.

Supposing the coins that represent this diesel money are laminated silver coins, with an embedded micro-chip. The silver covering transaction-costs?

Now back to savings versus cash balances:

War is looming. Everyone fears that they may have to be able to take their family and run from wherever the fighting may be. They want more compact and readily acceptable money since they anticipate that they may be on the lam. They could be building their cash balances in synthetic diesel and gold. Yet they may be saving less. They may be selling a lot of gear, and buying Kevlar hardened SUV’s, all kinds of weaponry, lethal and less lethal. Camping gear, small houses in foreign countries, special communication equipment. And they may be trying to offload any accumulations of silver, copper and platinum than they would need for petty change. They could be working harder than ever and spending more than ever. Yet their demand for cash balances in gold and synthetic diesel, could be growing, even as their term loan savings are being liquidated.



  1. Here is the fucking moron Mark Hill again:

    “What will Graeme M. Bird think of John B Taylor reporting on a counter produictive, albeit real Keynesian multiplier?”

    The guy is just mentally handicapped.

    Lets go over it again you stupid fucking moron. There is no doubt that this dummy will be using GDP. He will be getting a false positive. Since fiscal policy DOES NOT INCREASE SPENDING


    You do comprehend what “redirects” means don’t you you fucking moron Mark Hill?

    Fucking is this mental handicap permanent? Are you simply not capable of understanding the simplest you fucking dropkick?

    So how many times do we have to go over it?

    So the spending is redirected from WHERE IT IS NOT PICKED UP BY GDP YOU FUCKING DUMB CUNT.

    Then its redirected to consumer and government spending. That means its picked up by GDP now capiche?????

    You are so fucking intellectually handicapped. What are you going to do now that you have joined the same profession as the idiot Sinclair? Maybe you are going to testify before the Senate and fucking lead them astray just like Sinclair did?

    Lets go over it one more time. If you use GDP obviously you will usually get a false positive.

    Now think about it Mark? Why would that be? Why would you get a false positive?

    Do you understand why that must be the case Mark?

    Did you know that GDP does not pick up all spending you dumb cunt?

    And supposing (you mental case), that you didn’t know that, how is it that you still cannot comprehend this even after I’ve pointed it out to you you dim bulb?

    Fuck you are just an idiot Mark. Have you got rich parents or something? Why did you go into an area you are not equipped for?

    Now stop telling lies and come with this evidence you haven’t got you fucking moron. John B Taylor has not got the evidence you claim he has. You are lying. We will see that he has been using GDP as the measure. And we will find out that this is because he is not that bright.

    This is the terrible thing about this industry. Every fucking dummy who cannot think for themselves copying the mistakes of every other dummy. Or copying the mistakes of economists who may be sound in some areas. You got to fucking understand matters yourself you stupid cunt. You are particularly not very bright, and so its no good if you act like Sinclair or the Chinaman and just trust and parrot.

  2. Rudd govt expels israeli diplomat

  3. What a bunch of pricks. What on earth did the Israeli diplomat do? What did Israel do?

    Thats enough. Its time to get Rudd and his communist deputy to step down. And Tanner. And that other lad from Nambour. Thats right its Swan. If we can get rid of these lunatics at the top of the labour party maybe there might be some folks lower down who can do the job.

    Truly? What the fuck did that menace of a useless Prime Minister do that for?

  4. Oh right. He’s upset the marxists in his outfit by abandoning the cap-and-kill. And he’s just kicking Israel in the head to appease them.

    Is that it?

    I haven’t been reading the newspapers or watching TV.

  5. I swear I’m going to bash Mark Hill if I ever run into that dumb cunt. It will be the only intellectually handicapped person I’ve ever punched in the guts.

    “Wow, Bird’s gone mental, it’s not about false positives, but empirical proof that the multiplier shows stimulus is counter productive.”

    Make yourself useful Jason Soon and get this cunt to stop lying and make good with the evidence.

    How fucking useless are you all. Extremely fucking useless. The whole low-wattage lot of you. Here is Hill, having been corrected on an oversight, no evidence, and there you are with Sinclair. Sinclair having disgraced himself by implying to the Senate, that there is a Keynesian multiplier.

    You guys are an embarrassment. The whole tribal bunch of shit-for-brains economists on this continent, leading everyone astray.

    The public ought not have to learn this stuff itself you know. They ought to be able to rely on you people. And they cannot. Because you are wall-to-wall useless. So useless you cannot even correct eachother or ask eachother for evidence.

  6. Now the Dalai Lama’s jumping on the bandwagon. Sheesh. He’s a Marxist he tells us now. Always has been lol.

    HH. DL.” Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes–that is, the majority–as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those easons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

    As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers’ International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.”

  7. I’ve known this for some time. He’s actually a fan of Chairman Mao. The old man is loopy.

  8. Mr Soon,

    Being a foreign agent yourself, I sincerely hope that one day we will see you being expelled. However while you enjoy protected status under the current beijing puppet regime you can continue to laugh at the misfortune of others.

    Mr Bird,

    The ostensible reason for the expulsion is that Israel forged Australian passports to execute the Hamas mass murderer. A position that in principle I could support as we can’t have anyone undermining our dignity like this. However the fact is that we allow unlimited numbers of harmful Chinese communist spies loose in the Country.

    Given that we can only see this action as pro-terrorism, and pro-Hamas.

  9. Mr Bird,

    With regards the Dali Llama the old adage that an enemy of my enemy is not my friend applies. Our support for him should go only as far as it undermines the Beijing marxist regime and no further.

  10. Graeme, the Dalai Lama might have met with Mao in the 50s, but that was at a time when the communist vision looked good to millions of people throughout Asia, including in Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines.

    It’s not for nothing in the 50s in Singapore of all places its virtual national dish Hainanese chicken renamed “Communist Chicken” as an act of affection and sound business acumen.

  11. Can someone go and shake some evidence out of that lying cretin Mark Hill?

    He’s there fucking lying constantly that he’s got some evidence. Why doesn’t he present it, the stupid retard.

    Its just so damaging to have all these retarded people supporting eachother in the economics faculty. Last time I criticized Ken Henry at Catallaxy, the tribal fool Sinclair rushed to his defense.

    We have to face it that Sinclair is a moronic Keynesian. He rushed to the defense of Keynes also. Since Sinclair doesn’t understand economics himself he keeps defending these blockheads.

    Why don’t these people just learn the subject?

  12. Mark Hill further confirms his dumb cunt status.

    Here is what he linked to, lying that it was evidence.

    “John B Taylor writes:

    “In a soon to be published paper, several economists at the International Monetary Fund report estimates of government spending multipliers which are much smaller than those previously reported by the U.S. Administration…

    The paper is quite technical, but the bottom line summary is that a one percent increase in government purchases (as a share of GDP) increases GDP by a maximum of 0.7…..”

    A confession. That indeed they were using GDP.

    You can’t get a more stupid dumb cunt then Mark Hill.

    Lets go over it again Mark Hill you dumb cunt:

    If you use GDP obviously you will usually get a false positive.

    Now think about it Mark? Why would that be? Why would you get a false positive?

    Do you understand why that must be the case Mark?

    Did you know that GDP does not pick up all spending you dumb cunt?

    And supposing (you mental case), that you didn’t know that, how is it that you still cannot comprehend this even after I’ve pointed it out to you you dim bulb?

    Really there is a young Man who ought to be castrated before he passes on the dumb cunt Gene.

    Imagine linking something as evidence, that contains an admission that they are using GDP?

    Fucking moron.

  13. Philomena. Periods of monetary excess always lead to massive gains for the Marxist world view. Monetary excess, like what we saw during World War II creates the set of circumstances that appear to confirm what the Marxists have been saying. People aren’t interested with the technical side of things showing that at that economic level he was wrong. They would consider this a technicality anyhow when they see the terrible consequences of the inflationary policies going on.

    Germans in the 20’s saw the German Republic at that time, as the last gasp of Classical Liberalism. Whereas of course the hyperinflation that went on had nothing at all to do with private fully-backed, free-enterprise money.

    Our anti-economists at Catallaxy are doing your side so many favours. They contradict people like me. They say in effect “yes yes, losing all our industry to China is free enterprise and a good thing. Yes yes. The bankers making huge profits by creating new money thats liberty. Yes of course they must be subsidised and bailed out.”

    I don’t have any solution for it. I think these idiots have gone to far. They won’t give up their anti-economics and irrationality, though it may mean a total collapse or a new rise of Marxism.

  14. Austrian-neoliberal-libertarians do seem to have lost their way Graeme, as you say.

    Take Rudd’s tax on mining. It’s supported by all the big economic organisations from the World Bank to the IMF and the only ones opposing it are Libs and a few mining companies. See the advice is that our economy would overheat if it relied mainly on mining and that we need to diversify and spread investment and jobs around, in agriculture, manufacturing and many other important areas that can help grow the economy in a more balanced and long-term viable way.

    • But they aren’t neo-liberals Philomena. They are belly-crawling advocates of the status quo. You are not a neo-liberal if you are a barely reconstructed Keynesian who believes in pyramid scams and paper-money.

    • As for the tax on mining. Its just silly. Its not smart stealing. Smart stealing would taking the miners out of the tax system, and then fleecing them for royalties. Smart stealing would be the opposite of what these Labour clowns are doing. Taxes on profits are never acceptable. But if you wanted to pull more money for the public purse its royalties you are after.

  15. People do think there needs to be economic planning Graeme. A free for all is just law of the jungle and nobody wants that.

    • I don’t see that. There needs to be planning in terms of infrastructure if you are not smart enough to create a valid and fair market for it. And our economists are way too dim for that. So there needs to be planning there. But planning is not planning. Planning is stealing and force. There doesn’t need to be a great deal of stealing and force. Rather there needs to be a situation where morons like Sinclair go and learn economics, so that we can establish a functioning financial system.

      • “Planning is just stealing and force”.

        Well that is a huge philosophical area you’ve just opened up. But really, on many levels such a broadbrush statement is counter-intuitive, as I’ve suggested which is why planning-phobic libertarians come a cropper and repeatedly fail to resonate with the populace.

        Of course planning is important. All adults do it all the time in all areas of their lives. So of course on a larger scale do groups, societies and governments. Of course it can be overdone but hell you’ve got to have objectives and means of reaching those however dodgy or incomplete. Otherwise, whither civilisation. We’d still be dribbling and dancing round the fire with the Neanderthals if we hadn’t dreamt up and implemented plans, Mr Bird.

      • But Philomena “planning” in this context doesn’t mean planning. Free enterprise businesses plan all the time. Whereas governments say they are planning, but they do stupid things. The planning that I’d get myself involved with would be providing a smooth cruise-path for the various industries to get to a be functioning free-enterprise condition without too much tears. Or weaning off a lot of welfare in a way that made the current incumbents better off. Or making sure that most people were wealthy when they were old so that few were dependent on the government….

        And so forth.

        But when the government says “planning” they mean grandiose investments in politicians ego’s that strip society of capital goods.


  17. Well, I’ve never liked belly-crawlers, Graeme. They’ve always disgusted and repulsed me. Though that has tapered off in recent years to straight up and down contempt.

    And I understand your anger at ideological traitors. Whether through the sheer dumb witlessness of your Mark Hills – as you have colourfully and persuasively described – or plain spinelessness of wannabe courtiers, people who’ve come from the back of beyond and think they can mix it with Mr Big when in fact they are toenail fluff that Mr Big doesn’t even knows exists, Mr Bird.

    • Yeah thats about it.

      You know paper monies never last. But they ought to last. So you wonder about it. Morons like those at Catallaxy are really part of why they always collapse into hyper-inflation. Suddenly dummies like this start becoming upwardly-mobile. This is part of the coming collapse. Its like having to watch the Titanic movie 1000 times over. You know what is going to happen. But the people been given prominence never want to listen.

      Lately I’ve been over at Mises, but I’ll have to cut down on my comments. At least there a few people understand what I’m saying.

  18. “Right. I forgot that Graeme will wipe out bank leverage (basically chains of liabilities and assets) in favour of issuing funny money. Without pulling 900% of global gold reserves out of his rear end, how does he propose to liquidate FRB without using less than 100% backed currency?”

    Very easy Mark Hill you moron. You use more than just gold. We have copper, silver, gold and platinum just for starters.

    And no you haven’t posted evidence for the Keynesian multiplier. You are mentally handicapped mate. You are a liar. And you hang around with morons like Sinclair who wouldn’t correct you if they could and probably are too stupid to correct you anyhow.

  19. “Or making sure that most people were wealthy when they were old so that few were dependent on the government…”

    Well everyone is dependent on government. The mining companies are whinging because govt has ruled they must pay more than previously. That’s dependency in action, pathetic given their wealth and strength.

    And if onerous taxes are to reduced on most people which I endorse, then taxes have to be redirected and laid on the minority companies and people who are privately appropriating the extraordinary profits from our common finite resources and from the output and labour of the rest of society.

    We can’t do away with taxes holus bolus can we? And how else are some essentials to be funded except through as system of taxes?


  21. Ritchie, tertiary qualifications today aren’t worth a hill of beans given the progressive bastardisation of academia in recent decades.

    Though, in fact ,they never were. Everyone is judged on their contribution as it stands.

    And the greatest thinkers, creative geniuses and intellectuals in world history are deemed and judged so DESPITE rather than because of any formal credentialism they may have scrabbled together.

    This is ABC.

  22. Graeme, simple truth is all those mineral resources underground aren’t going anywhere.

    The idea that this generation or the next should be the sole beneficiaries of flogging these off is a tad selfish to put it mildly.

    Most reasonable people who like to plan think it is no big deal if we put a slow down even a temporary halt on their exploitation, extraction and sale overseas, if this means we conserve some of that irreplaceable wealth for the benefit of future generations, our sons and daughters down the track.

  23. Well what I’m saying Philomena, is that if the government wants to take more of the share of those resources, and supposing you are right and they ought to be conserved some, then they are going the wrong way about it. Its getting rid of other taxes but increasing the royalty. Thats the way to achieve what they are after. They are not even smart thieves you see.

  24. “9/11 was an insect job!”

  25. check this out Graeme.

    The Federal Opposition has accused the Government of expelling an Israeli diplomat as a means to win Arab support for an Australian seat on the United Nations Security Council

    • Yeah I forgot all about that side of thing. Dirty little milky-bar pig.

  26. From Elsewhere:

    “Graeme, you have a long and ignoble history of denigrating scientists……”

    No I don’t. I have a long and proud history of denigrating science workers. “SCIENCE WORKERS” Grumpy old man. Its science-workers that is the phrase you were looking for. I don’t denigrate true scientists. They are the people I admire the most.

    For the record: I consider Venter a very serious character, who has achieved a great deal. The incredible technical ability to recreate a full complement of genes is a marvelous technical achievement. Venter seems to have pioneered labour-saving methods on this nano-scale, like no other person on the planet. He has done things that are truly extraordinary, almost hard to believe.

    I ought not have to speak in this way, because I never once put him down in the first place.

    I was pointing out something that not everyone realizes. And this is the fact that the cell proper, is vastly more complex then the scientists had initially thought, and way way more complex than the laity have been given to believe. I think that this is a worthwhile thing to point out. Certainly its changed my view of matters.

    “And while the cell is an amazing thing, its construction and operation is entirely controlled by the genes in its DNA.”

    This is the old thinking. Its the cell itself that is the more complicated beast. Its the cell itself that would appear to have needed a lot more evolutionary time. Getting from a bacteria to a human isn’t the hardest step. Getting to the point of having a single complex cell, is where the vast majority of the evolution must have had to take place. So this is important stuff I’m talking about here. I wasn’t dissing these authentic scientists at all.

    • I see you are in agreement with PZ Myers regarding Craig Venter and his research.

      If Venter is an “authentic” scientist, surely scientists in the same general field of biological science such as Myers and Richard Dawkins should also have your approval and admiration.


      • Ok, do you think it is more likely that Venter has achieved his successes by following the accepted scientific method….. YES OF COURSE. THATS FUCKING WHAT I’M ON ABOUT YOU FUCKING MORON. YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOU OUGHT TO STOP LYING ABOUT IT.

      • Venter uses the same methodology as PZ Myers does


      • What am I hiding from?

        It’s clear you are the one who has something to hide, why else would you be deleting most of my comments and avoiding most of my points?

        No doubt you’re into numerology eh?

        47 72 61 65 6d 65 2c 20 77 68 79 20 61 72 65 20 79 6f 75 20 73 75 63 68 20 61 20 63 6f 77 61 72 64 3f

  27. Graeme, you need to watch this important new video from potholer54. You should subscribe to his channel too.


  28. From elsewhere:

    “What you need to do is tell us how that complexity could only be attained by the involvement of extra-terrestial activity.”

    This is almost too stupid for words. For starters we have the occult-epistemology of prejudicing the mainstream assumption when you haven’t shown how that complexity could have evolved in such a short of time on earth.

    Secondly, why mention extraterrestrial-activity when you are making some idiotic claim that I am making some sort of claim that I am not making? If that sounds clumsy think about the depths of your silliness here. Are aliens single-celled animals in this latest fantasy of putting words in my mouth?

    In your view of what an alien would look like, if there is such a being, would you assume that he’s a single-celled animal Malcolm?

    Aliens can be no help in this story ultimately. Since aliens themselves would have needed to evolve highly complex cells. We have to get to the evolution of highly complex cells. Thats the problem here and traditional Darwinism, as applied to a one-planet-only scenario doesn’t have a real plausible answer to it. Since natural selection is a culler of complexity. If the cell is all about information, in the first instance the process of natural selection works to cull and reduce information.

    You are a person of too crude and little a mind to be trying to put words in my mouth Malcolm. So don’t try it again because you are just not that smart.

    Bring in panspermia, a lot more planets, and a lot more time, and the problem is readily solvable.

    Clearly if we are talking ubiquitous terraforming this comes in, if it does come in, at the post-cellular level. Not so much insofar as the problem relates to earth. But to the problem of evolution in some sort of ultimate sense.

  29. The obvious problem for Venter to turn his new technology towards, is the problem of aging. We need the solution to that problem in a great big hurry. What year was that video made in Richie, do you know?




  30. From Elsewhere:

    “Need I point out how ‘unscientific’ your second statement is?”

    No you are not able to back up your belly-crawling idiotic nonsense grumpy old man. You are typing checks that your brain cannot cash. You never came up with an hypothesis, nor evidence for that hypothesis, that could justify the CO2-Bedwetting idiocy, and you are not about to come up with even a scrap of evidence for the Big Bang. The most embarrassing and idiotic theory in modern socialist science. The Universe is clearly much older than the creationist fantasy of the big bang would imply. Nor is there the slightest reason to think otherwise.

    Why do you even try this nonsense on when you know damn well you are shooting blanks?

  31. From Elsewhere:

    “You have no basis for saying that until some credible scientific evidence turns up.”

    Credible scientific evidence for what? The complexity of the cell is credible scientific evidence for evolution not being a one-planet deal.

    You are taking the occult position of being bigoted and tribal as to what you think the consensus scientific position is. But not paradigm gets any sort of leg-up at all. There is no burden of proof. The idea that there is a burden of proof in the starting line-up, is baseless, mindless, low-wattage, superstition. Since it assumes that puny humans have some sort of automatic access to knowledge.

    The evidence is already there in the form of the Cambrian explosion. For the Cambrian explosion to happen we need one of two propositions or both:

    1. Terraforming.

    2. The existence of cellular life as sophisticated as it is today. Such that it could fill every niche very quickly.

    Whats the evidence for your paradigm? You are drawing a big fat blank here grumpy old man! Your one-planet-bigotry has got nothing going for it.

    Where is the evidence for your single-planet bigotry?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: