Modified from elsewhere:
Liberty is not something that is given to us from the desk or the lectern of the Professor. Or yet-even from the iPad of the journalist. Liberty is something that radiates out from the citizen-soldier; in the context of, CONFIDENT ………….. (and appropriately armed) Civilians.
When I say “appropriately” I may suggest, that in urban life, the high-powered weaponry, that we would own in the city, ought not be loaded with ordnance, that might normally be regarded as lethal.
…….
Palestinians are treated like cattle by their Arab brothers and the UN. They are crushed-up against the Israelis; barbarised, imprisoned, and left in concentration-camp conditions, with enough food as it takes to breed, so as to spawn “living title deeds” and recruits to be sent to their death.
Palestinians are pawns. They are indeed victimized. This is unforgivable victimization; Victimization-most-heinous.
But the victimization comes not from the Israelis, but rather from the UN and the Middle-Eastern elites. Whensoever the Israelis leap-frog the Palestinians and hit out at THE true enemies (the mutual enemies of the Israeli and Palestinian people) then this is a joyous thing, marred only by the innocents, and only marginally culpable, that get set up for death and permanent injury, by the authentic bigshot villains.
But aside from the heartbreak of non-combatant deaths and injuries, caused mainly by the enemy as a conscious strategy…..
Besides this sadness …… It is when the Israeli soldier leap-frogs over the Palestinian people…..
…. This is when he can be said to be really FIGHTING.
When I use the terms FIGHT or FIGHTING, I will mean in the sense as described above. This is why I will place these words in capital letters.
If you are an Australian take a look at this picture.
A Friend Of Yours.
Do you see that man? Do you see him? Look at him and concentrate for one moment.
He is an Israeli soldier.
See the Israeli soldier.
When he FIGHTS for the lives of Israeli women and children he FIGHTS for Western Values.
When he FIGHTS for the survival of those other than himself, he is FIGHTING for humane civilization.
SEE THE ISRAELI SOLDIER
HE FIGHTS FOR YOUR FREEDOM
HE IS YOUR FRIEND.
A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office 
Those Crafty Jew Bastards!!!!!
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 5, 2010
at 3:25 pm
It just baffles me that leftists can be so gullible when it comes to the shenanigans of the Islamic Jew-Haters. Its pretty straight-forward. They just get people killed to make the Israelis look bad. I suppose I was pretty slow. But even I had started noticing this technique many years ago.
We should be really happy about this incident in a way. Its such a good thing that the Israeli lads regained the upper hand and all made it home alive from this encounter with the flotilla-of-hate.
There is no such thing as an aid flotilla. Nor could there ever be. Its in defiance of the logistics necessary to bring aid in a cost-effective way.
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 6:04 am
http://palsolidarity.org/2010/05/12604/
Israeli brutality against young American female student.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 7:49 am
Well thats terrible. But there is an element of accident in this story. Its not like they grabbed her and gouged the poor girls eye out.
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 7:56 am
At least half of any US president’s job is play-acting, pretending to be in charge, on behalf of We the People. Most of what actually happens in America is beyond any president’s ability or political inclination to control.
The banks run the finances. The oil companies and Israel vie for control of US foreign policy. The arms companies arrange the wars. The insurance companies figure out who should live or die.
Bill Clinton was so servile to big business that he took a phone call from a Florida sugar baron, even though Monica Lewinsky was giving him a blow-job when the call came in. He surely shocked the feisty intern with his obsequious manner as the baron issued a crisp command to kill off Al Gore’s impertinent talk about environmental clean-up of the Everglades. But Clinton could still scream and throw his weight around in the manner expected of a president.
The all-time presidential champ at bullying was Lyndon Johnson who once lifted up the Greek ambassador by his lapels and snarled at him, “”Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If those two fleas continue itching the elephant they may just get whacked by the elephant’s trunk. Whacked good….”
But Johnson was as servile to the Texas oil kings – most notably the Murchisons – as Clinton was to the sugar baron Alfonso Fanjul. LBJ would delightedly unwrap the bundles of cash Murchison regularly sent up to him.
Obama isn’t into lifting anyone up by the lapels. It’s the other way round. Week after week he’s being hoist off the floor of the Oval Office and thrown against the wall, by everyone from Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan to Benjamin Netanyahu. When Obama tries to bark, it comes out as a yip, like a Chihuahua aping a pit bull.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06042010.html
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 7:57 am
Right. Good post. The name of Murchison came up a great deal when I was looking into the Kennedy assassination. I don’t know how powerful the oil companies are in practice in 2010 at the Federal Level. To my mind the power of an industry can be sized up to some extent by the volume of campaign contributions. That may not be a perfect measure. But still it would give you a good indication.
Ralph Nader asked Justice Antonin Scalia if originalism meant that we had to allow corporations and other “artificial persons” to make campaign contributions. Which are really pay-offs, bribes and kick-backs in a lot of cases. Scalia couldn’t tell him the answer. He said it had never come up before. Thats a good sign and if you ask me campaign contributions ought to be made by real humans only. They ought to come out of after-tax personal income, and exclusively from the territory of the area of responsibility that the politician is being elected for.
And this is not contrary to the American constitution. As Ralph Nader pointed out. The document says “We The People…” It does not say “We the corporations…”
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 8:09 am
I’ve found an annoying inconsistency in the “fraud bankers”. These people say we cannot make bank-cash-pyramiding illegal. But at the same time they want to go to the trouble of making the printing up of banknotes illegal. What a put-upon.
From elsewhere:
Graeme Bird May 28, 2010 at 5:10 pm
“Yes. Printing copies of somebody elses banknotes would be forgery.”
No way. Come off it. That doesn’t make the cutoff in any serious minarchist society. Every law that has to be enforced comes with its own overhead. Why bother enforcing this one, for a bank that was no longer treating its paper as warehouse receipts?
What a waste of resources, since the playful rogues, draining some of the bankers, ill-gotten gains, are doing us a favor! And think of the implausibility of enforcing this one with anyone in the world having the means to start knocking up pretty plausible banknotes? Are we going to go beat up on North Koreas little-Kim for that reason? For doing something the banker is already doing himself?
What this here shows is the tendency to prejudice in favor of laws already being enforced. If you have an art dealership, and they are making buy-sell contracts with paintings and things, then the rules against this sort of forgery are easy and plausible to enforce. Since paintings are not the medium of exchange they do not change hands that quickly. All contracts involved are simply two man contracts. No-one else in the world has any power to credibly bugger up the situation.
But with a banknotes circulating freely, that don’t represent a straight warehouse receipt, then someone in a basement in Yuinima might be able to print them up. So why bother enforcing that law? What is the gain to be made from diverting the Police in this case?
Cash is a waste of money. Cash is not as durable as gold, silver and copper. Banknotes that are serious warehouse receipt, may well be used, for lets say Platinum. As an alternative to simple digitization and possibly a way to give people an extra level of privacy. But for the most part notes are an anti-economic rort foisted on us by fractional reserve.
You want rules and regulations that make property titles blindingly clear, and you want to wipe laws, the attempt of which to enforce, is just a big fat aggravation, and no possible gains to it. You’ll have cops breaking into houses and confiscating peoples printers, when they ought to be doing legwork on less pleasing “crimes.” Or you want them on the streets, just getting about with persuasion and gravitas pre-empting petty intimidation.
You don’t want cops raiding peoples houses to break up operations wherein folks are exercising their human right to make pretty pictures of a handy size.
Read more: White contra Mises on Fiduciary Media — Mises Economics Blog http://blog.mises.org/12713/white-contra-mises-on-fiduciary-media/comment-page-1/#comment-692947#ixzz0q3cDLe26
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 7:59 am
Philomena, you should have seen the debate between Ralph Nader and the Constitution Party Candidate during the last Presidential election. It was a night and day difference between the shallow foolishness of the main candidates. It was just good to see that two intelligent adults could talk about the various issues that faced the country.
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 8:13 am
“When he FIGHTS for the lives of Israeli women and children he FIGHTS for Western Values.
of course fascism was and is a Western value and invention, an invention of western capitalism. so no reason I s’pose the Israelis shouldn’t decide to take that tool out of the box.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 8:29 am
Of course the main opponent of fascism in its earliest incarnations, in Italy and Germany early C20, was the Marxist inspired communist movement.
This the historical record clearly and forever will show.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:22 am
Right thats true. Facism was a Western invention. So was communism. But communism was taken up by the Chinese for example.
The Nazis were influential in the Middle East. These ideas just sort of worked in nicely with what some strands of Islam were up to.
Calling Hamas Nazis is a bit of an insult to the Nazis. Because some of the Nazis were fairly well-educated and intelligent thugs who wanted all the Jews dead. Or at least a long long way away.
Whereas Hamas is an outfit of really stupid uneducated low-life thugs who want all the Jews dead or at least a long long way away. So I hope I haven’t offended any aging Nazi by the comparison.
By: Graeme Bird on June 6, 2010
at 9:26 am
I see. So HAMAS = qualitatively worst NAZIs because they come from a Third World nation, whereas the richer, more civilised and evolved Israelis are good nor evil because while they are racist mass murderers, they’re err not uneducated and poor Arabs.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:47 am
“Calling Hamas Nazis is a bit of an insult to the Nazis. Because some of the Nazis were fairly well-educated and intelligent thugs who wanted all the Jews dead. Or at least a long long way away.
Whereas Hamas is an outfit of really stupid uneducated low-life thugs who want all the Jews dead or at least a long long way away. So I hope I haven’t offended any aging Nazi by the comparison.”
Fascinating
Do please elaborate on the moral difference between the two.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:29 am
Here is the third-party debate, with Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin, that I was talking about. I’m not saying its brilliant or anything. But it sure seemed brilliant in comparison to the two morons who were the two main contenders.
By: Graeme Bird on June 6, 2010
at 9:29 am
Oh no tell me it isn’t so.
Chuck Baldwin bless his cloddish male heart reckons “America has evolved to “a matriarchal society”[60] and that it is losing the “inner toughness” of masculinity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Baldwin
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:40 am
I bet this is Chuck babe’s fave song.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:53 am
I don’t think there is any moral difference between the Hamas Nazis and the Third Reich. The third reich were more dangerous because they were militarily capable. Whereas Hamas, being morons, don’t pose that much of a threat independently. The problem is only that they represent a forward position of Iran.
By: Graeme Bird on June 6, 2010
at 9:32 am
I think you’ll find Turkey is going to be a greater political threat to Israel than Iran.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:41 am
Well you don’t want to believe wikipedia. The deal with wikipedia is they hate people like Chuck Baldwin. So they will lie about them, or else they will follow them around long enough until they find them say something that can make them look stupid.
About Turkey. Yeah sure. They would be a formidable problem if they turned Jihadi. Tough guys. Very scary.
By: Graeme Bird on June 6, 2010
at 9:51 am
Good looking too.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 9:59 am
I told you about my flat mate Genghis didn’t I?
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 10:03 am
No you didn’t. Is it something you ought to tell me about off air?
We fought these guys once. And it wasn’t a pleasant experience. We ought to try avoid fighting them again is all I can say. But people tend to forget that it is us who brought down the Ottoman Empire. What a disaster that was? Had we known that we were helping such a bunch of thuggish desert bandits, when we were backing the Arabs against their Turkish overlords, we probably may have thought again about the wisdom of it all. Pretty much everyone is scared of the Turks in that region. So no actual state in the area messes with them. You look at the sort of ways the Sauds betray their alliance with the Americans all the time. Or at least they did do in the recent past. But if they thought the Turks had it in for them they would sweat blood.
By: Graeme Bird on June 6, 2010
at 10:23 am
It was when I lived in Melbourne. I had a Turkish flatmate for a few months, a guy, friend of a friend, newly arrived from Germany. He couldn’t speak English. He was extraordinarily good looking, and so were a lot of his mates.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 10:37 am
Right. Nice name. Genghis.
The Arabs brought Islam to the Turks. But the Turks, being so ferocious ended up taking over the Arabs, but would employ some of them in civil service jobs.
Had Constantinople not held out for so long they might have taken over all of Europe. It must have been quite a close-run thing.
By: Graeme Bird on June 6, 2010
at 10:59 am
The Crimean War in the 1850s was significant in that it was the first real alliance between Christian and Islamic forces, when Turkey joined together with France and Britain against Russia.
As a result of this closer than usual co-operation Muslims discovered there was a huge amount they could learn and benefit from Europe, not just about weapons and fighting and medicine but from a vast array of other important things too such as press freedom, tax reform, equality before the law and the acceptance of modern science.
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 11:14 am
This is an exquisite account of Istanbul by a very good writer.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200504110042
By: Philomena on June 6, 2010
at 11:22 am
Right. Its a pity we didn’t manage our relationship better with these people thereafter. The Turks I mean. Not necessarily Muslims in the general. One wonders how we wound up on the wrong side of them during World War I. I don’t know enough about it. I know that Churchill wanted to go around the back of the stalemated front. One wonders if he didn’t want to also capture Istanbul and have it under Christian control, change back its name and so forth. But is that the point at which the Turks entered the war? Or were they allies with the Germans prior to that? Pardon my ignorance on this part of the story.
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 11:26 am
I wish it wasn’t a social faux pas to still call that city Constantinople. I’d still like to be able to do so. Not for imperial reasons, or because I’m dirty on it being under Muslim control. But simply because I like the name “Constantinople” and dislike the name “Istanbul”.
Byzantium. Constantinople. I mean these are wonderful sounding names. Istanbul is so plain as a name.
I think from here on in I’ll refer to it by these other two names. It may be good for ones mood. I’m probably more dirty with these people for changing the name then for taking over the city.
Consider the tenaciousness and fundamental hardwired imperialism of Islam. They tried for centuries to take the city. They never would give up on the process. This I believe is the basic nature of Islam. Its a religion that demands the whole world.
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 11:31 am
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 5:57 pm
Paul Craig Roberts, like a lot of people, going a bit off the wrong end here on the issue. Still some very good points made, along with the bad ones. I myself don’t get unhappy with people making a few bad points. As long as they think for themselves and make a few good ones as well.
By: graemebird on June 6, 2010
at 11:30 pm
dude I went to school with many of these Muslim kids for 10 years in malaysia. There is nothing fundamentally ‘hardwired for imperialism’ in Islam, it depends on the culture that absorbs it. The Malays are pretty chilled out dudes except for when they get over-excited about Chinese business dominance. The problem is the sandcrackers exporting their imperialistic attitude to other Muslims.
By: triangulator on June 7, 2010
at 12:27 am
Right. But they are more of the results of Imperialism, as opposed to the centre from which it came from. Malaysia isn’t or at least wasn’t any sort of military powerhouse. And the Arab and Muslim world has fallen far back in technology. Your associates at school weren’t really in a position to so much as daydream about imperialism, what with the Japanese and Chinese around the place.
Its sort of like sin and sex. Some people are saved from sin by sheer ineptitude.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I managed to get this one through at the ABC:
Graeme Bird :
07 Jun 2010 9:43:42am
Now I’m not sure about this. But it looks like a great deal of petty mercantilism has crept into the administration of this blockade. By petty-mercantilism I mean, if it were the case that the Israeli government had allowed the corporate influence to creep in, and so local manufacturers had started using the Palestinian people as a captive market. As a supporter of Israel and the blockade I would say that the mercantilism must go, since the blockade has to stay.
If Australia had a decent leadership and public service it is on this point that their diplomatic efforts ought focus. All the democracies have become hopelessly in the grip of their corporate special interests. Some influence applied here would be helpful to everyone.
Reply Alert moderator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To me this is typical of Israel. They have RIGHT broadly on their side but they cock things up with petty stupidity and callousness like this. But then again its pretty typical of democracy more generally.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 12:42 am
The story of the five dancing Israelis:
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 1:51 am
“yea, It’s great news about Humphreys.
Bird will be jealous sick. This could end up killing him.
Hopefully not if but when John makes it to Canberra he’ll be able to ram a little economics down the throats of the coalition, which is sorely needed.”
If he’s able to roll Rudd he will be doing us all a favor. And of course that will put him on the permanent bludge which is always his goal. He’s barely worked a day in his life it seems.
But this idea of Humphreys helping the coalition with his economics knowledge is utterly ridiculous. Humphreys is a total economics illiterate.
It would be a little bit annoying to see Humphreys so powerfully on the bludge. But thats not a problem. The real problem is if this Martian narcissist starts to get any real influence. He’s total poison. Like this Key fellow in New Zealand or Malcolm Turnbull here. He’s akin to a Goldman Sachs-bot, though he’s never been associated with these dudes he carries that same irrational poison. There is no reasoning with him ever. A lot of us tried to educate him on the carbon-tax and cap-and-kill. But he’s not capable of being reached through any reasoning process. His utter ignorance of economics is part of the problem. But we weren’t able to reach him on the climate science side of things, or on any other matter.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 2:08 am
From elsewhere:
My experience tells me we need more detective work and less lawyering. Because you get into court and the lawyers encourage their clients to lie, and the judges don’t care.
Judges are deluded people. They think they know things that they cannot possibly know. So that for most things there ought to be a quick hearing where accusations are all spelled out. Then detective work that can contradict these lies ought to be able to go forth.
We ought to build a tier under the current legal system. A tier that has a high bias to getting at the truth, before any appeal can hand-ball it up to the legacy legal system.
Imagine the delusional nature of people who think they can determine the truth by way of unbacked statements, cobbled together under the advice of lawyers? Its a scandal. The whole thing is an artificial support system for lawyer-incomes. This ought to be considered a major embarrassment to our pretensions of a free society.
Comment by graemebird | June 7, 2010
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 2:20 am
“Great work. Bird trying to do his bit to help Rudd keep his seat.
What a guy. Bird would prefer the abominable ETS to John’s Carbon tax that would, if it were implemented, would blow the lid on the left, as they couldn’t criticize and we’d move more tax away from gross income.”
I don’t know how strong my readership is up in Queensland. But I want to repeat. It would be a good thing if Humphreys beat Rudd. They are two peas in the same pond, so its good if at least one of them is gotten quickly away from the levers of power.
The above is a Cambria quote. Cambria quotes often contain some half-truthz in them. But this Cambria quote is wrong in all respects.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 4:09 am
See the dimness of the other Goldman-Sachs-bot type Cambria. Its not a statement of Cambria’s institutional affiliation to say that he is a Goldman-Sachs bot. Its more to do with a type. A type that cannot be reasoned with.
Here the dim Cambria thinks by bolstering the lies in support of the Carbon attax, this will be fighting the Cap-And-kill. The stupid wop cunt has even turned it into a grand political strategy of sorts.
“….. Carbon tax that would, if it were implemented, would blow the lid on the left, as they couldn’t criticize and we’d move more tax away from gross income…..”
In the dim mind of this particular Sachs-bot you defeat lies and unscience, by supporting those same lies and unscience.
This is political science 101 in that small wop mind of Cambria.
In reality of course once Abbot broke the bipartisan nature of the scam he not only came pretty close to defeating the movement in Australia, but he immediately came within a coo-ee of defeating labour.
Its in the Humphreys nature that he could help himself gain more votes while white-anting matters for the Liberals and the country with a similar strategy.
Key, Turnbull, Cambria and Humphreys are all cut from the same counterfeiting printing press.
However on a more personal level the Humphreys narcissism is far more in resemblance to his opponent Rudd.
It is such an extreme feature of Humphreys. If you even doubt me, a quick visit to his blog ought to disabuse any fair-minded person of such doubt.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 4:18 am
Key, like Turnbull, is a public menace in conservatives clothing. Not only did he participate in this stimulus insanity, like a good Sachs-bot. But the lunatic is actually going through with the cap-and-kill. This will mean devastation for the New Zealanders. And if the Humphreys influence brings a carbon tax here it will mean utter devastation here as well.
There is no revenue that this will bring that will reduce other taxes. What an idiotic notion for starters. You set the budget right by cutting spending. Firstly by getting rid of superfluous, or barely useful departments. But the carbon tax, or the cap-and-kill will gut tax revenue from all other sources.
The only countries where this may not be the case is where they have a full head of steam in the nuclear power industry. This is not us, you may have noticed. But even then it would still be harmful. It would prevent what is really needed. That is to say the nuclear-enhancement of our carbon resources. Which is the current answer to our energy needs and the only way to bring international energy prices right down.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 4:31 am
I’d be happy if anyone could link a closer-to-source confirmation of the story linked below. However it is beyond question that the video is a fake.
http://info-wars.org/2010/05/25/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video/
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 6:11 am
Rare video footage of Angelo Codevilla. Here he is coming out against the American current use of torture. He does however start with an example where torture was likely justified. This is a French example and he explains why it may have been justified and why the American example doesn’t stand up in the least. Codevilla starts 27 minutes in. About 55 minutes in he explains that getting your intelligence from the CIA is akin to relying on the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 6:33 am
“What we will do about economic theory after that I can only guess. But there ought to be no doubt that macroeconomic theory is in a mess.”
There is nothing wrong with the good theory. Its just the bad theory has been promoted to the top. This is a matter of the economics profession being filled with stupid people on the one hand, and people of poor character on the other.
Take the morons at Catallaxy for example. You cannot get them to prove their idiotic support for the Keynesian multiplier or give this idiocy away for all time.
This is a character issue. With Mark Hill its a matter of intellectual handicap. But its a matter of character defects with the others.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 10:26 am
From elsewhere:
There is a big problem with this quote Bizbob:
“http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
“There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.””
The problem is that Goddard are liars. And none of the above is true. I don’t know why there has been this sudden growth in co-ordinated lying in the Western world. It wasn’t like this 35 years ago. I can’t explain it. I don’t know how its achieved. But we should accept it because it is in fact happening.
Some aspects of the current scene are probably unprecedented in history. Its like all of a sudden, the entirely of the West is facing more intrigue then what was normal for the Byzantine empire. It used to be that the conspiracies were generated on the outside, by the communists.
I have no sound explanation for why we find ourselves in the cess-pit of public dishonesty. But there you have it.
By: Graeme Bird on June 7, 2010
at 9:39 pm
I don’t keep up with the kids music, although I was right abreast of matters until about 2003.
As a result of my ignorance I have just been overcome in mourning for Brittany Murphy. A person I know nothing about.
I was just watching Happy Feet Sunday Night. And the singer I thought was so good, I tried to think who had those skills. All I came up with was Christina Aguilera. But I was thinking that George Miller must have got such great work out of Christina. Since I thought that whilst she is clearly a fine singer, when I’ve heard her she is often overdoing it and its not always as tasteful as her skills might allow.
So I was just sitting around getting a good sense of national pride thinking about how a director like George Miller gets these great performances out of people with only just a little bit of acting experience.
Then I found out that the real voice was of a person called Brittany Murphy. Then I found out she had died.
What a bummer.
Well I’m almost over it now.
Onward.
By: Graeme Bird on June 7, 2010
at 10:19 pm
Thinking about it, it was like the same wave of hurt hearing how Branden Lee died.
Its coming back to me reading the wiki:
“Because the movie’s second unit team was running behind schedule, they decided to make dummy cartridges (cartridges that outwardly appear to be functional but contain no gunpowder or primer) from real cartridges by pulling out the bullet, dumping out the gunpowder and reinserting the bullet.
However, the team neglected to consider that the primer was still live and, if fired, could still produce enough force to push the bullet off the end of the cartridge. At some point prior to the fatal scene, the live primer on one of the constructed dummy rounds was discharged by persons unknown while in the pistol’s chamber. It caused a squib load, in which the primer provided just enough force to push the bullet out of the cartridge and into the barrel of the revolver.[citation needed]
The malfunction went unnoticed by the crew, and the same gun was used again later to shoot the scene in which Lee was killed, having been reloaded with low-power black powder blanks. Because the squib load was still lodged in the barrel, the blank cartridge’s explosion propelled it out of the barrel and into Lee’s body.
Although the bullet was traveling much slower than a normally fired bullet would be, its large size and the point-blank firing distance made it powerful enough to cause a fatal wound.
[citation needed]
When the blank was fired, the bullet shot out and hit Lee in the abdomen and lodged in his spine. He fell down instantly, and director Alex Proyas shouted “Cut!”. When Lee did not respond, the cast and crew rushed to him and found that he was wounded.
He was immediately rushed to the hospital. Lee’s heart stopped in the ambulance. Following a six-hour operation to remove the bullet, and despite being given 60 pints (or 28 liters) of blood[citation needed], Lee was pronounced dead at 1:04 pm on March 31, 1993. He was 28 years old.”
I did not know this. It hurts.
These people were experienced with getting things done quickly on time as a matter of personal pride.
They were not educated with firearms.
You don’t screw around like that with firearms. You got to take responsibility for every damn thing, and every last bullet, fake or otherwise, that comes out of that barrel.
But thats your sleep-deprived crew, priding itself on getting things done, anyway it can, since once shooting starts, the money is disappearing so fast so you have these crews with that real attitude that we will get things done.
I suppose they were an Australian crew and mostly from an urban background. They did not have the alarm bells going off in their heads.
Imagine trying to be innovative with live bullets on the fly?
By: Graeme Bird on June 7, 2010
at 10:39 pm
Those bloodthirsty Hollywood Jew bastards.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 7, 2010
at 11:09 pm
Sadly they were our guys I think Ron. And it would likely be more to do with the units (basically we are talking skilled roadies) pride in getting things done …… but not mediated by the proper respect for the firearm and the bullets that go in it. Not to be tarried with or experimented on in such haste.
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 11:59 pm
that wheel of fortune chick has also passed on Mr Bird but no evidence of Jewish conspiracy in this case
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/burgess-mourns-wheel-of-fortune-cohost-20100607-xqu6.html
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 7, 2010
at 11:15 pm
That is sad. I had a flatmate that knew her. I ended up throwing him out of the house. But still I feel the secondary connection. Although I could be getting her mixed up with another hostess.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 12:02 am
From Elsewhere:
Listen Mark Hill you dope. The goal is TRUTH? Got it? Am I going too fast for you?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"I think the govt. could help clean up the system to some degree by actively prosecuting all those caught perjuring themselves in court."
But its not going to work like that Phillip. You cannot hope for these people, many of them lawyers themselves, in power, not the least concerned for those who have neither political, financial, or social power ….. You cannot hope for them to make smooth incremental changes for the better.
You cannot do these things incrementally when the bully-boys running things are so hardwired into the entire zeitgeist of the legal system.
The only chance, short of multiple secession, is to develop a tax-exempt legal tier, underneath the current system. And from the start this first tier, focused radically on truth-and-evidence …. has no lawyers but many detectives-lite. Lie-detector operators. Data-gatherers. Mediators. Reconciliation specialists. All pretty low-paid. This sort of thing. Lawyers need not apply.
Then when things go wrong, and are not resolved, you can
pitch the cases up to the legacy-Mordor, that sits above the TRUTH-tier. But the truth of the matter will be already stamped on the conflict, even if things are pitched up in the chain of command.
Comment by graemebird | June 8, 2010
By: graemebird on June 7, 2010
at 11:52 pm
Mr Bird
I would suspect Mr Hill of being a Jew bastard if he wasn’t so dumb.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 8, 2010
at 12:00 am
If by Jew you mean “rootless cosmopolitan with no honor or allegiance” then I would be applying your criteria of stupid to Humphreys.
Then it would go like this:
“I would suspect John Humphreys of being a Jew bastard if he wasn’t so dumb.”
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 12:06 am
Friggin generation x.
Think they can have weight in some specialty, without being a generalist when it comes to logic and reason:
“At any rate, the claim that the blockade isn’t illegal requires criteria of verification…”
It most certainly does not. What an idiotic statement!!!! Why would it be illegal? None of you have come up with evidence that its illegal. Nothing certainly that a few minor changes, if it were proved illegal, wouldn’t make it suddenly legal again.
What sort of a con-artist are you? Trying that sort of scam on us?
They are willing to transport any and all gear through their point of logistics. So stuff that isn’t banned is allowed through. Hence if the blockade were judged to be close to some arbitrary illegal cutoff, then it would just be a matter of reducing the banned list.
Don’t pull a ridiculous, dishonest stunt like that again. You are only a lawyer mate. You are not a philosopher. It does not pay for you to go so far beyond your pay-grade.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 12:29 am
mr bird
what do you think of this?
http://johnhumphreys.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/benefit-cost-analysis-for-the-ets/
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 8, 2010
at 12:29 am
“The other claim that it is not unsustainable begs the pragmatic truth. I may add that you do not comprehend this directly, so it is in fact possible that you have come to such a claim by deduction or induction. ”
Oh for the love of God. Praise Be. Yes of course I did. And I’m good at it. Now as I pointed out. There is in fact a legal student mental-handicap. And by the above, we see that you have confessed to rejecting logic. That is to say, induction deduction.
The rejection of logic by one side, means the other side has won by default. Its doesn’t matter what you clowns do in the law school. Thats your business.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 12:39 am
Its economic illiteracy Ron.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 12:39 am
Mr Bird,
While you and I have known what is going on with the china coms for some time it is good to see such things being published even in our major Beijing leaning newspapers.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/in-china-the-party-always-starts-at-the-top-20100607-xqrb.html
“China tells the world they operate independently of the government. Remember Chinalco? McGregor tells us its chairman, Xiao Yaqing, a member of the party’s central committee, had a red machine on his desk. “The party sat quietly out of sight, tugging on the reins when need be.” McGregor lists some key tugs: Chinalco was handpicked by the government to bid for Rio Tinto to block its merger with BHP Billiton; it was funded by Chinese state banks not for commercial reasons but strategic national ones; the financing was approved directly by the national cabinet.
Most strikingly, it turns out the Rio play was also a job application for Xiao to ascend to a powerful new job attached to China’s cabinet. “In China, the deal and the promotion were tied together,” according to The Party. So Chinalco and 50 leading state-owned firms are not simply commercial enterprises. They are extensions of the state and tools of the party. Next time one makes a bid for a major overseas asset, we need to understand who is making the bid, and the implications of what this could mean.”
By: Richard Glover on June 8, 2010
at 1:16 am
The incredible folly of it. We ought not forget who it was out there who was trying to bullshit us that communist government nationalisation, is free trade.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 4:06 am
That oriental agent Jason Soon must be hunted down as a traitor Mr Bird.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 8, 2010
at 4:14 am
Yeah how would that go? Were he rounded up with Humphreys and Sinclair. That would blow a hole in the quisling-economics movement in this country. A gaping hole like that which Buddy Holly, The Big Boppa, and Ritchie Valens, left in Rock and Roll, when they fell out of the sky.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 4:27 am
Soon, Humphreys, Sinclair
what do they have in common, Mr Bird?
Think
None of them were born in this great brown land.
What hath immigration wrought? We must seal our borders NOW
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 8, 2010
at 5:15 am
There wasn’t but one of those Catallaxy economics illiterates who weren’t egging us on to be getting in more and more trouble with communist nationalisation. Only Michael Fisk raised the alarm.
Sinclair, Hill, Soon, Reynolds, Cambria. All of them in favor of communist nationalisation and the setting up of further footholds for the Chinese to use spies. That is to say agents of influence and peddlers of subversion.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 4:24 am
People have to know when our politicians are not up to this sort of thing. We cannot be messing around with these hard-core teacher-eaters. One wants to keep a quiet and respectful distance from these guys. And arm up with the full-blown intention of keeping their influence right out of our hemisphere.
Its not as if these guys are authentically fond of trade. Its communists nationalizing our extraction industries and large swathes of land. Only this sort of thing really turns then on.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 4:31 am
Did you know that the dickhead stalker birdlab is also a dumb-economist. True story.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 4:33 am
Mr B
Some person is posting under my name.
So far I am not upset because everything the false Ron Pauline Hanson has said happens to be extremely Sensible.
However he may be a Jew or otherwise subject to Cosmopolitan Influences and may be planning a Jew-y Fifth Column / Double Switcheroo type operation. The sort of Cunning Ploy the Jew excels at.
So keep an eye open, as always.
And just to be safe, whenever I post (i.e. the Real Ron Pauline Hanson) I’ll start off by saying “Hi – it’s Ron here”. That way you’ll know it’s me, and not the impostor.
In the meantime, I may head to the bunker for a while until this blows over.
See you on the flipside
Ron
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 8, 2010
at 6:08 am
In spite of the obviously fraudulent previous letter, I’m delighted to see that Mr Bird has valiantly tried to educate the great unwashed while simultaneously coping with these illiterate/irritable left wing types. (Really you’d think the fall of the infamous Iron Curtain had never happened) If one were to compare the husky portrait of Bird to McCarthy, well the subject of clone or even love child springs to mind. I certainly doubt that communism has been so vehemently hated since those sensible inquiries of almost 50 years ago.
So I beg you to continue looking out for Society. While some may suggest you personify an embarrassing/antiquated/pre-historic viewpoint, I know I can afford to relax with in the rear.
By: Eric Smedly on June 8, 2010
at 7:12 am
I think Eric The Idiot meant “Despite” the obviously… etc with its overdose of adverbs and its total lack of wit or wisdom. It’s utter pointlessness. Obviously the product of the “mind” of a Catallaxy inmate.
By: Philomena on June 8, 2010
at 8:18 am
Believe it or not the stupid wop Cambria has taken offence with the following suggestions:
“■ Process iron ore, uranium and other mineral assets here, rather than just shipping it to others who then add the value.
■ Rebuild a knowledge base in manufacturing.
■ Prevent multinational companies from avoiding taxes by transferring costs and profits around the world simply to manipulate tax laws.
■ Instead of relying on bureaucrats, seek the policy input of people with actual experience in industry.
■ Abandon the US free-trade agreement.”
Shocking hey? What terrible suggestions. The horror the horror. That we might actually improve our manufacturing, have independence when it comes to policy, and get good at making stuff and doing stuff. All a bit too much for the dumb wop Cambria.
Cambria has pretensions to understanding economics. He’s never understood economics. He never studied economics, beyond the Keynesian claptrap they teach you in first year. He’s a dumb Keynesian through and through.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 10:03 am
I already know what these fucking morons are going to accuse me of next. Spending programs. They do it all the time. If you say that we ought to reindustrialise the fucking ignorant cunts compare you to Stalin.
Incredible hey? Free enterprise is STALIN in their stupid fucking views. Government to Government deals is free trade in their logical incompetence. Cutting spending and reforming money to improve manufacturing performance is Stalinist industry policy.
And the worst of all these useless cunts reckon that communist nationalisation of our gear is FREE TRADE.
Surely Cambria and these other morons are some of the most ignorant dummies that this country has yet produced.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 10:10 am
These idiots are actually against us making stuff and doing stuff. As if we can continue to expand our standard of living while we import, borrow and don’t export. Or only export financial services.
This is the ignorance these people have. They take a cargo-cult point of view towards the financial sector. They don’t understand it at all by they think it produces a lot of wealth by some sort of mystery that they cannot explain.
So you don’t want to be making or selling stuff. In their view you just rely on this cargo cult, involving more and more debt.
“I think Bird would accept 90% of Feil’s agenda.”
What on earth has been listed that any sane person can possibly not accept? I don’t know what Feil has said. But what has been quoted is clearly what would be the result of successful policy.
“chanelling Bird:
its now a free trade agreement you dumb vanilla-Goth wog c***, its a parasite to parasite taxeater agreement. imagine the stupidity of this Goldman-sachs-botM”
Yes that is the idea you stupid Gook. But why don’t you accept it? The position is unassailable. You cannot make a taxeater agreement “free trade” simply by screwing with the English language.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 10:20 am
“■ Process iron ore, uranium and other mineral assets here, rather than just shipping it to others who then add the value.
■ Rebuild a knowledge base in manufacturing.
■ Prevent multinational companies from avoiding taxes by transferring costs and profits around the world simply to manipulate tax laws.
■ Instead of relying on bureaucrats, seek the policy input of people with actual experience in industry.
■ Abandon the US free-trade agreement.”
You see the above? There is one word for this. That word is SUCCESS. This is the outcome of successful policy. So useless are Cambria, Sinclair, Soon, Birdlab, Humphreys et al ……..
That they confuse successful outcomes with bad policy. Humphreys once said that we don’t need a manufacturing sector. The stupid ignorant cunt also said that we don’t have a debt problem.
The economic illiteracy of these people just doesn’t bottom out.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 10:24 am
Too true Mr Bird.
All that Cambria is good for is getting his mangy poodle mutt shampooed and nail-clipped at the local flea-bitten dive for sex-starved failed trader owners and their obsequious sniffy canine hound.
By: Philomena on June 8, 2010
at 10:30 am
■ Process iron ore, uranium and other mineral assets here, rather than just shipping it to others who then add the value.
Birdie, this is already being done as far as the market supports it, there are aluminium and steel smelters using Australian minerals.
Australia currently exports around 80% of its mined minerals, so under this plan what should be done? Keep most of these minerals in Australia to process and manufacture all sorts of items? Who would buy them?
WELL IF YOU GET TO ADD MORE VALUE THATS THE OUTCOME OF SUCCESSFUL POLICY.
The domestic market would only buy a fraction and these goods would have to be so overpriced compared to world markets (due to higher manufacturing costs)
IF OUR MANUFACTURING COSTS ARE COMPETITIVE IN THE FACE OF HIGHER REAL WAGES THATS A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME.
that they’d be forced to sell them at a loss!
Anyone who supports this plan is anti free trade.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE PLANE IS. DO YOU? THESE ARE OUTCOMES THAT REPRESENT SUCCESS
Is that you Graeme, are you a closet commie?
SEE I KNEW YOU WOULD SAY THAT. I PREDICTED IT. BECAUSE YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. I’VE NEVER ONCE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT TARRIFS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TARIFFS OR NOT? I TELL MY PRO-INDUSTRIALISATION FRIENDS THAT IF I COULD GET US REINDUSTRIALISING AND IN TRADE SURPLUS IN 18 MONTHS, WITHOUT TARIFFS WOULD YOU STILL BE WANTING TARIFFS TO REINDUSTRIALISE. THE LAST TIME I ASKED A FRIEND THIS HE SAID “NO OF COURSE NOT BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED. FREE TRADE DOESN’T MEAN LOSING YOUR MANUFACTURING. GOOD POLICY OUGHT TO RESULT IN US BECOMING THE BEST MANUFACTURERS IN THE WORLD WITH THE HIGHEST LABOUR COSTS. THIS IS ECONOMIC SCIENCE TEACHES YOU. IT TEACHES YOU THAT THIS IS THE OUTCOME OF APPLYING GOOD POLICY.
YOU HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE CAMBRIA. I DIDN’T REALLY WANT TO BE ABUSIVE OVER THIS POINT, BUT ITS A REPETITIVE THING. THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMISTS PERVERSION OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE TO MEAN ITS OPPOSITE.
Tell me how this plan would work.
WELL I MAY DO. AND I SUPPOSE I WILL DO SO AGAIN FOR THE ZILLIONTH TIME. BUT I’VE BEEN OVER IT SO MANY TIMES, AND YET THE CATALLAXIANS HAVE NOT REPUDIATED THEIR WRONG AND ANTI-ECONOMIC VIEW OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE.
THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD ARE
1. POLICY MIXES THAT ARM-TWIST US INTO THE OVERUSE OF DEBT. DEBT REALLY IS AN ISSUE IF BROUGHT ABOUT BY BAD POLICY.
2. ANY TAXES ON RETAINED EARNINGS.
3. MONETARY POLICY THAT GUTS OUR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.
4. A HUGE PARASITISM BURDEN
IN THE EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES WE ALSO HAVE THIS TERRIBLY COMPLEX SETUP WHEN WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE COMBINATION OF ROYALTIES AND HOMESTEADING OF RESOURCES. UNTIL WE GET THIS SETUP, WITHOUT COMPANY TAX, THEN OPEN INVESTMENT IN THIS AREA IS NOT NEUTRAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I’VE GONE OVER IT MANY TIMES BUT NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE IDEOLOGUES AT CATALLAXY THAT I’M RIGHT.
NOTE THAT THE CURRENT HATEFUL PROPOSALS ARE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM HIGHER ROYALTIES BUT NO OTHER TAXES. THAT THEY’VE BROKEN DOWN THE DOOR ON DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN INDUSTRIES ACTUALLY GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THINGS RIGHT IN THIS INDUSTRY. THEN WE CAN FEEL HAPPY ABOUT THROWING IT OPEN. HOWEVER EVEN AFTER THAT PROCESS COMMUNIST NATIONALIZATION IS STILL NOT OKAY. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT WE CAN WELCOME HERE WHO ARE NOT COMMUNIST AND NOT A STRATEGIC THREAT.
By: Bird flaps on June 8, 2010
at 11:23 am
Did I not predict that these guys would equate being opposed to communist nationalisation as being a commie?
These people are so resistant to learning anything and to logic. Its a national tragedy where they are taking us.
By: graemebird on June 8, 2010
at 11:56 am
I want to make a clean break with the past. Isn’t it funny how incestuous the economics community is? How we as a tribe have got a few things consistently wrong in this country.
1. I want to now embrace the true meaning of the Riccardo/Mises concept of Comparative Advantage. I include Mises in the concept, since he was the economist who first pointed out that Comparative advantage applies at all levels, right down to two people. Its funny that we missed this point en masse, since every one of us has read Friedman’s “Free To Choose” and Friedman included a Misean analysis of comparative advantage in this universally read book.
In retrospect it is really very bizare that we all could have extrapolated wrongly to imagine we could view comparative advantage as something that happens between arbitrary sectors. Arbitrary in the sense that these sectors are only divided conceptually, for ease of understanding. And the way we choose to divide them cannot affect a concept that works on every level without exception.
Isn’t it funny how this presumption that Comparative Advantage works specific to arbitrary sectors has lead the Australian economics consensus to get the consequences of Comparative Advantage 180 degrees wrong from the reality, as well as from the true concept in economic science? Aren’t incestuous networks so weird in that way? Its one thing for one or two people to have the wrong slant on a matter. But isn’t it so weird that we managed to get everything so fundamentally the opposite of the truth of it?
2. In consequence of the above I want to repudiate the idea that more openness in trade, if policy settings are functional, will lead to the loss of ones manufacturing prowess. The opposite is obviously the case.
3. I think you would surely have to agree Graeme, that these so-called “free trade deals” you disparage really did help a lot of people in poorer countries in their first 20 years? Surely you are not a denialist about that point? Or are you? How could you be when you ought be taking into account the hundreds of millions of people in China and India, who have been pulled out of poverty thanks to outsourcing and the development of their manufacturing industries? ” A new broom sweeps pretty cleanly” they say. Still I take your point. They are government deals, and in the longer run the good that came out of them will be replaced with systemically growing bad. We ought not engage in such Orwellian behavior as to call them “free trade deals.” This misrepresentation is clearly against our duty to the public.
4. I have been studying Austrian economic concepts. Just to name a couple the concept of the lengthening of the structure of production. I’ve also finally been looking into the Austrian theory of the business cycle, and Austrian capital theory. Boy that Austrian capital theory is hard yakka hey? I cannot say that I’ve mastered it all yet. But I think I’ve learned enough so that each week I’m seeing more and more why it is that your version of monetary policy is so crucial to the health of business dealings, judgements, capital accumulation, and the problem of co-ordinating the resource allocation of all industries in the wider economy. Whats making me stick this out is my new-found faith in your judgement in economic science. This capital theory, and Reismans related work on national accounting conceps all seems so counter-intuitive at first. Particularly for a person who had been trained to think in Keynesians terms. I can honestly put it down to faith in you that I’ve seen fit to stick with my course of study, long enough to get to this point where I can see light at the end of the tunnel.
5. In consequence of this master-class, trial by ordeal, that I’m putting myself through I’m now. for the very first time, getting it vis a vis your contention that monetary reform is the most important of all issues. Where I had previously wrongly assumed that it was of 20th order importance.
6. I promise to never ever mistake, the allowing of communist nationalisation ………….. for a pro-free-enterprise policy.
Well I cannot say for sure I’ll never “do it” again. I lack your penetrating genius with it comes to conceptual matters. Be sure to give me any references I need to keep this newly-found ability to increase the depth of my knowledge…. Do be sure to send such links as you expect might be helpful to keep this newly steep learning curves I’m developing, pointing in the right direction, and with a less than feeble gradient.
By: Jason Soon on June 8, 2010
at 1:59 pm
NO POINT COMING HERE TO LIE YOU IDIOT MARK HILL.
“YOU SEE GDP AS AN OBJECT OF TECHNOCRATIC PROGRESS”
TOTALLY INCOHERENT AS USUAL. ITS NO POINT ME ASKING YOU WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL. AND NO I’M NO SOCIAL DEMOCRAT. YOU’VE LOST THE PLOT WITH THAT ONE.
By: MARK HILL on June 8, 2010
at 11:58 pm
Hi Mr B
It’s Ron here.
Don’t trust that Stupid Gook with his recantation. I think he’s trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 8, 2010
at 11:59 pm
Well I’ll let you in on a secret Ron. Jason Soon doesn’t understand economics well enough to make as superb recanting as in the above post.
Thats the site deity speaking over him.
Jason was doing his usual trick where he equates liberty and good policy with the person of Kim Il Sung. So I decided to show how he would behave were he dedicated to the truth, and were he in the position of understanding economics a great deal better than he currently does.
Amazing isn’t it? Humphreys, Jason and Sinclair are all out there in the public debate, screwing up a bedrock concept like “comparative advantage.” The Australian tribal position on the concept of comparative advantage is totally the opposite of the authentic concept. I find this utterly amazing that they could cock things up so badly and so consistently.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 12:07 am
Mr B
It’s Ron here.
The fake RPH is right.
Don’t trust that Oriental Jew bastard. When he gets close enough to you he’ll stab you in the back.
THIS REMINDS ME OF STAR TREK. THIS PARTICULAR POSTER IS THE FAKE RON PAULINE HANSEN. THIS POSTER IS JASON SOON. JUST IN CASE YOU GUYS THOUGHT I WAS HITTING BELOW THE BELT OVERWRITING JASON WITHOUT SHOWING IT WAS ME, JASON QUITE REGULARLY IMPERSONATES OTHERS ON THIS BLOG. SO ITS NO BIGGIE.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 9, 2010
at 12:08 am
BECAUSE HE’S PLAY-ACTING AND NOT LYING. HE’S NOT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
NOW SUPPOSING SOMEONE ACCUSED ME OF PUTTING WORDS IN THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMISTS MOUTHS. WELL HERE IS TWO POSTS, BOTH BY AUSTRALIAN ECONOMISTS, BOTH OF WHICH SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH ME ON THESE MATTERS IN THE FAKE JASON SOON RECANTATION:
I see Bird has now sock puppeted me and then has me writing a long monologue where I ageee with everything he says. Classy. That man has the ego of a planet
jtfsoon
9 Jun 10 at 9:47 am
I was wondering about that Jason. Thanks for clearing it up.
BirdLab
9 Jun 10 at 9:49 am
By: MARK HILL on June 9, 2010
at 12:17 am
Graeme,
Seeing that you disavowed opportunity costs, how can you believe in comparative advantage?
THAT DOESN’T FOLLOW AT ALL. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IS A DOCTRINE THAT COULD NOT BE MORE VALID. WHEREAS WHILE OPPORTUNITY COST MAY BE USED IN SOME SORT OF COLLOQUIAL SITUATIONS, ITS SHORT OF THE MARK AS A GOOD DOCTRINE. ITS NOT WRONG EXACTLY. IT JUST DOESN’T MEASURE UP. BECAUSE IT SOMEHOW MANUFACTURES A SITUATION WHEREIN THERE IS ONLY TWO OPTIONS, AND THE NEXT BEST OPTION IS KNOWN. THAT IS NEVER THE CASE. NEITHER THE BEST OPTION NOR THE SECOND BEST OPTION ARE KNOWN. AND OPTIONS ARE UNLIMITED. BUT I’VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE. YOU DIDN’T GET IT THEN. YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO GET IT NOW.
Feil is mostly wrong.
DON’T BASE THIS ON SOME MAKE-BELIEVE NOTION OF FEILS POSITION. YOU MAY BE RIGHT. BUT YOU DON’T KNOW THIS SINCE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE IS SAYING. YOUR VERSION OF FEIL COMES MOSTLY OUT OF YOUR OWN IMAGINATION. IN THIS RESPECT YOU ARE ENTIRELY DERANGED.
He’s right that manufacturing is more than labour intensive assembly line work.
OF COURSE HE WOULD BE IF HE EVEN SAID THIS. BUT YOU HAVEN’T READ HIM SAY THIS RATHER TRITE OBSERVATION. YOU ARE MAKING IT ALL UP.
ETMs form a growing part of our exports.
ETM’S? YOU TOO LAZY TO SPEAK ENGLISH?
Free trade is not killing manufacturing.
THIS IS RIGHT.
Onerous indirect taxes are.
THAT IS ONE PROBLEM YES. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS. YOU MIGHT WISH TO TELL HUMPHREYS, SINCLAIR AND SOON ABOUT THIS RECENT EPIPHANY OF YOURS.
That is why we are offshoring.
FOR YOUR OWN GOOD GO FOR PRECISION. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY REASON WE ARE OFFSHORING. WE WOULD BE OFFSHORING EVEN MORE UNDER GOOD POLICY. BECAUSE THE PIE ITSELF WOULD BE BIGGER. WE WOULD BE EXPANDING OUR DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING, AND OFFSHORING MORE, BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS NOT CONTRADICTORY.
If we didn’t have free trade and capital flows, they wouldn’t just go elsehwere, they’d fold completely.
RIGHT. SEE YOUR LACK OF PRECISION HERE? WE DON’T HAVE FREE TRADE NOW. HOWEVER IF WE HAD FREE TRADE IT WOULDN’T ALTER THINGS A GREAT DEAL. BECAUSE WE ALLOW QUITE A LOT OF ACCESS. FOR INTELLECTUAL PRECISION YOU OUGHT TO HAVE SAID
“IF WE BANNED THE IMPORTATION ON PRODUCERS GOODS, OR ALTERNATIVELY WE PLACED OVERLY ONEROUS TARIFFS ON THESE SAME PRODUCERS GOODS, MANY OF OUR DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS WOULD NOT MERELY PACK UP AND GO OVERSEAS. MANY OF THEM WOULD SIMPLY FOLD COMPLETELY”
SEE THE ABOVE. ITS A CLEARER RENDERING OF WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET ACROSS. CLARITY IN WRITING LEADS TO MORE VIVID THINKING, LEADS TO STRONGER ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING.
By: Mark Hill on June 9, 2010
at 12:19 am
PS Feil should read some of the PC reports which confirm what I’m saying about payroll taxes etc.
WHY SHOULD HE DO SO? HE HASN’T EXPRESSED A LOVE OF PAYROLL TAXES THAT YOU KNOW OF. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN PEOPLES MOUTHS. YOUR DELUSIONAL NATURE IS REALLY ANNOYING. TRY TO AT LEAST FAKE BEING A SANE HUMAN BEING.
By: Mark Hill on June 9, 2010
at 12:21 am
“Do be sure to send such links as you expect might be helpful to keep this newly steep learning curves I’m developing, pointing in the right direction, and with a less than feeble gradient.”
Oh what an elegant end to a masterful squib, Mr Bird.
Jason Soon does appear to be in the eternal throes of endless repetition. Must be a nightmare for him. he should see a psychonanalyst. Hint: neurotic symptom – return of the repressed.
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 12:26 am
I don’t know about sexual repression Philomena. I think he’s holding onto his faeces too long. I think its Freudian sure. But I pick it as more of a faeces thing.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 12:38 am
Anal retention and sexual repression are siblings so to speak, Mr Bird.
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 12:43 am
Right. Playing with his feces too I’ll bet. I’d warrant that its there in all his prose. Feces-fiddling. The signs are unmistakable.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 1:04 am
Below is a link which appears to be a marvelous idea in principle. But its actually very worrying. Turkish soldiers tend to be utterly ruthless with borders and things. They tend to shoot to kill. So for example where there is a border like the border at Cyprus. You could be just mucking about, not meaning any harm, having a bit of a lark, and the Turkish soldier will not tarry with you at all. No warning. Not even a warning shot over your head. Just one shot and you are dead, and you unarmed making a bit of a joke. The Turkish soldiers would be just as likely to kill most of the students. As well after all the global propaganda they wouldn’t see that killing the students would be hypocritical. Rather they may be even more motivated to slaughter these kids as payback. We here in the West aren’t getting balanced coverage. There coverage will be even worse.
Or supposing its really a government deal with Commandos pretending to be students? And supposing they are surreptitiously heavily armed. The Turks would have the drop on them, because of the hypothetical Israeli concealment. So then there could be a huge two-way slaughter.
What seems like a marvelous idea could be the cause of great strife. I’ll be fully worried every moment until its over. The Turks are much more ferocious and ruthless than people give them credit for. They were born ferocious, they have a history of living next to Russia, and they are Muslim to boot. But more rational Muslim, in terms of less thought about fate and more Hellinism in them. The relative rationality combined with the ferociousness makes them much better solidiers then most Arabs. Then most other people more generally. They have been restrained by the great benefits the American alliance has afforded them. Matters would have been fine if there was a gentleman’s agreement for the Israelis and the Turks to Lord it over the region but in a humane way.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899835,00.html
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 2:50 am
“I think Graeme will have a crush on her:
“7. In the creation of wealth and in competitive enterprise, consumer choice and reward for effort as the proven means of providing prosperity for all Australians.
For all Australians? Proven means? By what criteria? Does Liberal Party prosperity ignore that the higher the GDP the sicker we are? But then, GDP includes bushfires, hospital admissions, road crashes and other disasters including at sea.
Who gets rewarded for whose effort? How does reward for effort apply to banksters, marketeers and financial speculators?””
I certainly appreciate all your comments here Mark. But surely you must see that you are far more guilty of the same lack of precision. Now that you’ve seen it in someone else you can work hard to clarify your own efforts one hopes. Thats the secret to you transmuting your shallow but wide general knowledge of economics into a deeper understanding.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 3:07 am
Oh right. They weren’t your comments. They were all Kellies. I was beginning to think it was all worthwhile and you were starting to think. No such luck.
A very good post for Kellie. Most of her prior posts have been these terrible CO2-Bedwetting diatribes. This is satire Jason unless you didn’t notice. Pretty good satire. Better economics then you and Mark are capable of. The first post of hers that I’ve quite liked.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 3:12 am
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 3:30 am
SOMETIMES EVEN COMMUNISTS SAY THINGS THAT ARE PARTLY RIGHT. WHEREAS MOST OF WHAT YOU SAY IS PURE JIBBER.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 4:10 am
RIGHT. THATS VERY STRANGE. NOT THAT WE CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU SAY. SHE COULD BE ANTI-TALIBAN AND YOU WOULD SAY SHE WAS PRO-TALIBAN, OUT OF SOME FANTASY YOU MIGHT BE HAVING AT ANY MOMENT. MARK YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF SEPARATING YOUR OWN FANTASY FROM WHAT SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY SAYING.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 4:12 am
DON’T BE A MORON MARK. YOUR ARGUMENT IS INCOHERENT. YOUR MAKING STUFF UP AND MAKING CONNECTIONS THAT ARE UNRELATED. YOU ARE TALKING AS IF YOU ARE NOT SANE AT ALL.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 4:14 am
NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN. YOU CAN CHECK THIS VERY EASILY BY GOING TO HER PREVIOUS THREADS AND NOTING MY ADVERSE COMMENTS TO HER CO2 BEDWETTING.
ARE YOU A KELLIE FAN THEN. BOTH OF YOU BEING CO2-BEDWETTERS?
By: Jason Soon is not gay despite rumours to the contrary on June 9, 2010
at 4:23 am
Mr Bird I do so love it – it gives me quite a frisson – when you stamp your words in masculine CAPS over what I’m sure would have been pure drivel that no-one should inadvertently have to read upon visiting your marvellously entertaining and pedagogical blog.
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 4:58 am
I can only assume Graeme, that you are pro Taliban as is Ms Tranter.
A TRULY STUPID ILLOGICAL AND MORONIC ASSUMPTION.
Is there any argument for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan that DOESN’T tacitly give support to the Taliban and al Qaida?
YES OF COURSE. BRINGING THE LADS HOME, STOPPING THEM FROM BEING KILLED, AND SAVING MONEY ISN’T THE SAME AS SUPPORTING ANY REGIME AT ALL. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE TALIBAN. THEY WERE FINISHED A LONG TIME AGO. WHAT IS MEANT NOW BY THE WORD “TALIBAN” IS SIMPLY PASHTUN FIGHTERS SUPPORTED BY THIRD PARTIES.
THE 1000TH SOLDIER TO DIE IN THE AFGHANISTAN WAR WAS JUST THE OTHER DAY. HAD THEY PULLED OUT BY 2003 ALMOST NO SOLDIERS WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED AND THEY WOULD HAVE SAVED OODLES OF LOOT.
AFGHANISTAN WASN’T EVEN A TERROR SPONSOR. RATHER THE TERROR MASTERS WERE SPONSORING THE TALIBAN AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THUS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TALIBAN, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN PRETTY SATISFYING IN ITS OWN RIGHT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE WAY THEY TREAT WOMEN, COULD NOT LEAD TO AN END TO TERROR ATTACKS. SO THAT IT WAS A DILUTION OF THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO BRING THESE ATTACKS TO AN END.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 5:07 am
Otherwise they would just dilute all my threads. They were having a go at a post by Kellie Trantor, who is very clearly coming from the opposite end of the spectrum than me. After they were saying just how terrible her post was, I looked at it, and sure its leftist. But there was one paragraph that Mark singled out for particular abuse that was 90% correct. And actually it was anti-Keynesianist.
By merely asserting the phrase “in the medium term” the paragraph could be made fully in accordance with economics. The real economics that neither Mark nor Jason understand.
I’ve got a post pending over on her thread pointing this out and pointing out that the economy is healthier, and will progress faster if the ratio GDP/Gross Domestic Revenue is smaller.
So her statement:
“Does Liberal Party prosperity ignore that the higher the GDP the sicker we are? But then, GDP includes bushfires, hospital admissions, road crashes and other disasters including at sea.”
is very observant and about 90% correct. If GDP is lower, for any given level of Gross Domestic Revenue, you are at a healthier place. So long as lower GDP doesn’t mean a lower GDR you are truly better off in the medium term.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 5:07 am
FIRST SENTENCE WIPED THROUGH INCOHERENCE.
It was anti Keynesian in tone by dumb luck.
ACTUALLY THATS RATHER GOOD MARK. YOU COULD BE RIGHT. BUT IF SHE IS RIGHT BY DUMB LUCK I’M GOING TO POINT IT OUT. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT BY DUMB LUCK RIGHT NOW. SO I POINT THIS OUT AS WELL.
“is very observant and about 90% correct. If GDP is lower, for any given level of Gross Domestic Revenue, you are at a healthier place. So long as lower GDP doesn’t mean a lower GDR you are truly better off in the medium term.”
I’M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG. LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE ECONOMIC ILLITERATE MARK HILL DISAGREES WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT. BUT I WIPED HIS DISAGREEMENT TO SALVAGE HIS LONG-RUN REPUTATION.
By: Mark Hill on June 9, 2010
at 5:09 am
On Moderation:
“Graeme, the cause-effect reasoning that you espouse, that the fence and blockade save lives, may fetch Goldilocks a cold meal in the Arctic, but it sure is a ticket to nowhere.”
You will see how the lawyer wastes words. Since stringing out debates is his bread and butter. Or rather his porsche and third house. The truth of it is that the blockade and fence save lives on both sides of the conflict. The above comment cannot change this matter.
If the specifics of the blockade are hurting the Palestinians, the specifics can be altered. For that matter fences can be moved. It is only the death of a human being that cannot be rectified after the fact.
The morality of the measures comes direct from the fact of the measures saving lives and freeing Israeli children from fear.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 5:38 am
Graeme sezs: “The Turks are much more ferocious and ruthless than people give them credit for. They were born ferocious…”
I think you might be caricaturing and unfairly stereotyping here. Turkish society was and is a mixture of European and Middle Eastern culture not least because even today the country and the largest city literally overlap Europe and Asia.
All the cosmopolitan centres of the Ottoman Empire were multi-ethnic. Istanbul ruled over a vast empire but left people to their own devices as long as they provided tribute to the precapitalist ruling families. A book by Mark Mazower “Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews, 1430-1950” compared and contrasted what he described as an earlier version of New York.
“Chronicled by Mazower with great erudition and impeccable research, it turns into a mental and moral feast. Salonica’s dramatic life grips us inexorably. We rub shoulders with a host of her peoples – Turks, Greeks, Jews, Macedonians, Slavs, Bulgars, Vlachs, Gypsies and Albanians – and learn about their religions, arts and cultures. We empathise with the terror unleashed by brigands, invaders and plagues. We feel the religious fervour of Greek martyrs, Sufi sheikhs, and the crypto-Jews, the followers of Sabbatai Zevi, “the false Messiah” who converted to Islam…Above all, as Mazower intends, by absorbing the “experiences of Christians, Jews and Muslims within the terms of a single encompassing historical narrative”, we snatch the much-needed hope that cultural and religious co-existence is possible.” (Review from the Independent in 2004)
That co-existence was generated by Ottoman rule. Today, when Islamophobia is so widespread in the West, it is important to understand, as Mazower hightlights, that true Islam has been a model of tolerance, particularly towards other religions and their worshippers. That Turks, Greeks, Jews and many other Balkan peoples lived in peaceful co-existence for centuries was not an accident, but entirely the result of the tolerance prescribed in the Ottoman Empire’s persuasion of Islam – the Hanafi school of Sunni law.
Ironically, when Turkey became a modern state based on a nationalist ideology, all that was lost. It became illegal to speak Kurdish and the Armenians were annihilated.
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 5:56 am
I have to agree with Phil here.
We let that pederast Lawrence of Arabia, who fell in love with some arab boy, guide the destruction of a great civilised empire that could have kept those backward camel herders in check.
By: triangulator on June 9, 2010
at 6:09 am
Graeme,
How on earth are we better off with less production at any given level of spending?
WE ARE NOT. NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE. GET YOUR DISORDERED MIND TOGETHER.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 6:09 am
Fair comments here. Notice Jason that fair comments right or wrong don’t get over-written.
I don’t think I was contradicting too much anything what Philomena has said. Sounds good to me. I’m not running down the Turks. I don’t admire ruthlessness and ferocity. But its pretty silly not having some sort of respect for it. I think you’ll find when put to the test their solidiers can be pretty fearsome characters.
I saw a presentation that noticed that some of Americas Muslim allies would not take great care in preparation or weapons maintenance. Because of their ideas of fate, and the idea that you would die when Allah willed it. So why keep cleaning and checking your rifles.
I very much doubt that your typical Turkish soldier would be falling into that sort of mental trap. It is rationality combined with ferociousness that is the scary thing.
See the Arab protestors burning flags. That to me is craziness and not a thing to be particularly feared. See the Turk soldiers bursting across the Iraqi borders early in the second Gulf War. What a nightmare. That would have required all the tact and diplomatic skills that the Americans had in their possession. Send someone else to do the talking on that one. I’d rather just have a nice cup of tea.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 6:18 am
YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF? YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IS THAT YOU HAVE JUMPED TO THIS INCORRECT CHARACTERISATION. TO TIP YOU OFF, LOOK AT MARK SKOUSENS’ ALTERNATIVES TO GEORGE REISMANS METRICS?
WHAT IS MARK SKOUSENS CLOSEST METRIC TO GROSS DOMESTIC REVENUE?
WHAT IS MARK SKOUSENS CLOSEST METRIC TO PRODUCTIVE EXPENDITURE?
CHANGE THE NAMES AND RETHINK THESE LEAPS OF IMAGINATION YOU HAVE JUST MADE.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 6:44 am
You asserted we’d be better off with lower GDP AT ANY GIVEN LEVEL OF GDR.
YES I DID SAY THAT. AND I’M RIGHT. NOW SUBSTITUTE THE RELEVANT SKOUSEN METRICS FOR THE REISMAN METRICS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU GET.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 7:17 am
“is very observant and about 90% correct. If GDP is lower, for any given level of Gross Domestic Revenue, you are at a healthier place. So long as lower GDP doesn’t mean a lower GDR you are truly better off in the medium term.”
How on earth are we better off with less production at any given level of spending?
WE AREN’T. AND THATS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE QUOTED ME ABOVE. AND THATS NOT WHAT I SAID. NOW DO WHAT IF FUCKING SAID AND SUBSTITUTE THE SKOUSEN METRICS FOR THE REISMAN METRICS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU GET.
FOR FUCKSAKES MARK. YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING UNLESS YOU FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 7:21 am
Cuz
why do you let this retarded lunatic on your blog?
By: Kiwi Bird II on June 9, 2010
at 7:23 am
I don’t know cuz. Its a fucking tough gig. I mean the kid has done a PHD in economics and yet hasn’t made it through play-school in basic logic. I’m fucking spelling it out for him what he has to do to clear up his misconceptions. And the retard won’t put fucking one foot in front of the other.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 7:45 am
and the answer is no cuz, israeli children are not covered in green slime.
children are children. lay off the heebs, cuz.
By: Kiwi Bird II on June 9, 2010
at 7:25 am
How on earth is anyone better off with less PRODUCTION, less OUTPUT and less ABUNDANCE?
I’VE TOLD YOU THREE FUCKING TIMES WE AREN’T YOU STUPID CUNT. THATS NOT WHATS BEING SAID, NOW FUCKING DO IT. SUBSTITUTE THE FUCKING SKOUSEN METRICS FOR THE REISMAN METRICS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU GET YOU DUMB CUNT.
By: Retard Punched in Gut by Fat Kiwi on June 9, 2010
at 7:26 am
fuck off hill before my cozzie bro hunts you down and takes you out with one of his upper cuts
By: Kiwi Bird II on June 9, 2010
at 7:45 am
Its as though Mark isn’t able to follow the law of identity. A is A. But if Mark wants to substitue B for A he just goes right along with it, based mainly on the accident of word-convention.
Notice how I’m substituting one thing for another. Not based on word convention. But based on the fact that they will all add up to the same nominal figure.
Gross Revenues is not the same thing as Gross Spending as a conceptual matter. But under national accounting they will wind up being the same figure. Since one legal entities spending is another legal entities revenue.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 8:14 am
The Gross Domestic Revenue metric under Reisman is basically the same as the GROSS OUTPUT figure under Skousen. They are two sides of the same coin.
The “Productive Expenditure” figure under Reisman is basically the same as the Intermediate Output under Skousen.
Gross Output is the same as Gross Revenue is the same as (Gross Investment+ Gross Consumption). NOT CONCEPTUALLY BUT AS TOTAL NOMINAL FIGURES IN NATIONAL ACCOUNTING.
You can call them different names, and they are indeed different concepts, but they will pretty much add up to the same figure NATIONALLY in any given time period.
Productive expenditure is the same as Intermediate Output is the same as Business-to-Business Spending is the same as Gross Investment. You can call this roughly same totaled nominal figure four different names, because you are looking at it from different angles conceptually. But the figure will tally up pretty much the same, in any time period, nationally.
You want to direct more resources to production. Not to consumption.
Gross investment plus Gross Consumption equals Gross Revenues which is the same nominal figure as Gross Output.
Gross consumption plus NET investment is pretty much Gross domestic product or GDP. The net investment figure is tiny and doesn’t change the basic conclusions.
For any level of Gross domestic revenue, you want most of that going into gross investment. Not into gross consumption.
The more you throw into gross investment, the cheaper your final output goods will get, though the nominal spending on them will be less.
In other words, if Gross Domestic revenue stays the same, and Gross Domestic Product falls your average Joe will be better off. To keep full employment his nominal wages will fall, but his real wages will increase. Since consumer goods prices will fall faster.
In practice you want nominal gross domestic revenue growing some and nominal GDP falling only slowly. That way you don’t need nominal incomes to fall too quickly.
So supposing nominal Gross domestic revenue is increasing 2% every quarter and nominal Gross domestic product is reducing 1% every quarter…… Supposing this goes on for 5 years before nominal GDP starts growing at 1.5% thereafter.
In this example nominal incomes will be falling slowly in those first five years. Profits will be low. But prices will be falling quickly. So real wages will be enhanced. Productivity will be going through the roof(but not as it is currently measured. Incorrectly using GDP). Even as nominal profits are low and businesses are splitting into smaller businesses in many cases. But real capital accumulation will be immense, even as they are cutting back on bigshot salaries.
The focus on trying to artificially force real GDP up does the opposite. Real wages stagnate. Profits are high, and bigshots keep giving themselves pay rises. All very unhealthy.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 8:03 am
Now Graeme the beaut thing about you is you can talk about esoteric economics but you know how to sashay.
Now tell me how do you dig this Turkish pop group?
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 8:14 am
Yeah that stuff above is pretty esoteric at that. But it would have been even more esoteric at first since I made a couple of mistakes. But I’ve corrected them now and so if someone read it through the first time and said “no thats bullshit” then read it through again and it may make more sense. Particularly if you ask intelligent questions.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 8:28 am
I should point out that Gross Domestic Product is probably a bad name for this metric. It might better be called Net Domestic Production. Gross Domestic Product….. The “Product” and the “Gross” in this phrase sort of correct for each-other. But they are ambiguous. Here is where Mark is letting himself get caught up with the phraseology I think.
See they don’t say “Gross Domestic Production” And if they did that would be a more appropriate name for the vastly more massive figure of Gross Output, which is the same or similar totaled nominal figure as Gross Domestic Revenue.
You wouldn’t say Net Domestic Product either. The “Product” word ought not be used in my view. Instead of Gross Domestic Product it ought to be called something like “NET DOMESTIC PRODUCTION.”
Gross Domestic Product is a very clumsily named metric in my view. Its clumsily named and clumsily used and misused. It is used for so many purposes it ought not rightly be used for. Mark is mixing himself up by mixing up the words with the concepts.
Steve Kates says that Macroeconomics is in a mess. And this clumsiness in the phraseology is part of that mess. But in a way Kates is wrong. Reisman has sorted out macroeconomics is a very satisfying way. Its just a matter of people getting their head around what he has created.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 8:38 am
Mozart adored and celebrated the swaggering, libidinous Turks in his glorious opera “The Abduction from the Seraglio”
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 8:47 am
That other video very odd. Wild West Turks. Wish I could understand the words.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 8:52 am
Now we have the economist birdlab surfing off the non-comprehension of Mark. We have so many economists who have next to no understanding of their subject. Just enough to memorize a few essays they’ve written from previous tests, and pass the multi-choice sections in the tests they do at university. Just enough dim non-comprehension of the material to get through the exams, pay the fees and get awarded the letters on their names.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 9:03 am
The band Grup Vitamin parodies popular Turkish/English/Western songs. Some of their songs are critical of the Turkish government, others make fun of Turkish people in-between modernism and conservatism like “Turkish Cowboys” the lyrics which roughly translate as:
“He has no horse to ride, besides
he doesn’t eat hamburger
he has a gun he never uses
what kind of a cowboy is this?
there ain’t single female in his life,
he doesn’t manage that business anyhow
what kind of a cowboy is this?
he rambles all around, deserts are drought
he doesn’t mind whether it is day or night.
it is discernible from his eyes,
that he is a little bit moron
he haunts bars but never drinks
this ain’t the way how things are done
in the wild west
this type never survives.
Confront him individually if you are man enough
he has lost his way and ended up in Egyptian Bazaar instead of Texas.”
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 9:10 am
Right. I can see how that would work in with the video. You been learning Turkish in your spare time?
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 9:18 am
I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT WAS RATHER OLD NEWS ADRIEN. GETTING ECONOMICS RIGHT FOR A CHANGE GIVES A FELLOW THAT SORT OF JE NOUS SE QUA. THAT SORT OF “AURA.”
By: Adrien on June 9, 2010
at 9:25 am
Its so important to label things correctly. I think this is one reason scientists and economists are often stooging themselves. If they do understand some relation or concept in economics, still they don’t retain it.
You could show your average economist the list of things that you add up to get National Income. Then you could show him the list of things you add up to get Gross Domestic Product.
Then supposing you asked him the question out of a clear blue sky …. “Why do they total to the same figure” and he’d probably be wrong-footed for awhile.
Of course if you explained it he’d say “Well everyone knows that” as he tried to maintain his composure. And he’d be thinking “We I knew that but I just didn’t have it to hand.”
But this labeling business is so important. All sorts of things go wrong if we don’t label things as well as we possibly can. From here on in I might start calling “Gross Domestic Product” “Net Domestic Production” instead.
You want to employ best practice for labeling anything at all. Here is a video that shows the terrible things that can happen if you don’t label items as well as you might.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 9:40 am
The Divine Image
To Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.
For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God, our Father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is man, His child and care.
For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face, 10
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.
Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.
And all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.
William Blake
By: Philomena on June 9, 2010
at 10:05 am
Yeah pretty righteous Philomena. Its a pity Arafat wasn’t bringing the little Hamas members up with that sort of cultural exposure twenty years ago. Some of these Western and Christian ideas don’t get a fair hearing when Arafat is running the Kindergartens and schools.
By: graemebird on June 9, 2010
at 10:32 am
THATS NEVER GOING TO WORK. THERE ISN’T MUCH TO APOLOGIZE ABOUT. I GOT SUPERPISSED WHEN HE MADE THE CLAIM THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD WASN’T FRAUD. I’VE NEVER BEEN HAPPY ABOUT HIM REFERRING TO MANKIW IN HIS SENATE HEARING, MAKING IT SEEM TO THE SENATORS THAT THE KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER WAS A BIPARTISAN CONCEPT, THUS DISARMING THEM IN THE FACE OF GRUEN, LEIGH AND TANNER SPLURGING MADNESS.
By: The Female Animals Lick Birdies Face When He Is Asleep In The Open. on June 9, 2010
at 10:44 am
From elsewhere:
Here we have the precise reason why it is we would expect that large planets and stars ought to have predominantly iron cores:
“Isn’t there a maximum size where fusion doesn’t produce energy? Isn’t here a minimum size where fission doesn’t produce energy? Isn’t there an element where splitting it or fusing it doesn’t produce energy but instead consumes it?
Answer. Yes.
That element is Iron. The most stable of atomic nuclei. Doing anything to Iron consumes energy, not produces it.”
Nice own goal Glen. This idea that you can have stars that are just big bags of wind really has to be sent to the fires. As if you could get that much hydrogen together in the first place and then expect it to hold together. Another creation story. This one suggesting that the stars come from giant clouds of dust. Mainstream public service theories tend to be uniformly idiotic.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 1:27 am
Bird,
Surely the point is that if the star is mostly iron what is the fuel?
You don’t get energy from spliting or fusing iron. No one disputes Iron is created in Stars.
And why doesn’t hydrogen hold itself together under gravity?
By: Steve Edney on June 10, 2010
at 2:15 am
Right. That is Glens point. We know that the Corona is hotter than the photosphere. This does not mean there is no fusion somewhere INSIDE the sun. What it means that some and probably most of the energy is being converted from another energy source COMING FROM THE OUTSIDE. This must be the case. You canna change the laws of physics Captain Kirk!
Temperature doesn’t tell us all that much. But it does tell us the direction of the flow of thermal energy. Thermal energy flows from Corona to photosphere and not the other way around. This implies there is energy, in another form, coming in from the outside. And being converted to thermal energy as it moves through the corona.
Alternative explanations aren’t serious. They are really very feeble. They are merely rationalisations. They talk about sound energy being converted to thermal energy. They amount to rationalisations and nothing more.
In any case we know that Birkeland currents are carrying electricity are going straight into the sun. As well we know that other Birkeland currents bringing electricity to earth are coming from sun to earth.
Where do all the electrons and electrical energy go when they get to earth? We have input. We seldom have much in the way of output? Do they just disappear. Where is the electricity stored? The electrons too? Where are they stored once they get too the earth?
The idea that supernovae cause the higher elements is also untenable. Supernovae appear to micronise everything to subatomic level. Perhaps they go further and micronise much of it down to an electrical energy at sub-electron level.
Collisions may build higher level atoms in some cases. I’m not denying that. Surely there is fusion in the corona. When carbon or iron is formed in the corona it will tend to sink into the sun. But supernovae cannot credibly be the builder of material reality. It cannot explain why you have a Uranium deposit here and a rich gold vein there. It could only explain micronised and randomly assorted collections of heavy atoms.
But in reality it doesn’t explain that. The supernova is the great unbuilder in my view. The great microniser down to the subatomic and down to a level lower than we know about wherein its products will be energy or matter that is not connected proton to proton like I believe protons are connected.
So you have a cycle of the building of heavy atoms in planets, moons and stars. Moons go to rocky planets go to gas giants go to stars.
Then at the centre of the galaxy you get a shockwave. This goes out and pops stars and planets. In the case of planets all but the outer rocky surface will be micronised at least to atomic level and probably most of the heavier elements will collapse as far as micronised iron at least. A massive electronic pulse ought to be released like when a nuke goes off.
But in the stars when they explode the micronisation will go further down to electrical energy, electrons, and other subatomic particles, and further too to electrical and other forms of energy that if made of particles are smaller than we have ever detected. Thus fueling the stars that have not popped in a sort of cycle that may not be self-sustaining but for our purposes probably is.
Where does all the electrons and electrical energy go when it disappears into the earth? I think it is incorporated into the development of heavier atoms. I think the charge is shielded in the nucleus of atoms. Only to come out again when the planet or star finally explodes.
So its an organic process of growth and culling. Thats what we see in the galaxies. We don’t see these star nurseries via dust. They see dust and interpolate star nurseries but its all bullshit. How would those young stars then be distributed into a galaxy of the shape that we typically see?
No its not like they say. Its more akin to organic growth. Reality is fractal and organic.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 2:44 am
No way are you getting big hydrogen dust clouds condensing down to a big bag of wind. Thats just silly. It could never happen. The hydrogen is just an extension of the atmosphere.
That fantasy was invented before people had really come to grips with the knowledge that you had all these subatomic particles bombarding the place. Any hydrogen cloud will disperse in space. Not condense down to a big bag of wind.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 2:53 am
Notice Edney, that when we get bombarded by “cosmic rays” these are subatomic particles. We aren’t being hit by oxygen atoms, helium atoms and the like. All that time in space everything seems to be broken down to the subatomic.
I would say built up in the planets, and broken down in space.
See our atmosphere must be losing molecules the whole time. We are being bombarded by cosmic rays and solar winds. These must as of necessity blow away a lot of our atmosphere. And the atmosphere then must replenish itself. There is no way that the Earth and other planets can keep their orginal atmospheres intact the whole time.
Also if this is going on everywhere then we would be expected to be getting the results of other atmospheres hitting us. I think we are in part. But I think that everything is broken down to the subatomic level by that stage.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 3:21 am
The lunacy of the economists. Here is James Galbraith claiming that the Americans don’t have a debt problem. He sounds like the lunatics here. Kirchner et al. Humphreys, Soon and Sinclair before 2008 particularly.
Just listen to him and contemplate how dumb the mainstream can be.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 6:11 am
Moronic Science In Action.
If you look at my post, then you look at the moronic response to it, you see an example of a typically dumb science worker in action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
graemebird said
June 5, 2010 @ 12:28 am
Any attempt to explain the temperature of Venus needs to take into account some factors that are commonly missed.
1. The slow rotation of the planet.
If we view things in terms of strata-and-heat-budgets and not in terms of watts-per-square meter we see that this becomes important since it leads to less disruption between the strata.
2. Transfer of electrical energy. Via the solar wind and Birkeland currents. We also want to know the effect of air pressure on the conversion of this electrical energy to thermal energy.
3. Air pressure as mentioned. Its air pressure that would make greenhouse effective. Since the typical greenhouse molecule will merely scatter its absorption region, where the air pressure is low, and not absorb this energy. This is because to create the transfer to thermal energy, as opposed to mere scattering, you would presumably need the molecule to be disturbed be a second molecule, in the limited time before it would merely re-release the “photon” at a different direction. (Not that I believe in photons but thats the simple model we are working with.) It is air pressure which gives us the probability of one molecule being disturbed by another in that limited time.
Therefore we must infer that greenhouse properties are pretty useless without sufficient air pressure.
4. The super-rotation of the clouds. Surely this is direct evidence for a sort of convection-oven arrangement. This directly implies powerful overturning that can be used to recycle thermal energy. Just like having a ceiling fan helps with the effectiveness of your heater.
People who concentrate on these little Watts-Per-Square-metre equations are denying the physicality of the situation.
Response: No one is downplaying the effects of fluid dynamics on climate but the fact is that rotation rate does not set the global mean temperature to be several hundred degrees K in excess of what incoming sunlight allows. And obviously the GHE strength depends on the pressure, no one said otherwise– chris
Reply
graemebird said
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 10, 2010 @ 1:30 am
Well I didn’t just say the rotation rate you irrational doofus. What are you doing? Trying to micronise the case?
Read it over. You will see that I didn’t just mention rotation rate. Believe me. If you read it over, you will find that I didn’t just mention the rotation rate. What can I do when my only answer is for you to re-read what I’ve already written since you have clearly ignored it.
Reply
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 6:34 am
WITH ALL THIS WOUF WOUF SILLINESS I THOUGHT YOU WERE REYNOLDS.
By: Adrien on June 10, 2010
at 10:05 am
YES I TOOK A LOOK AT IT. AND YES HE DOES UNDERSTAND HOW BADLY THINGS HAVE GONE WRONG AND HIS CRITICISMS ARE OKAY. I COULDN’T FIND MUCH IN THE WAY OF ANSWERS. BUT THATS TO BE EXPECTED SINCE ITS VERY EASY TO SEE WHEN THE PUBLIC SERVICE HAVE GONE HORRIBLY WRONG. ITS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BETTER ANSWERS ARE.
FORTUNATELY IN THE MODERN INTERNET AGE WE CAN QUICKLY SURVEY MATTERS AND WE CAN ESTABLISH WHO IS PROBABLY ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
By: Bird flaps on June 10, 2010
at 10:16 am
Even for an Australian Economist birdlab is a dummy.
I SEZ:
“I should point out that Gross Domestic Product is probably a bad name for this metric. It might better be called Net Domestic Production. Gross Domestic Product….. The “Product” and the “Gross” in this phrase sort of correct for each-other. But they are ambiguous…”
Which of course is perfectly correct. Gross Domestic Product is only end use goods. So it ought to be called Net Domestic Production. Birdlab is such a fucking moron he cannot even grasp the point I’m making.
Fucking moron has accused me of being confused about the matter. I’m not the least bit confused about the matter. We produce a great deal more than finished goods in this country. Perhaps in Mali they concentrate on finished goods only. But not around here.
I’ll follow this up with a further shocking example of the uselessness of public servants pretending to be scientists.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 12:21 pm
Here a skeptic who had accused Plimer of scientific fraud contends that he did a lot of searching and all these universities had adopted the wrong view that underwater and above water CO2 were about the same. This fellow is to be believed. He probably did do this searching, and he probably did find it out that the public servants had consistently fucked this matter up to the nth degree. The state of public service science is so dysfunctional it amounts to a massive crisis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mike
09 June 2010 at 19:58
Graeme
A good deal of searching to try to find where you get this idea proved unsuccessful. It did find numerous sources supportive of the USGS position, including major geology departments in major universities and other national geological organisations (eg. the British Geological Survey’s Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle, 2005). The research they rely (eg Morner and Etiope, 2002) on is not ancient at all, and I cannot see any reason to believe that these august institutions are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the “truth”.
If you can provide a reference for your claim I will happily look into it further, but the best available evidence seems to support the USGS position that volcanos emit < 1% of the emissions from human activity.
In short, your assertions seem to be without merit. If you have evidence, provide it.
Graeme Bird
10 June 2010 at 16:52
t doesn’t matter. The USGS was lying and obviously so. There is no comparison NO COMPARISON, between volcanic behavior above and below the water. So the fellow who had access to the website was lying.
Now why would anyone imagine that they would be equal? The mid-ocean ridge goes for tens of thousands of miles like a baseball seam. The volcanic activity is more or less continuous. Above the sea the volcanoes are few, far between, and nearly always dormant.
So they were lying. Get used to it. Monbiot and Jones must have known they were lying. Surely they are not that thick.
“but the best available evidence seems to support the USGS position that volcanos emit < 1% of the emissions from human activity."
No you are lying. No evidence supports this. You don't have any evidence to support this at all. So you are continuing to lie about it. Stop it. You won't be finding any evidence to support an idea that is inherently idiotic.
Don't you know what evidence is mate? Its not somebody telling lies on a website. Thats not evidence. So stop being stupid.
Graeme Bird
10 June 2010 at 16:59
Lets go through this step by step:
“A good deal of searching to try to find where you get this idea proved unsuccessful.”
SO WHAT? What is that going to do? Is that going to make all the tens of thousands of miles of active underwater volcanoes disappear? Do you think it will make the volcanoes disappear do you Mike?
“It did find numerous sources supportive of the USGS position, including major geology departments in major universities and other national geological organisations (eg. the British Geological Survey’s Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle, 2005).
The research they rely (eg Morner and Etiope, 2002) on is not ancient at all….”
So what? It doesn’t matter. Why didn’t you look at the research. They don’t have any evidence either. I looked at the research that the USGS was relying on. There wasn’t any evidence in that one either.
“If you can provide a reference for your claim I will happily look into it further, but the best available evidence….”
Get it through your thick head that you don’t have any evidence. You just have some claims. These claims are lies. You should have listened to Plimer. Plimer told you what the situation was.
Can you read an actual survey that has real evidence? Are you capable of doing that? Until you have done so, stop making these completely ridiculous lying claims.
Graeme Bird
10 June 2010 at 17:15
Look. Lets get this straight. Surely you can see its a bad thing passing on this lie. Gerlach doesn’t have any evidence for the inherently laughable proposition that above and below sea CO2-release is about the same. Neither do Morner and Etiope.
So how about before you pass this lie onto others FIND SOME EVIDENCE.
I don’t know why you didn’t rely on Plimer. What Plimer said was at least consonant with what we know about the real world. About the nature of the undersea environment and undersea volcanos.
You don’t have any other evidence other than Plimers reasoning. Why not rely on that until such time as you actually find something plausible. Something that isn’t an obvious lie.
And maybe just acquaint yourself with some sort of idea of the activity underwater. Its just constant activity mile after mile after mile of very busy volcanoes. Whereas on the ground the volcanoes are very scarce and mostly inactive. Put two and two together for goodness sakes.
Here is a video that is pretty interesting in and of itself. Tangentially one would hope that it might help you people get back to reality. But then I don’t know if thats possible. Since Plimer explained the reality of the situation under the sea and that didn’t seem to take.
Graeme Bird
10 June 2010 at 17:50
Let me spell it out to you what would constitute evidence. Supposing you came across a research paper where the researchers had access to underwater probes and submarines. Now supposing they went down there. They came back with very surprising news.
” Yes we found these volcanoes. And yes they are continually active. They are spurting out O2, SO2, H2O, Sulphur, Nitrogen, Ore grade Lead, Gold and Iron…….”
And supposing he goes on a long time about the constituent parts of the volcano’s output…..
“…… but you know what? Underwater volcanoes don’t release CO2. Doesn’t matter where we went. CO2, for some reason, the volcanoes don’t emit it.”
Now is that going to happen? Are any of the papers you have seen saying that? No they are not.
Here's the link if you want to see the other fellows side of the story. I believe him. I really think all these universities are consistently lying about, or misreading the situation. Make no mistake about it. Public service science has descended into a world of utter bullshit.
http://fnqhome.com/?p=1762
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 12:33 pm
What a Dumb Cunt that fella is.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 10, 2010
at 12:45 pm
Yeah but he’s not the worst of them.
By: graemebird on June 10, 2010
at 12:58 pm
The below is all true. Scarcely worth denying even. Still they try to get around it at Catallaxy:
“Hans-Hermann Hoppe rips into the Mont Pelerin Society and other so-called ‘free market’ think tanks.
“…The goal of “limited”—or “constitutional”—government, which Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan and other Mont Pelerin Society grandees had tried to promote and that every “free-market” think-tank today proclaims as its goal, is an impossible goal, much as it is an impossible goal to try squaring the circle.
You cannot first establish a territorial monopoly of law and order and then expect that this monopolist will not make use of this awesome privilege of legislating in its own favor.
Likewise: You cannot establish a territorial monopoly of paper money production and expect the monopolist not to use its power of printing up ever more money.
Limiting the power of the state, once it has been granted a territorial monopoly of legislation, is impossible, a self-contradictory goal. To believe that it is possible to limit government power—other than by subjecting it to competition, i.e., by not allowing monopoly privileges of any kind to arise in the first place—is to assume that the nature of Man changes as the result of the establishment of government (very much like the miraculous transformation of Man that socialists believe to happen with the onset of socialism).
That is the whole thing: limited government, is an illusory goal. To believe it to be possible is to believe in miracles….”
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 1:58 am
CONCENTRATE YOU DOPE. THE POINT IS THAT THE ABOVE QUOTE IS NOT WRONG, IS TRUE, AND IS HARDLY WORTH DENYING. YOU DON’T ESTABLISH WIDER TRUTHZ BY DENYING STATEMENTS OF FACT. YOU DON’T STOOGE YOURSELF BY JUMPING AHEAD OF A TRUE STATEMENT TO TRY AND PRETEND THAT IT IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT.
By: triangulator on June 11, 2010
at 2:14 am
Apply good methodology at all times.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 3:07 am
you are right Mr Bird
I wish I could be an authentic natural philosopher like yourself. what is your secret?
By: triangulator on June 11, 2010
at 3:49 am
Total lack of fear of social unacceptability. Confidence that you are a compromiser, that Cambria is just a fucking moron, and that I am at least on the right track ……. and as I said … apply sound methodology at all times.
Anyone who is used to applying sound methodology ought to be able to recognize bad paradigms way outside their specialty. If you cannot do that you cannot be a serious analyst WITHIN your speciality. Because you will lack a wider perspective. You won’t be able to see outside what you are supposed to be concentrating on to see the obvious wrongness of it. So a philosopher like Rand, whatever you might say about her own ideas, could spot bullshit in pretty much any area of thought. If a philosopher cannot do that they aren’t any good as a philosopher. Or David Stove. Was appropriately dubious of the cosmologists opposing Velikovsky, and of modern physics, and of mainstream versions of evolution. If you aren’t able to be like then you are simply not working on the basis of being a broad and deep philosopher.
If Stove was around now, with access to our technology, he could be reviewing pretty much any subject that he turned his mind too.
By: Graeme Bird on June 11, 2010
at 1:59 pm
Conceptual audit WIN, Mr B.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 11, 2010
at 2:11 pm
Bird,
Do you have any ideas on how thye might fix the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico?
By: Steve Edney on June 11, 2010
at 6:14 am
Kevin Costner reckoned he put up 20 million of his own money to develop a machine that separated water from oil. He was moved to do so after the Exxon Valdez spill. So there is some hope there. I’ve heard that bails of hay ought to be useful for the crap that is lapping up near the shallow water. Just accumulate it on the hay of the right size to soak up some of it yet not itself dispurse. Then you pull the hay out and its just a way of getting the oil on the hay so it doesn’t get on everything else.
The other way would be to find a catalyst and burn it. Like something that you could add to the surface film of oil and burn it so it all burnt up pretty clean. Then the other thing would be just call up a former Vice Presidential candidate, and send her Alaskans out there to scare seven shades of shit out of BP until they find inspiration.
Thats it. I’m tapped out. I’d say all of the above. You need massive big investment of gear, even if you are pulling the capital equipment away from other oilfields. Even if you are taking big tankers away from other places, and bringing the world oil price back over 100 dollars a barrel. Doesn’t matter. You just want to get it to where you are sucking up both oil and water, and filling these tankers up with them, then sussing out a process to separate the one from the other. Maybe you create an inland lake of water and oil in the desert somewhere and then deal with it all inland.
That oil may never tap out unless they deal with it. So whatever they do they have to get their asses in gear. It really doesn’t matter if we have a higher oil price for five years. They must deal with this problem and deal with it very quick.
If a film of oil envelopes the globe and sits on top of the seawater, it could stop proper evaporation. It could do all sorts of things. Cause massive droughts. Lead to cooling at first then serious warming…. Which actually would be one good to come out of all that bad. But nonetheless it could wreak all sorts of havoc. The CO2 thing is all crap. But this oil on the water business is the real deal.
That would be a disaster too. If the lack of evaporation lead to global warming and the evil bastards pushing that fraud shifted the credit to the CO2. That could be the worst possible outcome at all. Worse then murdering most of the plankton.
By: Graeme Bird on June 11, 2010
at 2:12 pm
Mr B
It’s Ron here.
Don’t listen to Edney. He’s making fun of you over at Catallaxy. He’s not seriously in your suggestions. (I am however.)
In fact, all of the usual suspects are engaging in a massive Leftist Pile On Exercise.
Disgusting.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/06/11/what-the-heck-give-me-a-call-2/comment-page-3/#comment-57270
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 11, 2010
at 6:30 am
No I am seriously interested in your suggestions. I am also having a bit of friday arvo fun.
By: Steve Edney on June 11, 2010
at 6:35 am
Besides I’m sure Bird will agree that banning fractional reserve and mass sacking tax eaters are two useful things Obama could do.
By: Steve Edney on June 11, 2010
at 6:36 am
GMB are you now moving faster than a bird?
By: Cybele on June 11, 2010
at 7:15 am
Mr Bird, I was in Miami recently and you know what? There are almost no birds there. I only heard some parrots (in the city one day) and nothing else anywhere, even in the early morn or evenings, though there’s plenty of foliage and trees about, if mainly palm or banyan.
There’s a large native botanic garden (83 acres)
evocative of what Miami must have been like pre-European white settlement. It was also reminiscent of northern Qld today. In fact a site worker said she’d visited Darwin and she felt like she was home in Miami. Perhaps it was the heat.
The Miami gardens had lantana (pretty but noxious weed) in pride of place and a single admittedly remarkable rainbow eucalyptus and one stunted frangipani. Flowers don’t seem to be big in Miami either. There are almost no garden beds or cultivated plots in these gardens.
Drystone walls everywhere though, which are quite beautiful, always made of coral, understandably since Florida was once exactly that, a coral reef. Amazing, eh?
I always like to check out the botanic gardens of any new place I visit.
By: Cybele on June 11, 2010
at 7:36 am
Funny thing though, the founders of the Miami botanic gardens (which sadly but revealingly unlike ours in Australia are privately owned and run) collected and planted plant species, particularly of cycads, palms and the like, not from their region but from Indonesia and the Philippines.
Much of the local flora propagated is endangered, as most of the indigenous and therefore unique plant species have been eliminated across the entire original habitat to make way for agriculture and housing.
A sad place Miami in many ways.
By: Cybele on June 11, 2010
at 8:01 am
Full of Darkies, Mexicans and Aged Hebrews is what i heard. Sounds like an appalling place.
By: Ron Pauline Hanson on June 11, 2010
at 8:07 am
Also full to suffocation with the curdled cream of elite whitebread American society with more money than taste or brains and fading mojo.
By: Cybele on June 11, 2010
at 8:13 am
Great posts Cybele. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Besides I’m sure Bird will agree that banning fractional reserve and mass sacking tax eaters are two useful things Obama could do.”
That absolutely goes without saying. To my way of thinking its worth starting off spending an extra million a day on this deal until its been dealt with. So you spend 1 million on the first day, 2 million on the next 3 million on the next and so forth.
Well to make that money work. To make everything work well. The whole setup. The entire country. To make it work you create a massive amount of fiscal headroom.
This oil disaster is a big problem. And to make the whole society start functioning like a well-oiled machine, the first step is always mass-sackings, phase out fractional reserve and reduce the rate of monetary growth. Doesn’t matter what problem you are talking about.
See on the very first day you are slashing spending and closing down one department after another. Releasing cash and lifting the reserve asset ratio up 1% each day.
But on that same first day, some rare competent person from one of the departments you close down, is charging about the Mid-West buying hay. He’s buying half the hay off each farmer. Just riding around and buying all this hay.
But he doesn’t stop doing that on the second day. He keeps going. But on the second day you’ve got someone scouting around for trucks and hay-lifting teams. And on the third day you’ve got people experimenting with the correct size of bail for the project. Or whether you just toss the loose hay over the oil and gather it up some other way. I actually think this latter is the way to do it. Toss hay on any oil that you see and then find the equipment to gather up all the oil-soaked hay.
So you see you start pretty small. And with very few people. You sack whole departments by the bakers dozen. But you are starting a related project every day. Each day a new project related to the problem of dealing with this leak. And each project you start is only expanding very slowly. Because some ideas will turn out to be untenable and you can wipe them early on and so not wasting heaps of resources.
Hence the ambission to spend only 1 million on the first day, 2 million on the next, 3 million on the third, since only this building from small beginnings approach will get the good value-for-money.
Now consider how much further your cleanup budget will go with mass-sackings, immediate surpluses and huge great slashing of budgets involved? Each project will be able to hire people at bottom basement prices and in an informal way. So the first fellow whose driving around buying half the hay off every farmer who doesn’t want an inflated price. Well he finds that there are things he needs to do to save himself time. Just a couple of dudes in the car with him and someone back at the office. They are setting up records and stuff. Sussing out roads and farmers who are likely to have hay.
And so he can hire someone, newly sacked, for a very low wage, for his unit to just grow slowly and be good value for money.
Now notice the Rudd approach. Try and shove 2 billion dollars into a roofing industry in no time flat.
It doesn’t work. It wastes money. Gets people killed.
Mass-sackings, spending cuts, closing down departments by the bakers dozen, phasing out fractional reserve, slowing the rate of monetary growth.
You can laugh about it. But this oil leak is a big problem. You want to move fast on something, and get a well-oiled machine working on dealing with this problem, they are in fact the first things you start doing in any sort of emergency at all.
By: Graeme Bird on June 11, 2010
at 2:28 pm
Look at these suggestions:
“Useful steps that Obama could take to fix the oil leak.
1) Ban fractional reserve banking.
2) Mass sackings.
Steve Edney
11 Jun 10 at 4:16 pm
Cap it with a pyramid.
Infidel Tiger
11 Jun 10 at 4:20 pm
3) Homesteading
Tillman
11 Jun 10 at 4:21 pm
4) Seasteading
THR
11 Jun 10 at 4:23 pm
5 all of the above.. and mass sackings
JC
11 Jun 10 at 4:24 pm
I’m sorry. But these are all excellent suggestions.
You could probably cap it with a lead pyramid. And if the head was then removable that could constitute the first person to successfully cap it having homesteaded it. The public costs of all the efforts to clear up the damage, could be considered the payout costs for taking the property off BP.
The Gold-plated, lead pyramid ought to be large. Hollow but very heavy. With the words “A Better World” Engraved on it in large letters. Not all capitals either, but stylish script. You would have to make it such that it could be fastened tight against the sea floor. Drilled down and fastened tight, all the way around.
There is none of these ideas that aren’t good. You just have to think of me and you guys get smarter. Then you stop thinking of what I would say and you go stupid again.
The failure of America to win a major war since WWII, with the exception of Reagan winning the cold war, comes down to the fact of loose money and the size of government continually growing, making the country and government less of a well-oiled machine then it had to be.
All crises ought to precipitate mass-sacking and hard money.
Part of the Reagan effectiveness was that he tended to create teams within the bureaucracies already there.
But another big part of his effectiveness was that he got there during the Volker hard money era. So the country itself worked much better. He also had the tax cuts. Which can be overrated. But I do not think that that part of the rate cuts that lead to more earnings retained in business were the least bit over-rated. And lets face it. The personal tax rate levels were too high then. But the less tax on retained earnings coupled with the accelerated depreciation , coupled with the hard money of Volker…..
… that meant that things tended to work.
Everything that the government undertakes, relies indirectly on a functioning and powerful private sector. This is the case in a way that GDP growth does not show.
To my mind the 80’s was the last quality expansion. There was an even slightly better GDP growth under Clinton. But GDP growth is misleading as a metric. And the country wasn’t the sharp and functioning country that it was under Reagan. The last real time we had a capitalism that we could rightly be proud of.
The key metric for long-run success and survival is not high levels of defense spending. Its non-defense spending cuts.
There is the book “Crisis And Levaiathan” detailing how it is crises that lead to the growth of government to one higher plateau after another. Success will mean reversing that metric. It will mean spending to deal with each crisis that arises. But that crisis precipitating a great deal more spending cuts then the money it takes to deal with that crisis. If the Falklands war was worth winning it ought to have been worth slashing non-defense spending over. And the same with all like crises that we deal with as we go forward.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 3:13 pm
YOU ARE SUCH A FUCKING MORON CAMBRIA.
READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN YOU STUPID WOP. I THINK YOU WILL SEE I ACKNOWLEDGED YOUR MORONIC ATTITUDE UP FRONT. IT DID NOT PASS MY NOTICE YOU FUCKING PRIMITIVE ILLOGICAL CUNT.
By: Bird flaps on June 11, 2010
at 3:18 pm
Fucking lying moron wop Cambria was claiming that I did not pick up the general mocking tone of the folks above.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 3:40 pm
Actually its pretty clear that this alleged accident is really no accident.
See how neither the authorities nor the company, for a very long time, had brought in any of the powerful equipment to suck up this oil as its coming out of the hole. See also how they are not burning any oil off that comes to the surface.
So what we really are talking about is the energy-deprivation crusade. Its an extension of the environmental crusade, demanding that we be subject to energy-deprivation.
I suppose now that the global warming fraud was finally being seen through by many in the general public, and on top of that the drilling off the coast more generally was finally, allegedly, going to go ahead, that something pretty drastic had to be done to throw matters into reverse.
You think of how many mega-billions people like Goldman Sachs have got themselves leveraged into, when it comes to this Cap And Kill and all these other various investments. Here is Al Gore, worth about 2 million when he left office. Has now defrauded the public to where he is worth 100,s of millions. Soon to be worth billions if the cap and kill goes ahead.
If the whole movement came unstuck, a lot of outfits following a similar investment strategy would go broke.
I would consider the fact that they were not immediately
1. Sucking it up.
2. Burning it off.
This is pretty much proof that there are people making this disaster happen.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 7:49 pm
I didn’t mention oil-eating microbes. They are naturally occurring but we don’t want to wait around until they get their act together. You can buy such microbes commercially. I know this because we have them at work.
Look there is plenty of things these guys could be doing. They don’t appear to be doing anything serious. Or at least they were not doing anything serious early on. This is sabotage no question at all.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 8:21 pm
“According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman’s sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP’s stock during the quarter.
If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million. The share sales represented 44 percent of Goldman’s holdings”
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 8:33 pm
Goldman Sachs also owns the company that makes the toxic dispersant that they are poisoning the Gulf with.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 8:47 pm
This is a bit of a treat. These two girls have their own radio show. Really funny and informative. Anyhow they’ve decided to infiltrate this globalist traitors conference. So they spend all their time sussing out what these various conspirators are up to. And making fun of them.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 9:23 pm
Here is my new hero Sonya, finally utterly exasperated by the three-day-conference of traitors. She reveals that the traitors are hinging everything on global warming. She’s exasperated because of the mystery of how this thing can be happening. How everyone is going through the motions.
The whole global governance deal is betting everything that they can keep the globlal warming lie in place until such time as they can lock in global governance.
By: graemebird on June 11, 2010
at 9:27 pm
YEAH THERE IS REALLY NO QUESTION THAT IT WAS SABOTAGE. AND BY THE USUAL SUSPECTS WHO AREN’T CONTENT WITH MAKING AN HONEST LIVING.
WE ARE ALREADY WELL ACQUAINTED WITH A CROWD OF CRIMINALS WHO WILL GLADLY DO 20 BILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGE TO OTHERS TO MAKE A BILLION DOLLARS FOR THEMSELVES. AFTER ALL HOW ELSE CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE BANK BAILOUT? OR THE NAKED SHORT-SELLING THAT IS YOUR BREAD AND BUTTER?
By: Birdflaps on June 12, 2010
at 1:08 am
Look at the Goldman Sachs treatment of our locals. They lied and claimed that the “collatoral debt obligations” were selected by an independent third parties. They then offloaded them to Australians. And they subjected those Australians to five margin calls.
Its easy to see how naked short selling plays a part here. You short these things, that you don’t own, you then force a margin call, that allows you to cover your position. Totally criminal behavior. Hurting people that you were supposed to be doing business with. Doing so with premeditation.
We already have also your crowd and Al Gore running these schemes to do with the carbon tax and the cap-and-kill. And now Gore worth 2 million as VP is worth 100’s of millions. Should his scam be successful he will be worth billions. All being frontman for your Goldman-Sachs cronies.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 1:55 am
OPERATION MONGOOSE IS KNOWN AND PROVEN HISTORY. IT WAS AN OPERATION THAT HAD THREE FOCAL POINTS TO IT. BOBBY KENNEDY’S OFFICE. MIAMI. AND NEW ORLEANS. IT WAS BOBBY’S SCHEME TO ASSASSINATE CASTRO WITHOUT ANYONE PERCEIVING IT AS AN ASSASSINATION.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS AN ANTI-COMMUNIST INVOLVED WITH THE NEW ORLEANS PART OF THE PLOT. ONE OF HIS TASKS WAS TO HELP RUN ERRANDS FOR THE CANCER PLOT SIDE OF IT. THEY WERE USING RADIATION TO MAKE EVER-INCREASINGLY MORE VIRULENT STRAINS OF A CANCER CAUSING VIRUS. THEY WERE TOTALLY SUCCESSFUL IN THIS, AND TO THIS DAY CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ANYONE CANCER THAT WILL TAKE THEM DOWN IN A MATTER OF DAYS.
THIS IS ALL PROVEN KNOWN HISTORY. DOCUMENTED AND WITH LIVE ON-CAMERA WITNESSES THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO.
http://timelines.com/1961/11/30/president-kennedy-authorizes-operation-mongoose
HOW MUCH ARE IN DENIAL ABOUT? ARE YOU IN FACT IN DENIAL ABOUT OPERATION MONGOOSE? YOU SEE ONCE YOU CHOOSE IRRATIONALISM THERE IS NO END TO IT. IT STARTS WITH YOUR KEYNESIAN SUPERSTITION, BUT IT CANNOT END WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW THAT FELLOW JOE PESCI PLAYED IN THE OLIVER STONE MOVIE JFK? HE WAS WORKING WITH OSWALD ON THE CANCER PROJECT. PART OF WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS BREEDING RATS WHERE HE LIVED. THIS WAS ACTUALLY SHOWN IN THE MOVIE. OSWALDS GIRLFRIEND WOULD GIVE THESE RATS THE TUMORS AND THEY’D DIE. THE TUMORS WOULD BE THEN GROUND UP AND SUBJECTED TO FURTHER RADIATION TREATMENT WHICH WOULD MAKE THEM MORE VIRULENT.
THE VIRUS IN QUESTION WAS THE ORIGINAL VIRUS WHICH HAD INFECTED A COUPLE OF HUNDRED MILLION POLIO VACCINES AND HAD PROVED TO BE CARCINOGENIC. IT WAS A MONKEY VIRUS. THE AUTHORITIES WOULDN’T OWN UP TO IT AND CANCEL THE VACCINE. SO WHAT THEY DID INSTEAD IS TRY AND FIND A VACCINE FOR THE VIRUS IN THE POLIO VACCINE. TYPICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT BEHAVIOR. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY THINK “WELL WE COULD SUBJECT THE VIRUS TO RADIATION, SO WEAKENING IT, AND THEN SEE IF WE CAN VACCINATE THESE RATS AGAINST THE CANCER CAUSING VIRUS”
TOTALLY TO THEIR SURPRISE WHAT HAPPENED IS INSTEAD OF THE VIRUS BECOMING DORMANT, IT BECAME MORE VIRULENT. IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT THE SECRET PROJECT WAS PITCHED OVER TO OPERATION MONGOOSE.
By: triangulator on June 12, 2010
at 1:59 am
We have absolute proof for all I’ve written above in the form of live evidence by first-hand witnesses all corroborated. Nothing I’ve said above ought to be seen as the least bit controversial.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 2:38 am
Your new burst of insane denial of history and reality may be on the basis of an email that Rafe will likely have read. Here it is here. Every word true:
There is no chance of the two towers coming down without the extra explosions. But a theory that claimed this were possible would have to explain the explosions.
The theory that thermate wasn’t used is not a winning hypothesis, since it cannot explain the residue of the thermate found. No mainstream theory explains the molten iron in all three basements. Therefore all such theories are irrational.
And the Warren commission is a theory that doesn’t correspond to what we already know about the Kennedy hit. The Codename for the Kennedy hit was “The Big Event.”
The assassination came out of Operation Mongoose, based mainly in Miami. It was workshopped all the way up the chain of command so as to move the responsibility for it away from the CIA and onto Johnson and others.
Both Johnson and J Edgar Hoover helped with the coverup. The mob was also involved. Just as they were tied into Operation Mongoose.
Oswald was CIA. He was an anti-communist involved in the project to kill Castro. He was helping out on a number of projects. One of them was running errands for experimentation going on to make a particularly deadly strain of cancer that would kill quickly and hopefully not be traced back to the Americans.
The shot that caused the bloodspirt came out up of the storm drainage at street level. Handsome Johny Rosselini confessed to making that shot but its possible this is mobster pride because this was the kill shot and not all shots were successful.
There were about six shots timed to sound like three. The angle of shots makes it that none of the ones that hit came out of the Book warehouse however one came out of the Daltex building.
It was thought that 3 Corsican Maffia shooters were brought into it. But that was probably backup or to throw the blame off, if the real shooters looked like getting caught. Classic doubling up on all aspects of the hit. But its not clear who made what shot despite confessions.
The shot from the grassy knoll probably hit but it wasn’t the one that created the forward spurt, and its a little bit hard to demonstrate that it definitely hit on video, though some are sure they can make that case.
James Files has confessed to shooting from the grassy knoll and photographic evidence is at least consistent with his confession, and with the make of Remington Fireball that he says he used. Files said Nicoletti was one of the other shooters and he confirms Rosellini being another.
Like the twin towers story the story that Oswald did it, not only is something that didn’t happen. It could not have happened like that. It goes against all the evidence. All the bullet angles.
The shot that caused the spurt came from the front right drain as discussed. And quite naturally made Jacks head and body go back-and-to-the-left. This came from no book warehouse. Watermelon balancing party tricks to the contrary nothwithstanding, the idea would defy basic physics.
A very misleading animation came out which makes the book warehouse shots appear plausible. But the angles are no good if you get to that part of the show when they brought the real marksman in. And while you may find yourself convinced when immersed in this animation, its a croc which doesn’t take in all the other evidence, not least the pristine nature of the bullet that was held to have gone through two people.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 2:48 am
The acceptance of non-evidence in the CO2-bedwetting case and in the case of the Keynesian multiplier, leads to the same mental midget failing to accept real evidence. Everything I have said above is massively backed up by real evidence. Whereas for example the global warming fraud has no evidence backing it at all. None whatsoever.
So we see the dual mental handicap of the acceptance of non-evidence and the rejection of real evidence.
And I really don’t know where you dumb cunts are taking us with this obsessive superstition and irrationality.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 2:52 am
You are a moron soon. You are an idiot. I never said it was a Goldman Sachs conspiracy!!!
“dear God. latest Bird dropping – the BP oil spill is a Goldman Sachs conspiracy to revive the global warming campaign”
Fuck you are a moron Jason Soon. As if Goldman Sachs alone, could instigate and carry out a plot like this on their own.
They are fucking bankers you dumb gook.
Your idiocy never bottoms out.
Bankers going in for a bit of deep sea diving all of a sudden hey? Suddenly Blankfein finds himself in a wetsuit and submarine.
You are a moron SOON.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 2:57 am
Fucking hell you thick Gook cunt. Just because of your stupidity I had to go back and wipe something that was speculative and not fully backed by the evidence. This is most unhelpful, since all considerations ought to be taken into account.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 3:00 am
“We have absolute proof for all I’ve written above in the form of live evidence by first-hand witnesses all corroborated. Nothing I’ve said above ought to be seen as the least bit controversial.”
RIGHT. EVERYTHING ABOVE I SAID ABOUT THE KENNEDY MATTER ISN’T SPECULATION. THATS THE SUBJECT I’M TALKING ABOUT WHEN MAKING THE ASSURANCES. NOTICE THAT ITS 47 YEARS AGO. SO ALL THESE MATERS HAVE BEEN SORTED AND A LOT OF THE SMOKE HAS CLEARED.
I’M NOT GIVING THAT GUARANTEE FOR ANY OTHER MATTER. I’M SPEAKING HERE ONLY ABOUT THE KENNEDY BUSINESS.
By: Bird Flaps on June 12, 2010
at 3:11 am
“Just because of your stupidity I had to go back and wipe something that was speculative and not fully backed by the evidence.”
RIGHT EXACTLY. ITS OKAY TO SPECULATE WHEN YOU DON’T YET KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE KENNEDY MATTER WE KNOW ALL THE ABOVE AS AN ABSOLUTE FACT AND ESTABLISHED HISTORY.
By: Bird Flaps on June 12, 2010
at 3:17 am
Obama had just given the go ahead for offshore drilling when this ridiculous alleged accident happened.
There is legislation pending. This legislation was designed to appeal to both sides of the issue. It pretends to open up offshore drilling but gives all these veto provisions and is in fact anti-energy production. A greenie bill with a fake offshore drilling provision.
So this here alleged accident, is well-timed to see this economy-destroying legislation through.
The accident came on earth day. Also Lenins birthday. These guys are none too subtle.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 3:39 am
See notice you dumb shits, that the above is speculation. Quite different than the Kennedy matter. Which is known history. I don’t really want to be pressured into wiping speculation just because of the congenital stupidity of naked-short-selling wops and CO2 bedwetting Gooks.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 3:39 am
“That’s a hard call CL, pure research has very long lead times to technological advances. Consider the concept of spin in QM. That concept is invaluable and MRI technology is entirely contingent upon it.”
They are not coming up with anything John. The whole thing is a waste of money. It ought to be mothballed until science can be reformed. They are in gridlock and can only build on mistakes.
The engineers and equipment builders are being gypped and the taxeaters are taking all the credit.
By: graemebird on June 12, 2010
at 5:38 am