Posted by: graemebird | August 3, 2011

Bob Ellis Found The Creative, Holistic, Solution.

FROM ELSEWHERE:

David Wilkie said:

“Where we economists are most useful in climate change discussions is the question of how to change the behaviour of humans and how to organise the production of public goods. Because the climate is a world public good, individual behaviour that affects it involves an externality and our training as economists leads us to particular answers as to what can be done about this externality. ”

But are you using that training? Have you answered the following questions:

1. What characteristics does the ideal climate of the earth have? How does that differ from the way the earth would change if carbon emissions had not been politicized?

2. What is your preferred level of CO2 at sea level? And if it is lower than 1600 parts per million, why are you opting for less net primary production?

The other thing is that the Pigouvian model is just bad economics. Since Australian economists fail to define economics as the “science of wealth creation” they are short-sighted when vetting their models for inclusion of capital accumulation over time. They define economics as “the allocation of scarce resources” and are very quick to jump up and start attempting to do just that.

The typical graph with curves, slopes, and regions, that would go with this externality business just does not show capital accumulation over time in response to policy. Which is always the key to wealth creation. We ought not be surprised to find out therefore, that taxing externalities does not ever come close to maximising welfare in the real world.

Suppose a kid is creating noise pollution with his drumming and keyboard playing. The neighbour is a shift worker and is woken all the time. A third party taxes the kid and sends the money to the UN. The UN’s consultants gobble it up and no-one poor is helped. The kid loses his confidence in his ability to pursue music seriously but he still whacks out a beat when he knows the tax doesn’t apply. Which keeps the shift worker awake since he works odd hours. How is this welfare maximisation?

Its very clear that compulsory savings for remedial investment is the better model. Here the kid puts away three times as much as what the tax was in a dedicated account. He decides to access it for a practice-pad, some headphones and some sound-proofing. You see these purchases are analogous to investments in remedial action. Later he still gets to on-sell these purchases when the reason he had to have a set-aside fund is no longer applicable. Its simply not true that taxing a problem and sending the funds to the UN is the best and cheapest option. You might think its true but its not. Not even where purely theoretical economics concerns are taken into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

All problems require SPECIFIC knowledge and a strategic mindset.

Public servants are always conflating their simplistic models with reality and they don’t review their training enough to see how applicable the models really are. Some knee-jerk reaction on this basis would be acceptable in 1990 when the issue was first put about in a big way. But there is really no excuse for an economist to be pretending that he does not need to know about the science or the energy industry or biology, insofar as these subjects relate to the controversy …. after all this time … and in 2011.

If capital accumulation is the goal along with trying to make ambient CO2 less than some prescription. Or less above some prescribed optimum (an optimum MUST be named and justified) If this is the goal then the quickest way to achieve this goal is to always run surpluses at every branch of government, get rid of taxes on retained earnings ….. and crank up coal royalties for coal sold overseas.

Very fast. It will work. And if there are no royalties on the locally used stuff, and huge royalties on the overseas sold gear, then that forms the basis for Australias re-industrialisation.

The next thing is to bring biology and earth sciences into it. With regards to Australia we have so much desert land. Since water and CO2 form the basis of life, the quickest way to suck the CO2 out of the air is to bring fresh water to the deserts. So that the best solution for Australia is to set up a slowly growing series of covered (by ETFE) saltwater canals, that passively produce fresh water. The canals can also, of course, be used for transport. Therefore farms, towns and wlldlife areas ought spring up on either side were we to get the rules right.

The key to making this cost effective is to look closely at the NBN and do everything the opposite way. Daily funding for this scheme ought never stress the capital accumulation needed such that costs are blown out. So you start painfully slowly and only pick up the pace when costs fall in response to you doing so.

In summary the public servants train their underlings to compartmentalize everything. George Bernard Shaw said that all professionalism was a conspiracy against the laity or words to that effect. He also said that candy was dandy but liquor is quicker. So he knew what he was talking about. But the thing with this compartmentalization is that it often becomes akin to a old-fashioned demarcation arrangement in a too-millitant union. Or the four families dividing up a city on the basis of conducting criminal operations. Non-holistic solutions are no solutions at all. All aspects of the problem must be considered and then a creative solution has a chance at being arrived at.

Bob Ellis came up with just such a creative solution on a small grab on a TV program. It consisted of diverting one river into another. It was indeed a fantastic solution but Penny Wong wasn’t the least bit interested. There just aren’t the Bob Ellis types around on the left any more.

Posted on 03-Aug-11 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Pretty good post by Sinclair for a change. I don’t see it often so I thought I’d better alert the media.

  2. David Wilkie said:
    “1. (optimal climate). In terms of preserving biodiversity and having the least amount of adaptation problems, the optimal climate is the one you had the last few thousand years.”

    So since you think CO2 increases temperature then surely you are looking for a lot more CO2 to stop the climate falling down its expected trajectory. If not why not?

    Posted on 03-Aug-11 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
    David Wilkie said:
    No you just not making any sense from an earth history or biological point of view. Clearly you haven’t thought about this matter seriously.

    Again: What CO2 level is your optimum. Or if you fancy that CO2 warms the climate. What climate is your optimum and how would you like the CO2 to bounce up and down to furnish this optimum, given your belief in this alleged warming effect?

    Are you optimizing for CO2 ….. Or are you optimizing for temperature? Or what muddle-headed thing are you doing?

    Posted on 03-Aug-11 at 4:39 pm | Permalink
    David Wilkie said:
    See we really need to know just what you are after. If you don’t know yourself then you are hardly in a position to chart the pathway consistent with near-maximum capital accumulation. In the long run cost amounts to resultant lack of accumulation in capital.

    Posted on 03-Aug-11 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

  3. As far as I know this quote if fully my own:

    In the long run cost amounts to resultant lack of accumulation in capital.

    Posted on 03-Aug-11 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

  4. Now I’ve got to get search engines to reveal this as my quote:

    Quoting Graeme Bird I should point out that:

    “In the long run “COST” amounts to resultant lack of accumulation of capital.”

    Its important since the failure to define economics as “the science of wealth creation” means that our economists can talk about costs and downplay the issue of capital accumulation over time.

  5. As Graeme M Bird has stated many times: In the long run “COST” amounts to resultant lack of accumulation of capital.”

    I want all of you to put this about in as many aliases as you can muster.

  6. As the philosopher Graeme Bird stated long ago (variously formulated):

    In the long run “COST” amounts to resultant lack of accumulation of capital.

  7. As the philosopher Graeme M Bird stated long ago (variously formulated):

    “In the longer run “COST” amounts to the resultant lack of accumulation of capital of a program.”

  8. You see how this is applicable:

    Supposing Santa Maria, proposes (as he did) a personal deposit scheme that doesn’t attract interest up to a threshold for all Australians. And of course we assume growth deflation and wall-to-wall surplus budgets.

    Well someone says “But Bob. That will cost the budget many hundreds of millions of dollars in foregone earnings.

    Well Santamaria would then be able to say COST? Cost young man? As Graeme M Bird stated many years ago now, in the very long run cost amounts to resultant lack of accumulation in capital. Conversely this proposal costs us nothing and showers capital accumulation upon us all.

    You see under that proposal, all caveats in place, individual Australians would wind up owning all our gear. Natural resources and all. We would have the greatest amount of capital accumulation in the world, as the Japs were about to when they were hit first by monetary madness, then later by deficit spending. And it wouldn’t matter what trade policy we had we’d always wind up with trade surpluses.

    So its critical to grab our economists heads, and force their vision around to wealth creation through capital accumulation. And my quote, said many years ago by my distinguished self, is the way to force these miscreant buggers back on track.

  9. Now that I know that James McCanney is right. Now that I know that a Tesla Tower in North Queensland or Arnemland cannot possibly NOT work, maybe this fact could give me some sort of career direction. I could go to Tafe and learn how to work safely with really high voltages even when turpsed up and I could simply forge all strategic plans around this important information.

    Since there will be no end of sabotage and propaganda against the idea its not like I’ll miss the boat if I start now. Must consult all “my” women on these matters. The scare quotes means I’ll be casting a pretty wide net for these sort of consultations.

  10. JUST BRINGING THE POST TO MY BLOG.

  11. I’m trying to find where Bob Ellis gave me the specifics of his solution. I got low random access memory and so I forget vital things of this sort.

    In my view Bob is mentally just as vital as ever. I think he can still make his prose sing. But he’s being surrounded by all these lock-step NAZIS. Lock-Step Jews. The Nazis WERE crypto-Jews. This is a prosaic fact of history. And the kids who are surrounding Bob right now, are Jews who are hemming him in intellectually.

    I perceive no biologically-based dimming down of the mind that has impressed me for the last three decades. But I was a fan before he ever blogged. He’s turned to blogging and now his blog has turned to Jew-town. Here he was, the most uninhibited critic of his and our era.

    But now Bob Ellis is fucking totally fucking surrounded by Jew-Kids running the Jew-Kid line on all matters big and small.

    This tragedy has happened after Bob’s Jew father let Bob be brought up by the seventh day adventists, in a Christianly way, to let his little boy break free from the group-think, by letting another group-think have some short-run power over him.

    Ruthless? Sometimes you’ve gotsta fight fire with fire. And his father’s strategy certainly seemed to work after a fashion for Bob. But now Bob’s father would be rolling in his grave, because Bob’s mental dominion (not mental capacity) would seem to have been over-run by this Hebrew encirclement of Bob’s blog.

    Let us not forget that elitist Talmudic Jewry is a Satanic cult.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: