Posted by: graemebird | August 10, 2011

Why Open Capital Markets Will Tend To Impoverish….

…. many countries and particularly countries like Australia.  It is fact that we are watching ourselves become impoverished. But why is it happening? We seem to be doing most things right say the mainstreamers. As the intuition of the laity reports, open capital markets are a big part of our impoverishment. But not in ways usually thought.





  1. No really, what the hell?

    You need to elaborate here pal. I think you’re just shit stirring though, as this is such an absurd premise.



  2. Graeme direct investment from the United States makes up 1/5 of our capital base and they paid, on average, before the mining boom, 25% better than local firms.

    Just elaborate a little Graeme.

    • Tell me very clearly exactly what you mean by “capital base”. I know what I mean when I use terms like that. But I don’t think many at catallaxy do.

    • Now come on what are you saying here? What is your point? What do you mean by “capital base”?

      You cannot be throwing these phrases around, without a fucking point, and not knowing what you mean by them.

    • What would be the argument if the Americans owned nine-tenths of what you are choosing to call “the capital base” what then?

      For fucksakes Mark you cunt. Answer. Do you mean that they’ve bought one fifth of all our gear in current operation, you are calling what was our gear “our capital base” the money they have paid for our gear has been blown by our taxeaters, and you think this is a great thing?


  3. Graeme
    There is an anti-fiat money article by the CIS’ Adam Creighton (the fellow who replaced Humphreys) in the AFR today that you’ll probably like

    • Good stuff. Fractional reserve is a worse problem than fiat money in my view. But its great that someone is on the ball at the CIS. You must not underestimate the value of my relentless abuse. It puts the fear into our public intellectuals who know in their hearts that they aren’t really up on the material.

  4. here you go

    • Yes excellent. Nothing fancy but just finally broaching the subject. Jason you just don’t have a sense of how fundamentally good the financial system I was born into was. Here I am talking about Southern Hemisphere, pre-1971 Australasia. No-one really thought too much about making a killing on real estate. People all thought about getting their dream home, not their dream deal. People bought and added extensions to their homes. They didn’t buy-to-flip. The financial system was a small part of the economy as far as the number of people were concerned. We had banks split into savings and trading banks. Trading banks created money but mostly via cheques-in-transit. Savings banks had little capacity to create money, but invested savings locally with the avowed goal of building local wealth. It was all very good.

      We did not have to wait long after Nixon cut that last tether on gold before things went utterly haywire. Nixon cut it sometime in 71. Matters were more or less haywire in New Zealand by 1973. We have been damaged societies since that time. A wounded civilisation. And even in the English-Speaking southern hemisphere we were really only just beginning to heal from World War II. But bad money will hurt a society even more than war. Its like a veteran suffering from shell-shock, and another thinking that he’s suffering from shell-shock but rather having all the symptoms of long-term alcohol abuse instead. Like a kid with the 1000 yard stare but no ‘nam to blame it on. Bad money is eating us alive and the future is bleak in that I’m of an age wherein I’m only just old enough to have been a creation of a culture that had known pretty good money. Everyone younger than me is basically tarnished goods.

  5. check this out, the 147 companies that control the world

  6. I’ll have to look into that in more detail. This is of course all unacceptable. And all those Misesian ideas are out the window if we have an international network of this sort. Apple Computer and Steve Jobs aside, none of these bastards deserve to be there. Libertarians need to put the steroids in their coffee and realise that no libertarian future is credible or possible if artificial persons dominate real persons, and a few rich covert-ops/fractional reserve bigshots control that network as well.

    They all have to be split up. But not by anti-trust. The first step is to force artificial persons to pay off all their debts. The next step is to get rid of the income tax, except for really rich individuals, and instead, for companies impose a total assets tax, with a threshold, and a total revenues tax, with a threshold, and on top of all that a Georgist tax, also with a threshold.

    We got to take these assholes down. Even if apple computer has to be split up as collatoral damage through no fault of their own.

  7. “Warren Buffet complains he doesn’t pay enough tax

    Fucking hell. What is the matter with you house-niggers. Buffet isn’t asking high earners to pay more taxes. He’s pointing out the reality that the political sponsor class …… THE REALLY REALLY RICH are getting a free ride. But no you say “how WE feeling today masser”

    He’s not talking about some sole trader whose making 200,000 a year. He’s said he’s talking about the mega-rich getting all these breaks. Nowhere does he say about raising the income tax rate or anything like that? Whats wrong with you house-niggers?

  8. Look at how the fraud banking scam is always a rort by assholes who want to stick with the current dysfunction. This is actually typical:

    Here the asswipe traitor Cambria, who always backs every bailout heist always, first points out his liking of fiat currency:

    “Every single currency system we’ve tried comes to an end at some stage for different reasons. ACTUALLY THATS BULLSHIT. THEY ALWAYS END BECAUSE OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING. BUT DO GO ON WOPPY….But lets not get carried away here, the fiat system has served us reasonably well too in its own way as it has allowed shocks to be externalized somewhat seeing our labor market has always been regulated with the exception of a couple of years.”

    Okay so he’s pretty keen on fiat. Because its crap money. But note the “look over there” strategy of going for “free banking.”

    “Dot’s point is a good one. Let the market decide with private banking.”

    Fraud banking is not letting the market decide. Its letting the bankers have everything their way. Including not paying their debts and forcing others to pay theirs. Its enforcing contracts for the banks, but not against the banks. But here I’m showing how the liars always go for “free banking” as a way of avoiding hard money. Humphreys and Soon used to always use this rhetorical trick. But they could never once justify it on economic grounds.

  9. See how dishonest the banker Cambria is. He pretends to like free banking, when really all he wants is one bailout after another.

  10. “See how dishonest the banker Cambria is”

    That’s BANKSTER, Mr Bird, BANKSTER.

  11. He’s on there full-time pushing the bankster influence and bringing down the conversation level. You know he once offered to pay my fees to go back to university. There’s nothing this shyster won’t stoop to. No banker subsidy that he thinks is too much.

  12. “Here’s the thing about Paul – he’s a bloody counterproductive idiot, like most libertarian ideologues. he actually voted against Ryan’s plan, god knows why, probably because it wasn’t pure enough for him.”

    What is the matter with you you stupid gook? Why would anyone vote for the Ryan plan? Its a crap plan, made in consultation with the Democrats. What is your reasoning here?

  13. Mr Bird.
    As a good ol’ southern boy, there’s only one thing I can recommend for the likes of Cambria. Two, actually, A good upper cut followed by a solid left hook.

  14. You get close enough to land an upper-cut there is the chance of getting that slime all over you.


  15. It must be understood that the debt limit, if adhered to, was the best balanced budget amendment imaginable. So any compromise with taking a very hard line with the budget was ipso-facto irrational.

  16. Fucking Hell. Look at this for house-nigger lunacy. And worse still he’s asking the greasy greasy idiot Joseph Cambria:

    “I’ve understood it was a lesser evil to bail out the banks, but what now?”

    So where is this stupidity coming from? I’ll tell you where its not coming from. Its not coming from any understanding of economic theory or banking. Two groups of society were bloated, overpaid and too big a part of the economy as far as the number of people employed was concerned. These were of course the bankers and the public servants. The rest of the economy were struggling, and under-employed.

    So the two bloated groups stole off their benefactors. How is that the lesser of two fucking evils? Fucking hell. The bankers ought to have all gone down and been split up. Just as the public servants ought to have with the help of a static credit limit. Where is Token getting this stupidity from?

    Fuck this is annoying. People who know nothing say wicked ignorant things and then ask questions of stupid proven cunts like Joseph Cambria. The cunt is fully behind the bailout and the complete cunt has lied again and said that he was a libertarian.

    • Mr Bird

      We done the black man lots of ill in the past and that ‘N’ word ain’t right no more. I say this as a good ol’ Southern boy. If the black man is a conservative he is still a man, perhaps more of a man than the liberal Yankee. I suggest you change your ways

      • I was assuming Token was a white nigger. I’d never use the n-word to describe a black man. In any case I cannot imagine a black man being so much of a nigger as to accept the bank bailout,

  17. Why does the largest planet spin much faster than all the others? Will that be the case is most solar systems? Why do the planets rotate? Will earths rotation change over time? Any takers?

  18. Q. Why does the largest planet spin much faster than all the others?

    A. Because it attracts more energy and is more powerful and purposeful.

    Q. Will that be the case is most solar systems?

    A. Possibly.

    Q. Why do the planets rotate?

    Because they are faithfully wedded to their stellar relations.

    Q. Will earths rotation change over time?

    Highly likely, to some degree.

  19. Dear Mister Bird

    I’ve dropped by to tell you about my recent visit to Litchfield National Park in the NT. It is a wonderful red and green landscape through which rivers have carved beautiful pools and cascading waterfalls. I went swimming in the pool at the base of the Wangi Waterfalls and was surrounded by forest and lulled by bird calls. I walked around the circuit track and at the top of the falls had a fantastic view over the landscape so full of indigenous history and culture and stories known only to them.

    I was fascinated by the cathedral termite mounds and the magnetic termite mounds and was once again left in awe by the genius of nature. The magnetic mounds look from a distance like a giant cemetery with hundreds of head stones. On closer inspection they are amazing feats of engineering with arches, tunnels, chimneys, insulation and nursery chambers. The mounds are aligned north to south to minimise the exposure to the sun with the broad fronts and backs on an east west alignment for temperature control. How amazing that termites have evolved to know this yet Darwin still has very few homes with solar hot water. It is time that Australia embraced biomimickery to understand better how nature does things and to learn from it.

    As to the vegetation, there were lots of creeks fringed by lush vegetation, plus open woodlands and various grass trees burnt by random fires and other plants, the fruit of which look as if it should be edible. Lovely and occasional flashes of red, pink or yellow amongst the greens and browns made me think I should have bought a book on the native vegetation but on the other hand sometimes it is enough to just enjoy it.

    • Wow. Would like to go there too.

  20. Interesting. Fleeced took a shot at the questions. But does he realise just how much angular momentum Jupiter has?

    “They stop rotating because of gravity. Earth’s rotation is slowing both with respect to the moon and the sun (the moon has already stopped in relation to Earth). Big planets just take longer to slow down”

    So under this scenario Jupiter once was spinning a lot faster and slowed down? Well the standout question under that scenario would be how could Jupiter have gotten to spin so fast in the first place?

    Sidereal rotation
    period 9 h 55 m 30 s
    Equatorial rotation velocity 12.6 km/s
    45,300 km/h

    This is simply an astonishing rotation speed. No NASA/public servant creation theory can account for it. Does Fleeced have a theory as to how Jupiter could have STARTED with a much faster rotation rate and slowed down?

    • Don’t know. I would have thought the rotation should be slowing, which implies it was faster before, but to be honest, there’s probably lots of variables that don’t apply to smaller planets.

      For one thing, as a gas planet, it might behave a little differently – it doesn’t even have a uniform rotation across its bands (observable,) but is it spinning that much all the way down? (Not saying it doesn’t – I don’t know enough about it).

      And then, given its size, it’d be attracting a lot of bodies which could certainly effect its spin.

      Not to mention whatever other weird properties you with helium and hydrogen under great pressure.

      • The thing you’ve got to bear in mind is that we have been conditioned by compulsive lying anti-scientists to believe a number of propositions axiomatically. One of them being that the entire solar system had some sort of immaculate conception 4.5 billion years ago and nothing has happened since. The creation stories that were around when I was a kid, that underpinned this jive ……. well lets just say that they are too embarrassing to mention now.

        Yeah its true that one might expect some tiny degree of slowing. But it cannot amount to much, space itself being frictionless and the solar wind, about the only thing to contend to.

        Allowing the bullshitartists to influence you by letting you think that you can ignore how these planets began to spin fast like tops (under your assumptions) in the first place ought to be beneath you. These are stupid people and taxeaters.

        So to solve this mystery the matters that you would have to take into account would be:

        1. Why are galaxies symmetrical?

        2. Why are galaxies flat, given that gravity is a dumb force?

        3. Why do planets revolve flat in solar systems.

        4. Why would a planet start spinning in the first place.


        See how you are accepting the communist and weakass leftists point of view by implicitly splitting time into an age of miracles and a prosaic age? Or else you would see that the spinning of planets must be explained. As it turns out the spinning of planets is explained by the very process that leads to the planets revolving in a flat plain. The catastrophic interaction between these bodies leads to both outcomes.

        You can guarantee that in any solar system you care to visit, the older planets will have a great deal of angular momentum, and the newer ones will spin very slowly.

      • I don’t claim to be an expert here – just a bit of maths/physics knowledge, mixed with intuition. A lot of my comments here are basically “thinking out loud” – I don’t consider them absolutes. That disclaimer out of the way, here goes:

        “1. Why are galaxies symmetrical?”

        Are they symmetrical, or is this an assumption? Some of them certainly aren’t, they’re kind of blobby – but let’s assume our own spiral galaxy is. I would expect this to be a factor of the spinning – that you’d get a fairly even spread around the axis over time?


        “3. Why do planets revolve flat in solar systems.”

        If you start with a speherical solar system, and then spin it, over time, it should flatten perpendicular to its axis.


        If it wasn’t spinning, I suppose it would collapse in on itself.

        “2. Why are galaxies flat, given that gravity is a dumb force?”

        I’d guess this is just an extrapolation of #3.


        “4. Why would a planet start spinning in the first place.”

        Wouldn’t you would expect this if it was formed from various pieces coming together

        NO WHY?

        , as the initially sphertical ball of the solar system was spinning on it’s axis……


        ….. As pieces in proximity rotate around a common centre of gravity. I guess the real question is why is the galaxy/universe spinning.


        “As it turns out the spinning of planets is explained by the very process that leads to the planets revolving in a flat plain. The catastrophic interaction between these bodies leads to both outcomes.”

        I agree that they’re related… I just don’t see why you think they’re not covered by the conventional explanation?

        “Yeah its true that one might expect some tiny degree of slowing. But it cannot amount to much,”

        It seems to be clearly observable with the moon, and effects on Earth relative to the moon. Rememeber that the moon doesn’t revolve around the Earth –


        ….they both rotate around a common centre of gravity – in addition to which the Earth is spinning on it’s axis. Anyway, it now occurs to me that effects might be different on gas giants, which also tends to be both the biggest planets in the system.

        “You can guarantee that in any solar system you care to visit, the older planets will have a great deal of angular momentum, and the newer ones will spin very slowly”

        How will you determine that they are the older planets?


      • “I agree that they’re related… I just don’t see why you think they’re not covered by the conventional explanation?”

        Hang on a minute. What is this irrational creation-theory that you are taking to be the “conventional story.” Why are you prejudicing leftist nonsense in this area? You think the public servants only bullshit when they talk economics?

  21. Planets rotate in a plane around the sun. Stars rotate in a plane around the dark rift of the galaxy. But gravity is a dumb force. So how is that flat rotation sorted? The reality is that its sorted out of chaos. Out of planet capture.

    When comets come shooting into the solar system, if they come in at an angle to add energy to planetary rotation, they will lose some of that energy, and begin the long process of normalizing their orbit. Making it more on the same plane as the other planets. Making their orbit more circular. A lot of the energy the comets lose adds to the rotational speed of the planets and disproportionately Jupiter. And yes this sort of thing will be the case in pretty much all solar systems.

    Earth has a healthy rotation speed because it is an old planet and has partaken in the energy-grabbing process from incoming comets. But Jupiter was the first planet and attracts most of the angular momentum, as it robs more energy from more comets.

    Comets may add or subtract from various planets rotation. But if it comes in at an angle that would go against Jupiters rotation we probably won’t see that comet again. Its probably a one-pass object which will one day wind up in another solar system. Whereas we can rob the energy from other comets over a number of passes.

    Venus has a very slow rotation. But then we know for a fact that its a new planet. So it hasn’t had a lot of time to be robbing incoming comets of their energy.

    Earths rotation rate and other characteristics will change all the time when we have close comet passes. It appears that less than 4000 years ago we had a 360 day year.

  22. “Earths rotation rate and other characteristics will change all the time when we have close comet passes. It appears that less than 4000 years ago we had a 360 day year.”


  23. Mr B

    Did you see what Gov Perry said about the Jew Bernanke? That he was a traitor for printing money and should be strung up?

  24. test

  25. Mr Bird
    Check out the ‘Perry does not believe in manmade global warming’ thread on Catallaxy where all the regulars are swarming against Mr Ron Paul

  26. Rick Perry is a hard-left traitor. He’s the banker/shadow government candidate this year on the Republican side. But they’d probably settle for Romney if they had to. You will see the globalist interest play the process so that in the end they will have their globalist selection. Reagan broke through that so they shot him. Lucky for everyone Reagan lived. But all candidates and contenders since then have had impeccable globalist credentials.

    • Birdie:

      Why is Perry a bankster? I don’t get that one.

      • Thats his history. Thats why you are supporting him.

      • No, Don’t don’t support Perry at all, you dunce.

      • Yeah you do. He’s come out of nowhere, and everyone supporting him, they know nothing about him. Its Obama all over again. You supported Obama as well. And you will always support the quisling candidate. Conservatives in Texas all hate him. But now, thanks to media hype, you are all treating him like the great white hope. But he’s just a globalist traitor. A real lefty.

      • Bird

        Stop telling me who I do and don’t support, you fat fuck. I said I don’t so stop it with the leftist reversal.

      • Okay so you don’t support Bilderburg-Richard. You … Joseph Cambria, do not support the quisling Rick Perry. I’ll accept your refusal to support him if you are adamant about it.

  27. You don’t need to be young and on your full game to be President so long as you are not attacked, and have to respond. Ron Paul would do just fine, even if he is slowing down. We just need people we can trust. Obviously we need to arm up and be strong whether Ron wins or not, and Ron winning would make that process a scramble, so it would be a good thing.

  28. Mr B

    Why are you keeping me in moderation while threadwrecking Visigoths and Vandals like the lying cunt Mark Hill, Woppy Cambria and the Chinky Chinky Chinaman are let through?

    At least I am trying to add something constructive.

  29. Down in Texas they just consider Rick Perry as New World Order Scum.

  30. Its no small matter to get planets spinning. They are fucking big things, and to get them to spin requires the application of enormous force and energy upon them. You don’t just assume that they ought to be spinning without the application of such a force. And of course these bodies being out in space… well there are limited ways to get the sort of traction needed to spin them. No hand of God will appear out there in the middle of space to apply this humungous force.

    The idea that they may naturally slow down only reinforces this reality that you need to find a real tangible force to set them spinning. Venus is not spinning much but Earth is. There has to be a reason for this.

  31. The Ryan plan, was a clear case of media hype versus logic. This is why advocates of the Ryan plan cannot tell you why they advocated it. It ought to be a litmus test as to whether a Presidential candidate can ever be acceptable. If one mentally feels that the Presidential candidate might have accepted the Ryan plan, then he’s not fit for the job.

    What country is more likely to default? One with more or less debt? Obviously, all understanding of logic, tells us that an entity who borrows more, with some very minor business exceptions, is getting closer to default, and further away from paying its debts off. Logic therefore tells us that raising the debt limit increased the likelihood of default. The goal of any budget then was to not raise the debt limit.

    The process in my country was that the Republicans were to present a budget to the house. The democrats would add spending to whatever they presented. The house was to vote on it. If it was accepted it would go to the Senate. They can be relied on to put spending programs on that. Then if the Senate and house both accept the outcome, the President okays or veto’s it. But Presidents almost never veto budgets.

    Next year they have another budget. Each budget goes around and around like this. Therefore Ryan made not cuts at all. Ryan did not make a single cut. And we see that Obama has already put up another spending program.

    Obviously logic tells us that you must never present anything but a surplus budget to the next stage of the process.

    This is if we want good rather than bad policy. Thats if we want to follow logic rather than media hype. Now note that the debt limit is the ultimate fail-safe protective measure if the process fails. Suppose if good people always start with a surplus budget, but evil people, (or media hyped people) keep messing that situation up? Well then the debt limit will kick in. And from then on nobody will waste time presenting budgets that aren’t in surplus.

    The constitution was written during the age of enlightenment. And they were wicked selfish people then also. But they were logical. And they weren’t subject to media hype. Thats why they put in this brilliant mechanism of the debt limit. Its always, been a mistake to flout that debt limit. Every last time its been flouted its just putting a penny in the fuse box. There has never been a situation when the debt limit was lifted that it ought to have been lifted.

    Since once the debt limit kicks in the only difference is that instead of only good people submitting surplus budgets, nothing other than surplus budgets can be discussed. So there is no room for trouble-makers to eat up all the negotiation time on bad and wrongheaded budgets.

    Thats the lesson to be learned here. The debt limit doesn’t change the process. Except to the extent that once the debt limit kicks in no-one can filibuster around with budgets that are not in surplus.

  32. I think the problem is with people (most commonly rightists) who think things, anything, everything, acts like clockwork. Like “free markets” in full flight, say.

    Rightwing nerds whose worldview is marked by fear regard markets as entirely predictable in a narrow mechanical sense as long as certain rules are followed, paths followed.

    Too funny, too pathetic, too stoopid.

    On a related matter, it is now known that the orbits of planets are typically (over long periods of time) chaotic and this is because the paths of particles of rock lead to collisions that can clear swathes through space.

    In other words, chaos plays a determining role and this is evidenced in the extraordinary diversity of all phenomena including planetary evolution and composition. Planets that are siblings, following the same laws of science (or so we think) end up looking very different.

    Lesson: Chance plays a greater role than mechanics in everything.

    • Yes well I think you are basically right here. For example the last really really big comet was Hale Bopp. And its movements were too chaotic to predict day to day. It came in on a 3600 year orbit (bullshit number. I cannot remember the real numbers I’m just illustrating a point) and left on a 2400 year orbit …….. (also a paraphrased number)…. so yes a deterministic outlook to how things work would have to take into account every flying electrical discharge and every last meteor that hitched a ride on a comet.

      I would say though that economic LAWS are about the strongest, most well-founded scientific laws we have. The problem with the neoclassical economists is that they are always making pronouncements on the basis of economic ASSUMPTIONS-of-their-models, and they do not feel the need to keep track of where their models diverge from the real world.

  33. “The problem with the neoclassical economists is that they are always making pronouncements on the basis of economic ASSUMPTIONS-of-their-models, and they do not feel the need to keep track of where their models diverge from the real world.

    That’s a very damning but fair indictment of those types.

    Not much more needs to be said about their anti-science and irrelevance to human progress.

    It’s interesting that so little still is known about consciousness. All we’ve learnt about other matters external to us tend to obscure the fact that the greatest mystery, the least understood, let alone solved, is so much to do with ourselves.

  34. Finally we get to talk about the real stuff. Consciousness. The eternal mystery. I have some things to say about the subject, but I don’t have any glib answer to this most important of conundrums.

  35. Alfred Nock said:

    More in keeping with the real purpose of the topic I concur that there are serious agency problems with our public companies. Just the other day I heard Alan Joyce emphasizing the discipline that Qantas executives had shown in terms of not grabbing for themselves pay rises and large bonuses. If it requires discipline for management NOT to stick its hands in the till, then we are some ways from supply and demand, merit-based earnings, natural law, and the harmonization of all interests in the globally benevolent market. I would argue that the top three layers of management of pretty much all our larger public companies have their hands in the till. And the point is well made that these resources might otherwise have gone into capital investment.

    How do we solve the problem?

    Well the problem of agency is partly to do with corporate law, partly a factor of human nature, and partly the result of non-market influences that favor larger over smaller firms. Regulation compliance costs being but one example. To solve matters we want to rejig our tax and regulations to bring down the average size of companies, and to enforce a default position where bigshot salaries will quickly deteriorate unless the shareholders vote forcefully (perhaps with a two-thirds majority) to maintain or enhance them. Other than that agency problems are a good argument for progressive taxation but only in the context of near-minimalist government.

    Posted on 20-Aug-11 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Alfred Nock said:

    The other measure I forgot to mention is to make limited liability mean 100% equity finance. This would improve resource allocation via the improvement of share pricing, bring down the average size of firms, harmonize the interests of society and the shareholders, and make the management far more beholden to the shareholders. In all these ways the problem of agency would be severely reduced.

    Posted on 20-Aug-11 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

  36. Alfred Nock said:
    It simplifies matters greatly if limited liability means 100% equity finance, there is no company tax, and share buyback is allowed. That way the management job is pretty clear. Maximize the ratio of book value/outstanding shares. Always run a profit. If the shares are undervalued use some of that profit to buy-back shares.

    Currently companies almost never try to maximize that ratio in the context of falling company size and revenue. This is a misallocation of resources just the same as paying bigshots too much money (in lieu of capital spending) is. And note also that the failure to have this as the main financial goal is also yet another factor making our firms on average too large. We have too many barely profitable companies, and loss-making companies, trying to get larger or stay the same size. Whereas they ought to ruthlessly be making a profit; even if that means growing smaller.

    Posted on 20-Aug-11 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

  37. Alfred Nock said:

    The company tax sets up irreconcilable conflict of interest and confusion in the goals of management and has to be eliminated post-haste. But that does not mean that we cannot have a 1% total assets tax with a threshold and a 1% total revenues tax with a threshold. Such taxes, if the threshold is large enough, do not have the same ghastly effects as a tax on profit does.

    Posted on 20-Aug-11 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

  38. Alfred Nock said:

    The goal is excellence in resource allocation, and for this we need excellence in share pricing. This implies that we must outlaw short-selling just as quickly as we can and instead legalize-but-regulate “insider-trading.” Superb insider-trading regulations, will bring more information to share-pricing then short-selling ever could. And the reality is that short-selling, in current practice, is merely a hateful Trojan Horse for the disastrous rort of broker-share-pyramiding. One of the most costly practices to society over the last ten years. ANY phantom supply distorts pricing and therefore resource allocation. Phantom supply ought never be tolerated, even on faux-libertarian grounds. The reality is that the regulators lack the will, independence, conscience, and understanding to allow short-selling while eradicating naked short-selling. So the entirety of short-selling has to go.

    Posted on 20-Aug-11 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

  39. You are right about short-selling of course. But then you are not driven by greed and malevolence.

    “Speculation indeed has its defenders and advocates, especially among brokers and jobbers, who claim that it equalizes prices and prevents the fluctuations which would otherwise be inevitable.

    Some affirm that speculative dealings have little appreciable effect on buying and selling for transfer. In volume and number speculative transactions are very much larger than those for effective transfer, but the two are conducted separately and to a great extent between different parties. It is asserted that the speculative market is to a large extent separate and distinct from the real market. These two arguments in favour of speculative dealings mutually destroy each other. If speculative dealings equalize prices, it cannot be true that they have little appreciable effect on the markets. As the result of the speculation depends on the actual market price of the security or commodity in question at the time agreed upon, it cannot be said that speculative transactions are independent of effective buying and selling for transfer. It is patent that the various devices to which “bulls” and “bears” have recourse do produce some effect. The acute and experienced men who devote themselves to speculative business, and who frequently have recourse to the methods described above in order to influence the market in their favour, would be the last people in the world to expend uselessly time, effort, and money.

    The contention, then, of producers and consumers that speculation has a disastrous effect on real business transactions seems to be well grounded. They maintain that speculators denaturalize prices. These should be regulated, and are naturally regulated, by the varying costs of production and by the mutual interaction of supply and demand; but the artificial dealings of speculators tend to fix prices without reference to those natural factors. Hence, producers and consumers are robbed by clever men, who manipulate the markets in their own interests, produce nothing, perform no useful social service, and are parasites on commerce. ”

    • Well you remember what I was saying before. We have positive-inventories speculation which we can show pretty clearly is helpful and part of wealth creation. And we have negative inventories speculation which is anti-social and destabilizing. And the thing is today pretty much all you see is the latter kind in the form of derivatives and so forth.

      The market spoke against the derivatives in 2008 and all the suppliers would have been blessedly wiped out. But someone didn’t want them wiped out.

  40. Graeme

    “I hate the concept of “wisdom”. It had utility when knowledge was limited but in today’s world who can be wise about the world? We can know a a tiny fraction of all knowledge.”

    What are your thoughts on this comment?

    • The reasoning is circular. He has no wisdom, so he fails to recognize its value. This over-emphasis on the value of specialization is really just transplanted public service demarcation disputation. Knowledge is holistic and most of the specialties are in a deplorable state. A good analyst ought see through the nonsense wherever he wanders.

      • It would appear that wisdom is constrained by perception.
        What is knowledge? That which is “taught” in educational facilities and that which is acquired vicariously? Experience is also knowledge, if one is open to learning. Why are so many uneducated yet wise? Why are so many with mountains of knowledge and have not a nanoparticle of wisdom within?

        I only have questions for I lack knowledge and wisdom.

  41. Graeme sezs

    “I have some things to say about the subject, but I don’t have any glib answer to this most important of conundrums.”

    Ok. What are the things you have to say about the subject, glibness aside.

    I’m all ears.

    • Hmmm. I may have to leave this one to a later date. Plus I’ll have to review some sources so as to come up with something pretty sensible.

  42. Wisdom would seem to require the condensation of knowledge and experience to general principles but to go further so as to internalize the lessons learned into ones own behavior. I don’t think I’m really there yet, having habitually fallen down on the last stage of the process.

    • “so as to internalize the lessons learned into ones own behavior. I don’t think I’m really there yet, having habitually fallen down on the last stage of the process.”

      lol the first is wisdom, the second is humanness. And a lack of motivation.

  43. Question.

    Why do economists have such bad haircuts and folicure problems?

    But their earnestness is often engaging.

  44. I can remember meeting the whole faculty and they were lined up and I said to the person next to me “They are a physical bunch. I’ll say that for them.” and that got a bit of a laugh.

    • What did you mean by that?

      • They were all out of shape. And the comment caused a visual double-take. They were not sufferers of gym-addiction.

    • That rather witty, Graeme.

      • actually Graeme, Quiggin recently did a triathlon for charity. And my ex boss Ergas runs at 4 in the morning

      • Well Ergas is a cut above. Not in economics but just in commonsense and evenhandedness. His economic understanding is good but not great. Being a cut above its not surprising to see that he’s on the road at 4.00.

  45. Graeme, aren’t you going to ask me what my take on consciousness is?

    • Yeah I’m real interested. More-than interested.

      • Ok. Manana.

  46. “They were all out of shape. And the comment caused a visual double-take. They were not sufferers of gym-addiction.”

    That’s funny. My lecturers otoh were spunk rats. Of course they were all anarchists.

  47. Before giving you a more considered view of consciousness I want you to think of some images.

    1. Parallel mirrors where the image gets repeated and blurred.

    2. You are filming and watching the result on a closed circuit television and then you film the closed circuit television and you get an odd result.

    3. You have surprisingly “intelligent” single celled animals that learn how to form a co-operative network that can adapt to the environment by communicating with eachother. Like cancer cells adapting to each anti-cancer drug, one then the other.

    4. Think of the song that goes “I’m watching you watch over me, and I have the greatest view from here.”

    5. Imagine someone watching someone, and then the other person watching that person watching him, and so forth.

    6. Imagine a bunch of computers running in parallel and inputting into a computer that runs sequentially.

  48. 7. Supposing you witness someone getting a paper-cut, and you have a sort of shadow-pain in sympathy and you screw up your face.

    • Well, one can only hope that the forthcoming discourse on consciousness will be enlightening (a little existential humour there, if you will). Interesting to see how Graeme will link the observer effect to consciousness.

      Stand by…..

  49. Interesting to see how Graeme will link the observer effect to consciousness.

    That’s been going on for decades. One physicists I recently read claims he is preparing a paper demonstrating the linkage. No-one as yet has come up with a convincing argument. I’ve read multiple books on consciousness and it is crap, the concept is way oversold.

  50. “That’s been going on for decades. ”

    I doubt Graeme has been going on about this for decades. Which is why I said my interest lies in how Graeme – not anyone else- will link the two concepts.

  51. You should be interested in what many people are saying. One person is never enough.

  52. “You should be interested in what many people are saying. One person is never enough.”

    Having read on this topic for many a year, I’m interested in what one Graeme Bird, Esq., has to say.

  53. Come on Graeme, cough it up. I’m still waiting for Sascha, a very clever dude, to present his findings so in the interim I’d like to hear your views. all the moreso since I think the observer problem is not a problem.

  54. Graeme, literature especially poetry will always describe consciousness best. The explanation and mechanics of consciousness is still a mystery and may never be known, not even through the biological sciences as some would like to believe.

    We can understand or know some things in the physical, chemical or biological world through examination of neurons, electrons, molecules or even cells and entire organs. But the experience of music or colour for example cannot be deduced from these worlds. The experience is in a fundamental way a non sequitur. The whole of the universe can be said to be composed of a series of non sequiturs. The only reason for supposing there is in fact any connection between the logically and scientifically unrelated fragments of our experience is simply the fact that the experience is ours, that we have the fragments in our consciousness.



    I am a man: little do I last
    and the night is enormous.
    But I look up:
    the stars write.
    Unknowing I understand:
    I too am written,
    and at this very moment
    someone spells me out.



    Between going and staying the day wavers,
    in love with its own transparency.
    The circular afternoon is now a bay
    where the world in stillness rocks.

    All is visible and all elusive,
    all is near and can’t be touched.

    Paper, book, pencil, glass,
    rest in the shade of their names.

    Time throbbing in my temples repeats
    the same unchanging syllable of blood.

    The light turns the indifferent wall
    into a ghostly theater of reflections.

    I find myself in the middle of an eye,
    watching myself in its blank stare.

    The moment scatters. Motionless,
    I stay and go: I am a pause.


    Wind, Water, Stone

    Water hollows stone,
    wind scatters water,
    stone stops the wind,
    Water, wind, stone.

    Wind carves stone,
    stone’s a cup of water,
    Water escapes and is wind.
    Stone, wind, water.

    Wind sings in its whirling,
    water murmurs going by,
    unmoving stone keeps still.
    Wind, water, stone.

    Each is another and no other:
    crossing and vanishing
    through their empty names:
    water, stone, wind.

    Octavio Paz (A Tree Within)

  55. Moderated elsewhere:

    “Buffet is right. And the super-rich would be in a much more precarious position, if they were taxed a little bit more and everyone else was taxed an whole lot less, because what they are missing out on is competition from down below. Up and comers biting at their ankles. The fortunes of the super-rich today did not come about under free enterprise conditions, so we ought not act as though they are sanctified by natural law. There are all sorts of subtle extra-market ways in which these people have been advantaged. Besides that, our movement just isn’t ever going to get traction unless we are overtly hyper-egalitarian. There are frightful cronyist tendencies in our movement that must be over-matched.

    Supposing I see a sole trader whose in manufacturing, and his outfit makes ten million in revenues a year, he makes 1000 000 in profit, and he ploughs most of that one million back in to improve his business. I don’t want one dollar of his to go to the government. Its against my interests as its his business improvement that supports my living standard. But I cannot get the same self-interested feeling about new billionaire Al Gore, or all those welfare recipients, on wall street. A lot of alleged libertarians just laughed at us who arked up at the lawlessness and anti-egalitarianism of the bailout. This lack of inner sense of justice is marginalizing our movement.”

  56. Moderated elsewhere:

    But they have 40% of their people in manufacturing, and only 20% in banking. Plus their banking industry has to compete with the Swiss banking industry. So their performance has to be seen as exemplary any way you cut it.

    Note that the notion of comparative advantage did not mean they had to lose their manufacturing. The idea that they would have to lose their manufacturing is directly opposite to the implications of a true understanding of the notion of comparative advantage. But the Australian economists speak with a single forked tongue on this issue. We ourselves cannot hope to have an healthy economy unless we get to that sort of percentage of the population in manufacturing.

    Comment by graemebird | August 25, 2011 | Reply

  57. Mr Bird
    Look at how that treacherous Oriental SOON is promoting warmenism. And to think that the only one speaking against him is that dirty Slav Fyodor

  58. Irresponsible quisling. His treachery may one day get many yellow-men needlessly shot or under restrictions, since his example speaks to people and tells people that they cannot know who to trust.

  59. Alfred Nock said:
    “….Economics isn’t about maximising GDP, it’s about promoting efficiency…”

    If you get that wrong then there is nothing in economics that you can possibly get right. Economics is the science of wealth creation. Backtrack and try again.

    Posted on 25-Aug-11 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

  60. Alfred Nock said:
    My pleasure Nick. And with regards to what Jason is talking about it shows that we have to be absolutely obsessive about energy. We need to think hundreds of years ahead when it comes to energy. Because energy is not just another consumer good. Energy is inherent to wealth creation. Which involves capital accumulation, update, and the lengthening of the structure of production.

    There is specific difficulties with adopting new energy forms in a timely fashion. Since if energy is too cheap we won’t substitute, but if we purposely make energy more expensive our capital accumulation, update, and the potential for lengthening the structure of production is limited. So our wealth creation will be hobbled.

    The conclusion has to be that if we are concerned with wealth creation we have to be thinking about energy 24 hours a day like some women think about chocolate. This line of reasoning only seems to come when we start getting serious about our definitions. A further insight would have to follow that the left is not thinking about energy enough for the short and medium term and the right is not thinking about energy enough for the long term. Basically nobody is thinking seriously enough about energy.

    Posted on 25-Aug-11 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

  61. I’m no Julia Gillard or ALP fellow traveller, but our PM certainly whipped that dumb boy Abbott’s arse big time in parliament today and it was a hoot and a joy to behold. LOL.

  62. Right. Good to see that she can keep her composure when things are close to falling apart around her.

  63. It’s always good to see women in public life holding their own against bully boys.

    Lee Rhiannon the former NSW now federal Greens Senator is another case in point. She is always grace under pressure and her heart is in the right place. A real lady and inspiration to younger generations of progressives. A force to be reckoned with which is why she is targeted by the Neanderthals. But this lady is not for turning and good on her.

  64. Re consciousness, this dude is on the money I reckon. In any case it’s a good summary of the various approaches and their limitations.

  65. Graeme

    We all assume we count on you to take the reins and administer some control to this fubar situarion when the Dobell by-election rocks around.

  66. Mr Bird
    the dirty hippy Mr Stewart has a point. When are you going to be announcing your candidacy?

  67. A nice idea. But I haven’t the resources to campaign vigorously. So its not even worth the publicity to go for it this time around. I can see the sense in it from the point of view of so many people having cracked the shits with labor, but still unwilling to vote for the liberals. Its not a bad time for someone to go in there and cop a reasonable protest vote.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: