Posted by: graemebird | October 30, 2012

Angry-Irish On Privatisation

  1. Why privatise? Why not develop an industry-environment where small private practitioners will crowd out the post-office? Big business ought to come from small business success. Privatisation is performed to raise revenue. The motive itself is in direct contradiction to the goal of a sound and competitive industry post-privatisation.


    27 Oct 12 at 6:33 pm

  2. “Privatisation is performed to raise revenue. The motive itself is in direct contradiction to the goal of a sound and competitive industry post-privatisation.”
    Err – no. Privatisation done properly is not about raising revenue. A long term government monopoly can be a rich revenue source.

    However, it is true that the competition aspects have to be dealt with concurrently with privatisation. In the case of Post, it has a monopoly on regular snail mail only, including international snail mail. Everything else it does can also be done by private companies, and indeed is done by them.

    Its great advantage is the national network of postal agencies, and deliveries, just as the big banks have an advantage through their branch networks. It is also sitting on some very valuable real estate assets.

    The reason they are interested in expanding into the banking sector is because they already have a branch network in place.


    27 Oct 12 at 7:12 pm

  3. No actually in every case of privatisation in the real world (as opposed to the cover story or the textbook) raising money is a big motive, and bankers are involved. So as a result, in all cases, the motive of raising money has compromised the privatisation.

    There ought be no motive at all to raise money. If the motive to raise money wasn’t there, as you are claiming (and having it both ways at the same time … ) then you’d never privatise. There is seldom a justification to privatise. Since getting industry policy right would crowd out the government efforts down to zero, at the same time as ensuring a competitive environment.


    27 Oct 12 at 7:27 pm

  4. “Err – no. Privatisation done properly is not about raising revenue. A long term government monopoly can be a rich revenue source.”

    Here we see where the motive is for privatisation. If you have a government monopoly, legislated in or in there through the history of the case, then for starters the monopoly-helping legislation is not part of good industry policy. Here we see the motive to raise money is against good industry policy.

    But they never forgo this public monopoly except to set up a slush fund, fatally ruining the potential of the industry. They forego the public monopoly for the rort of privatisation where various criminal lawyers and bankers arrange a constellation of contracts to ruin the industry.

    Why not reform the industry? Privatisation is not part of the story of reform.


    27 Oct 12 at 7:33 pm

  5. That’s fine, if it’s a competitive industry.


    27 Oct 12 at 7:33 pm

  6. But thats the whole point. It wasn’t a competitive industry before. Its not a competitive industry after. Privatisation logically doesn’t equate to the goal of making a competitive industry. There is no logical connection between the cover story (ie lying) goal and the method of achieving the cover story goal.


    27 Oct 12 at 7:35 pm

  7. AngryIrish, how do you suggest that the government should have dealt with the Teltra monopoly? Remember, back in the 1990s it was all about poles and wires and basic telephone services. The internet and mobiles were tiny blips on the horizon. No private company, large or small, could have challenged the ’800 pound gorilla’, as Richard Alston called it. Optus had a tiny niche in the cable and mobiles segment, and was losing money.

    It’s easy to pontificate, but what would you have done instead?


    27 Oct 12 at 7:54 pm

  8. AngryIrish, how do you suggest that the government should have dealt with the Telstra monopoly? Remember, back in the 1990s it was all about poles and wires and basic telephone services, on a national level. The internet and mobiles were tiny blips on the horizon. No private company, large or small, could have challenged the ’800 pound gorilla’, as Richard Alston called it. Optus had a tiny niche in the cable and mobiles segment, and was losing money.

    It’s easy to pontificate, but what would you have done instead?


    27 Oct 12 at 7:55 pm

  9. Its should have sorted out an industry policy such that the private sector crowded out the public sector over time. It should not have sought even a dollar in asset sales. Privatisation ought not have been on the agenda.

    Now in the case of telstra it ought to have invoked a sort of law of pipes for the properties that cut across other properties. So the first step would have been to split the trucking companies from the roads and deal with the two separately. I’m saying you ought not sell anything. But in any case you have to treat poles, wires, underground properties, as akin to “the roads” and the rest of the business as “the trucking companies” and work on these two separately. Make sure the two industries never intersect. Or never in the forseeable future until you have your law of pipes together.

    But under no situation would you have tried to raise money.


    27 Oct 12 at 8:01 pm

  10. Its not as if we didn’t have the right advice at the time. The analogy of roads and trucking companies, and dealing with the two separately, came from Paul Budde (Buddha) PRIOR-to the privatisation.


    27 Oct 12 at 8:03 pm



    27 Oct 12 at 8:17 pm

  12. You haven’t explained how structural separation would have worked to diversify the industry. Australian taxpayers owned billions of dollars worth of assets in Telstra. Should they have just given them away? How? To whom?

    In accounting terms, it wasn’t a cost free revenue raiser, either. Telstra as a company appeared on the books of the national accounts. The assets were transformed into cash, but it wasn’t the case that money just appeared from nowhere. It is no different to a company selling a subsidiary in that sense.

    You seem to be saying that taxpayers should give away assets which they have funded for nothing, in the interests of some abstract ‘industry policy’. Happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood you on this.


    27 Oct 12 at 8:32 pm

  13. Well look you have to take first things first. Are you saying you SHOULDN’T separate the roads from the trucking companies? Are you saying you ought to offload the two types of properties together?

    Sometimes it takes a bit of philosophical analysis. I can hardly get into what I mean by the law of pipes, and more esoteric ideas, if I cannot get across what ought to be obvious by now:

    1. You don’t go there to raise revenue for reasons explained.

    2. You separate the pipes from the other parts of the business and deal with them with two separate industry policies. If the idea of grasping such general principles of infrastructure seems a bit tiresome to you, then how would I possibly build on this matter further.

    Just lock in the first two propositions, then we can go further. But lets not have any pretence that privatisation is compatible with rational industry reform. Because it isn’t.


    27 Oct 12 at 8:38 pm

  14. No of course they ought not give stuff away. The idea is to for business TO BUILD THEIR OWN STUFF. Since when is it put about that business cannot build their own gear? Are we to claim that there is some law of business that the taxpayer has to do it, then offload it to the big end of town, with the money creators capturing all the value?

    Is it beyond your pay grade to try and imagine the general principles needed to allow business to build infrastructure? This is what I mean by the law of pipes. Or trans-spatial goods. Or the law of investing in property titles that cut across multiple other property titles. We have no legal framework for this and we aren;t going to get it if all we want to do is favours for the big end of town and for the bankers.


    27 Oct 12 at 8:41 pm

  15. 27 Oct 12 at 8:41 pm

  16. Lets go again:

    “Are you saying you SHOULDN’T separate the roads from the trucking companies? Are you saying you ought to offload the two types of properties together?”

    Thats the question you have to answer. And only an idiot cannot get the answer right. Even the communists ought to be able to get this one right. There is not the legal framework to sell these two together and then to expect any sort of functioning free enterprise industry.

    What can I say. Own up to it. Your profession messed up. And you don’t have the collective intellect to clean up after yourselves.


    27 Oct 12 at 8:43 pm

  17. “In accounting terms, it wasn’t a cost free revenue raiser, either. Telstra as a company appeared on the books of the national accounts. The assets were transformed into cash”

    Nonsense. Debt was attached to all the good things. The banks created debt, to finance the corporates. The pyramiding of more debt is extorting RESOURCES from the community. So the community gained no “cash.” Its an alternative form of taxation. Insofar as the loans were pulled in from overseas this became a contribution to our trade balance problems and loss of industry. And yet the entirety of this idea was to avoid functioning free enterprise, in order to gain a high purchase price for assets.

    We had the assets before. Then we had the assets with debt attached to them. Its a big financial play. The bankers profits began to burst through the billion dollar mark as their parasitism sky-rocketed.



  18. 27 Oct 12 at 8:56 pm

  19. So here on part of the community loses assets to the big end of town and gain nothing in return. The bankers pay for it by new money creation? Why? Why do we know they didn’t pay for it by inspiring extra savings? The reason is that bankers create new money on sure things. And privatisation began another bankers rort, in that the contracts and industry were set up to produce sure things for the bankers to pyramid against.

    This is one reason why our budgets got more out of whack with privatisation, for the most part. Not so much in this country under Keating and Costello. But as a general proposition. Since the new debt created is an alternative taxation, in this way the community is impoverished by the sell-off.

    The economists pat themselves on the back since the new private fiasco, as bad as it is, couldn’t be as bad as the government monopoly.

    Yet where in all this is the justification for privatisation as a way of getting to a functioning free enterprise industry?


    27 Oct 12 at 9:01 pm

  20. Creating new money-supply as debt is extorting RESOURCES from the community and to do so is an alternative form of taxation.

    No. No it is not.


    27 Oct 12 at 9:10 pm

  21. Bank money creation facilitates economic growth.



  22. I’m mystified by AngryIrish’s trainwreck of thought here. He is opposed to privatisation because it involves exchanging assets for money, but they should’t be given away either. Yet, government businesses are bad because they crowd out private enterprise.

    As for the banks and debts stuff, it just reads like gibberish to me.


    27 Oct 12 at 10:32 pm

  23. Dot and johanna, I’m interested in your views on how the Telstra privatisation should have been handled.

    I lean toward the view that the structural separation should have happened right at the start and that the retail arm of Telstra should have been sold off. I was of that opinion at the time and more or less hold it now. I do also remember how hard a sale it was politically at the time too.

    What would you have done differently to the Howard govt in that circumstance?


    27 Oct 12 at 10:45 pm

  24. tbh, I worked on the sale (sorry, can’t give details for legal reasons) but one thing I can say is that structural separation would have taken a long time – at least 18 months – and the government would have faced an election with the whole issue hanging and no guarantee that the sale would ever be implemented. That was a key reason why it didn’t happen.

    Sometimes it just comes down to priorities, and not letting the perfect prevent the good from happening. It was a titanic political struggle, and every possible delay and obstruction had to be swept out of the way. Even so, it came down to a whisker of not getting through right up till the final vote.

    I am not convinced that separation would have made a lot of difference anyway in the long run. The growth of wireless technology and the internet has had more to do with market diversification in the last decade or so than who owns the 1990s era infrastructure. Telstra’s market share has been slowly falling anyway.

    The ACCC was tasked to police a level playing field for competitors in accessing infrastructure owned by Telstra, plus competitors have been building their own. It hasn’t been perfect, but there is no doubt that competition has put significant pressure on Telstra, as witnessed by the dramatic falls in the real price of telecommunications in recent years.


    27 Oct 12 at 11:13 pm

  25. Fair enough, thanks for the insight. It seemed logical to me at the time that you would separate the “tracks” from the “rail cars”. I’m open to arguments to the contrary though.


  26. “I’m mystified by AngryIrish’s trainwreck of thought here. ”

    The fault is all your own. If you cannot understand what I’m saying, its to do with your own intellectual deficiencies.

    In all cases privatisation is not the logical way to develop a functioning and competitive market. For reasons already discussed. I don’t think you are smart enough to so much as ask an intelligent question, to further your understanding. Clearly you are a dim bulb.


    28 Oct 12 at 6:38 am

  27. Are we up to the idea that the trucking companies must be separated from road ownership and road-building? Has anyone NOT gotten that far with it. Think about what a train-wreck of thought is, if you are too mentally deficient to have absorbed matters to that extent. I think the train wreck of thought is all your own. Anyone not got that far in the exercise yet?

    Telstra had to be separated between its infrastructural goods and the rest of its business at the first step. Otherwise we were dealing with trucking companies and trucks together.


    28 Oct 12 at 6:43 am

  28. “tbh, I worked on the sale (sorry, can’t give details for legal reasons) but one thing I can say is that structural separation would have taken a long time – at least 18 months”

    18 months. The horror. The horror. Oh the humanity. Can you not accept that you and your colleagues screwed up? If you cannot admit that then why ought we be considering more privatisations when the people doing the job are congenitally unable to get things right? After the 18 months is over a lot of us still had life expectancies of 50 years and up. Once you’ve misallocated the resources under private contractual arrangements, the vandalism is not something that can easily be fixed. The whole thing was a slush-fund orgy for money-creators, irresponsible governments, and consultants.

    This mental blockage with privatisation has gotten as far as it can go with the wisdom of Nick Greiner. Here Nick wants to sell the stuff to the private sector, for another money-creators orgy, so that then they can take the banker resources, newly filched from the public and build new infrastructure. Then in this story the new infrastructure is sold under uncompetitive arrangements to the private sector and on in and endless cycle.

    So the bottom line is that the economics profession is too lazy or too stupid to apply intellect so as to get this rich parasites building their own stuff. Why can they not build their own stuff. We have to build it, pay for it, pay for it again when the debt -money is created to buy this gear off us, pay for it a third time through uncompetitive market arrangements. And then we build more stuff to enrich these parasites over.

    But if you cannot get so far as understanding that to have the motive of raising money must ruin the market thereafter, and that structural separation is essential, there is no hope trying to explain to you about how to get privately built infrastructure on the fly.

    What do you guys do instead. You remember dimly something Frank Knight had to say about markets, probably not even remembering Frank Knight, and you carve up and rejoin artificial companies. Companies without a competitive past in their DNA. Companies that haven’t gotten big by small business success, but Frankenstein outfits bleeding from their bandages. Then we wonder why the optical fibre doesn’t get put in the ground and why Mexicans are running away with 70 million in loot. Why the entire farce requires endless regulation and continual input from consultants, in what constitutes an endless make-work scheme for the low-intellect crowd that established the mess in the first place.


    28 Oct 12 at 7:35 am

  29. AngryIrish, well how about you just truck off?


    28 Oct 12 at 7:49 am

  30. When we look at the problem of infrastructure its essential that we don’t dumb things down to a meme that runs through the consultants psyche a bit like this ……

    socialism bad
    private good.

    Supposing the intellect simply isn’t there to establish the framework for private construction of infrastructure, without 3 layers of government input?

    Well then we have to be clear of who we are and what we are doing. Are we Cliff Richard or Judas Priest? After structural separation which part of the industry is socialist and which is non-cronyist private? Once we know this we don’t mix and match.:

    Why are bankers even allowed in the room for Conroy’s broadband outfit? Why is it off-budget rather than part of our deficit? Was it a socialist undertaking? If so it has to work on different rules. You have a department of works, you have sole traders who can pick up revenue tax free from the department.

    If its socialist you don’t have debt to pay back. It must come from surpluses. If its socialist you don’t charge to make big profits. You peak-time profiteer and give everyone a free ride off-peak. Because if its socialist you want to near-maximise usage.

    This is the basics, and I’m sorry for going over the basics, but its really the application of the basics that will get good results.

    One-time an economist on this blog suggested the roads be sold off to 13 different companies. How did he reach this figure? He doesn’t know but I do. Without mentioning Frank Knights name he cribbed Frank Knights analysis of markets. So he says in his little mind ….. “One is monopoly. Two is duopoly. Three to six is Oligopoly. We want an oligopoly to get economies of scale but I’ll add a few more since its roads after all”

    He came up with that figure 13 by dim semi-conscious memes of this sort. But if roads are held privately under freehold you trespass on the communist Chinese owners of our roads as soon as you walk out your door. So to make this “work” after a fashion, you are going to have to have all this overhead of corporate regulation. All this must be crimes under the natural law. No matter. The dimwitted consultants love it. They don’t think communist nationalisation of our roads is communist. They reckon its free enterprise. Free enterprise to be a trespasser in principle should you ever walk out the door.

    What I’m saying here is that the question of infrastructure requires philosophical analysis that goes beyond the feeble models in the neoclassical corpus.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:02 am

  31. Ho ho. “Truck Off.” Bit of the old wit hey Jazza. Good to have Jazza around to keep one on ones toes. Ho ho. Thanks again for the wit.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:03 am

  32. I don’t know about this “birdie” but my role is education, education, education. In this case its “special class” education. The drooling kids. I prefer to go over the basics.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:18 am

  33. “Dot and johanna, I’m interested in your views on how the Telstra privatisation should have been handled.

    I lean toward the view that the structural separation should have happened right at the start and that the retail arm of Telstra should have been sold off. I was of that opinion at the time and more or less hold it now. I do also remember how hard a sale it was politically at the time too.

    What would you have done differently to the Howard govt in that circumstance?”

    Well obviously you know what you are talking about. But we all KNEW this at the time. Its not that you or I would have ruled out privatisation of the underground and trans-spatial stuff at the time. It was long ago and one kept an open mind. But there was no clear explanation AT THE TIME of how you could have competitive operation and construction of telephone polls.

    The excuses keep coming don’t they? But the real reason they screwed it up is that everything is for the bankers, nothing is against the bankers. So they HAD TO screw it up. Because to get it right would have left no loot for the bankers, and the public servants.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:22 am

  34. But for the opposition of compromisers and people who actively wanted to screw our telephony industry up, structural separation ought not have taken more than one month. Since it was all socialist-owned at the time, it was a simple matter of drafting and passing legislation. What happens is mean-spirited people and know-nothings appear like flies saying “we have to compromise.” But the idea all along was to loot the public.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:27 am

  35. “I lean toward the view that the structural separation should have happened right at the start and that the retail arm of Telstra should have been sold off.”

    I felt exactly the same way. I wanted to sell off the other stuff too but not at the same time. I wanted it separate and to wait until we had a clear explanation of how a competitive construction, investment, and ownership market for the purely infrastructural side of things could be had.

    Now I would do it differently because the real problem is banker and public servant sabotage and laziness on the part of the latter group. I would 1. Separate 2. Hold 3. And come up with an industry plan to make it easy for private properties to dwarf government holdings without sale.

    One reason that I would hold is that it would take time to get things right. And government owned assets can be used to keep the other bastards honest. If you don’t know how to make it competitive, leaving some of the gear in the hands of government can be a way of explicitly undermining profiteering on the part of cronytown.

    I don’t see what is the big priority of denuding government of asset value? What is that all about? Logically the idea is to make it easier and easier for the sole traders to build the new stuff. I don’t think that statement is me shooting in the dark or standing out on a limb. We have success if sole traders are building and owning new infrastructure and will do so even unto saturation, oversupply and collective impoverishment of the asset-holder. This is the free enterprise way.

    I don’t see that denuding government of all assets is a value in itself since I would be fine with them owning aircraft carriers, roads, outposts in Antarctica where prisoners could work off their sentences more quickly …. launching pads and gear to make it cheap to get into space, and this sort of thing. But if we make it easy for the private sector to swamp a lot of the non-military assets thats a good thing. Thats wealth-creation. And to stop the privatisation is to force the economics industry to figure out how this can be done. Because they are lazy. And they are bought. They are creatures of the banking industry if not given over to the public service.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:41 am

  36. “Bank money creation facilitates economic growth.’

    Ho ho. A protected banker ponzi-scheme bringing wealth into existence. This strange fellow doesn’t know he’s speaking up for the junkie society. But objectively without the ability for these guys to create money-supply in this way, the government can print up the new cash. So the public is missing out on the value that they could have had, and the finance industry and their favourites are picking up the loot that could have been in the public domain.

    Its only already established debt levels which throw the economy into paralysis when the rate of growth in money-supply is reduced to more sane levels. Ponzi-schemes do not create wealth no matter what sort of temporary junkie-relief can be had by this subsidy to the forces of evil. A partial jubilee would create the same relief without the distortions.


    28 Oct 12 at 8:51 am

  37. Wow, what a fruitloop. This is one troll that won’t get so much as a crumb of nourishment from me.


    28 Oct 12 at 9:07 am

  38. “Wow, what a fruitloop. This is one troll that won’t get so much as a crumb of nourishment from me.”
  39. No sorry you stupid blonde airhead. I understand economics. You don’t. And no good can come out of you being in denial about it. Your and your colleagues screwed up. And our country isn’t going to move forward until you guys admit it.

    You don’t have the brain power to be attempting to put me down. This is a fact of nature.


    28 Oct 12 at 11:29 am

  40. I’m right and the airhead johanna is wrong.

    This is what we must grapple with.

    I’m right. She’s wrong.

    I’m righteous. She is not.

    This is not a case of “I’m Okay, You’re Okay”

    Far from it.

    Rather this is a case of I’m okay and she is far from fucking okay.

    In fact she is not okay and probably is never going to be okay.

    What an intellectual desert she represents?

    She did not understand a fucking thing I said even though I was right and informed and she was wrong and ignorant.


    28 Oct 12 at 11:34 am

  41. Its not the first time this blonde airhead has run away with a mindless putdown when the stakes were so high.

    We are patient with big titty blondes in the public life. But if she doesn’t want to be serious, and get beyond her undergraduate training, then she ought to just give it away and get out of the way.

    Where is the evidence she understood a fucking thing I said. I have the right way to do it. This must be understood.


    28 Oct 12 at 11:39 am





  1. If you are wondering why I got angry at her it was this:

    “Err – no…..”

    Don’t be Err Noing me when my statement was perfectly correct. But actually I mistook her at first for Mark Dots his name. So I thought I was taking a punch at Mark being arrogant.

    Can anyone name even ONE privatisation where the motive to raise funds didn’t compromise it?

  2. If they had held onto the infrastructure of Telecom, and made noises that they were going to make it easier for competitors, then they would have raised almost no funds. But it would have been the right way to go.

    All infrastructure ought to be handled together, under the same policies, because what we need to get very good at is tunnelling. The economies of scale will come out in infrastructure only if we get very good at tunnelling. The importance of tunnelling and infrastructure also has to be integrated with the need to be able to cope with ongoing nuclear war. Only tunnelling at a great scale can prepare a country for nuclear attack.

  3. The thing about this Hurricane is everyone is ready for every aspect of it. Everyone seems to know exactly what the Hurricane will do next. If FEMA is perfectly ready this time around they could make the Usurper look good. I’ve given up on motives for the shadow government. Everything they do seems to be gratuitously evil. But there is a potential motive here. Obama (like Osama) is their man. Romney runs the risk of going his own way to some extent. Romney is eager to please, but he’s not owned entirely by this crowd like the Kenyan is.

  4. […] uncensored on “Angry-Irish On Privatisation“ @ A Better World: Graeme Bird For High […]

  5. People are pretty much on top of Sandy being a managed hurricane. I don’t know all the technical details behind controlling a hurricane, but the basic principle is to try to get some of the air between the ionosphere and the clouds to conduct a little better.

  6. From Elsewhere:

    Hurricane Sandy … A manipulated storm.

    It may seem impossible that people can take a storm, make it stay alive a long time, and increase its strength. But actually this is the reality now. They have a tepid water theory of hurricanes. But hurricanes expend the energy of a nuclear weapon every few seconds. And the water that was tepid doesn’t become frigid. So where is the energy coming from? The energy comes from the electrical potential difference between the ionosphere and the ground. So to rev up a hurricane that should have run out by now, its a simple matter of increasing the conductivity of the air between the ionosphere and the hurricane wall.

    Normal air molecules are insulators. But ionized air molecules are conductors. The way to keep a hurricane alive is to find a way to increase the conductivity of the air. This can be done by ionizing the air molecules with a satelite-based laser. Amongst other potential methods. Sandy shows a lot of signs of a manipulated storm.

    So to rev up a hurricane that should have run out by now, its a simple matter of increasing the conductivity of the air between the ionosphere and the hurricane wall. Think of the eyewall as a ring in a pigs nose, and the idea is to lead the pig around by nudging the inside of the ring.

    The Chemtrails, from a purely theoretical perspective, could easily dovetail into this story. Because these lunatics throw out metal particulates in the chemtrails. But the main force multiplier has to be the space-based laser.

    • So, do you have any actual evidence that the hurricane was manipulated? Also, I was unable to find anything in any scientific literature regarding the “tepid water theory” of anything. Could you give a reference for what “tepid water theory” refers to?

      • One thing at a time. How are you suggesting that the hurricane gets its raw power? Bearing in mind that energy tends to go from higher to lower energy-flux-density. Or if you like, bearing in mind the so-called law of entropy?

  7. From Elsewhere:

    JubJang Chaisarn on October 31, 2012 at 2:08 pm said:

    Asian languages ought to be considered essential but for paradoxical reasons. We ought to all speak these languages, and then hide the fact that we can understand what these people are talking about. The advantage that foreigners have on the mono-lingual English-Speakers, is because they can talk ABOUT YOU in front of you, then the natural thing is for you to be disrespected in front of the group. See the conception the report -writers have is that we learn the Asian languages to suck up to these people. No good could ever come of such a daft notion. The idea is to learn their language, pretend we don’t know it, and benefit by way of this extra clandestine intelligence.

  8. If any of you doubt that most scientists are stupid, unscientific, and whores, I have four words for you:

    “Carbon capture and storage.”

    The plan is always to divert huge amounts of money towards energy programmes that can never work. At the same time you want to obstruct excellent energy programs that can work. Energy inventors (the ones who have good ideas) are always being abused. Stupid ideas are always being subsidised. This is no accident.

  9. CIA asset murders US Ambassador. 12-Man CIA team told to stand down, or otherwise does nothing. Other CIA irregulars do nothing to save ambassador. So it was a false flag. Webster Tarpley speculates on the possibility of a mormon maffia in the CIA doing this. But this is just a wild guess. The rest however is far more grounded and can be thought to be factual until something comes in to suggest otherwise.

  10. Actually I should emphasize that this “Mormon Maffia” business, as being relevant to this specific false flag really is baseless. And Webster would know this. But the reality that the driving force of the murder of the Ambassador, was shadow government-based, and not jihad-based, well this is more-or-less a done-deal. Jihad is a bit of a spent force in this generation. To be sure there will still be people in that population who can be hired to kill. But if it isn’t coming from oil-money its going to be coming from banker-money. And the reality is that the oil-money terrorist sponsors are subservient to the banker-money terrorist overlords. The enemy is us.

  11. Market response to the US election. US stocks down. Gold and Silver up.

  12. There has never been a Banana Republic like the United States. 22 signs of voter fraud in the link below. But note that the actual election is only a tiny part of the rigging. Most of the rigging of the election is in the primaries. Obama ought never had such an unappealing weirdo to run against. Still the final election itself was rigged horribly:

  13. I think Athenian-Christian values captures the reality much better than this Judeo-Christian values phraseology. The Old Testament only influenced traditional western culture through the prism of Christianity. What proportion of surviving BC Hebrew descendants followed their religion by way of being subsumed into Christianity?

    If it turns out that that Christianised descendants are in the vast majority it would be fair to think of post-Talmudic Jewry as a schismatic insular cult, with its own Mein Kampf. There are two texts which separate us. The New Testament and the Talmud. One influenced traditional Athenian-Christian values. The other did not.

    Also it’s generally considered big time crankery to take people from a pre-Classical era and point to modern folks and assume familial lineage. And we do this most egregiously when we credit Talmud followers with the production of the Old Testament. A phenomenal piece of work but one requiring pacification under a new dispensation.

    The modern schismatic cult rejects pacification, and instead doubles down with its version of Mein Kampf.

    • Dirty Jew Bastards.

    • Those guys are fine. They are telling the truth about their experiences. Horrible. But still not quite what we’ve been told.

  14. Here is a case where the fellow who is open-minded to the “intelligent design” theory is smarter then the evolutionary absolutist. I actually think that we’ll wind up with evolution plus two types of panspermia winning out. And no voodoo necessary. But by way of process the intelligent design people are necessary to move the study along.

    Now note how about 10 or 11 minutes in the evolutionary absolutist makes an epistemological howler.

  15. Strategic Captives Of The Shadow Government:

    My new campaign: FREE WARREN BUFFET

    From elsewhere:

    The rolling Jubilee is brilliant. Good people doing great things. Clearly Warren Buffet is a direct co-opt on pain of ghastly murder of relatives. There is no way that Warren Buffet would act like he does unless he knew that his failure to do so would lead to the slow death of female relative. He simply cannot mean what he is saying. I do not think the shadow government does this sort of thing often. But clearly they would have to do it with a few strategic characters. Like the astroNOTS for example. If you were someone they lied about. If they lied about you going to the moon, you were a strategic co-op, and any hint of you coming clean would see you dead immediately and to keep this secret the threat of the murder of relatives must have been there as clear deterrence.

  16. We have to wonder if the classical liberal agenda has really failed after all. Because its been always manipulated by the bankers. Maybe it could work. But maybe the idea is to allow some small daily transfer-payment-welfare, financed by the super-rich for two reasons.
    1. The welfare as part of a social contract where we eliminate compound interest for debts that are not strictly wealth-creating. The Hanseatic league did not tolerate accounts payable.
    2. The billionaire families have…..
    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

    …. The billionaire families have proven to be against the liberty of us all. I don’t know that all of them are like this. But its the case that the super-rich as a group are against the liberty of us all. So despite Ayn Randian concerns, I would say, that in the context of a near-minimal government, we can justify some welfare transfer payments, and the levelling of the top 1% if we would do this on the basis of eliminating interest on non-wealth-creating debt, and on ……..
    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

    ….. if we would do this on the basis of eliminating interest on non-wealth-creating debt, on the elimination particularly of fractional reserve banking ….. and also on the pre-emptive destruction of covert oligarchy.
    GMBCATASTROPHE 1 second ago

  17. Idiot. Know-nothing. Brainless. Poorly educated. Stupid and dangerous to take seriously.

    I’m going to see how I go hanging shit on this moron via youtube:

  18. Contrast this Cambria clone (ie Dimon) with Evelyn Robert de Rothschild. Rothschild is also an evil self and crony-serving asshole. But he’s at least a very intelligent man. When I find it, I’m going to post a youtube of Evelyn talking about India. He knows the Indian economy front and back. If the Indian economy is your concern; when Evelyn talks you would be listening. You’d have your notebook out and be taking it all down and be afraid you’d miss some of the wisdom. But Dimon is just a moron. He’s just Cambria all over again. Even Turnbull, as hateful as he is, has more brains and class then Dimon. Dimon is god-damned waste-oh-white. He’s white trash, as it were.

  19. From Elsewhere.

    It just depends what we are willing to do to return a budget surplus. Deficits are bankers rackets. Since the return on government bonds are still certain (for a country like Australia) this means that they can be the basis of further ponzi-money creation by the bankers. When bankers practice bank cash pyramiding they don’t offer a service but rather extort the REAL RESOURCES from the rest of society.

    If we had government owned banks, or alternatively 100% backing and no fractional reserve, we could take the level of new money creation, that is authentically needed, and perhaps a little bit more that isn’t really needed …. and that could be in the hands of the public for debt retirement or infrastructure investment.

    Swan was never going to deliver a surplus. He could never deliver a surplus. It was all smoke and mirrors. But in my view we ought to hold him to it and not back off or let him back off. The real way to deliver a surplus is to INCREASE pensions so that we can cut off subsidies to the medical professional drug dealers. The real way to deliver a surplus is to close down one department after another.

    That may seem a bridge to far for many people, but we must not let these mental restrictions stop us from doing the right thing. We could close down ABARE tomorrow, and a hundred more departments just like ABARE …… and no-one would get hurt ……. and the rest of us just throw a big national street party. Ten thousand public servant bigshots looking for work. They are affluent people and they would find that work pretty soon. Thats double or triple dividends for the rest of society.

  20. My new hero. Paul Kagame of Rwanda. If he loses his job as President of Rwanda, almost any country, including Australia, ought to just forgo elections and give Paul Kagame the job of running things.

  21. Graeme Bird
    December 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm · Reply
    You have a Desal plant. Juxtapose this against the idea that as much fresh water must be free to flow to the ocean????? The scheme of the ignorant-smug is a RE-SALINATION scheme. All their plans for the rivers are in aid of RE-SALINATION. Nowhere do we see a rational plan for the variable pricing of water, in accordance with the level of the river. Nowhere do we see a plan to let everyone have a free ride when the river is high, and charge through the nose when the river is low. Why do we not see this????

    “Everything within the banks. No-one outside the banks, no-one against the banks.” Rational public goods pricing cuts the fractional reservists, and debt-merchants, out of the picture. Now we have these aquifers. In a flood the pumping ought to be reversed!! When the river runs a little bit high, the deal ought to be, for every 2 litres you pump INTO the aquifer when the river runs high, you ought to be able to pump out two litres when the river is low. Its the aquifer that will “purify” your water for you in this way. Basically 90% of dysfunction that we see in government turns out to be in service of the bankers.

    You have a Desal plant. Then you have alleged greenie RESALINATION plans. But for an authentic environmentalist, the irrigator is our best friend. Because the irrigator forces the water flowing down the river to do DOUBLE DUTY. Re-use the water before it gets to the ocean or before it evaporates. This is what the irrigator does. The irrigator is an ENHANCEMENT to the natural world. I’m not denying that humans screw up the natural world in many ways. But here is an example where the humans are an enhancement to the natural world. The quickest way you can take water to resalination is via the free-flow of a river. This is counter to the life-giving role of fresh water. The irrigator is the man that slows this tragedy.

  22. Here’s a fellow with true grit.

  23. In praise of Jonah Goldberg.

    Jonah is younger then me. You watch these young blokes and you think they are less smart then you. They are neophytes. They are kids. You might agree with these guys 80%. But they are basically children.

    Well thats what I thought of Jonah. But the fact is that the kids grow up. I’ve been listening to him lately and I think he’s grown up now. He’s well worth listening to now. He was still worth listening to ten years ago by the way. But now he’s cool by me.

    Tell you someone else who is cool by me. I can put up with Noam Chomsky now. Always high IQ but once a disgraceful commie apologist. But now with many decades more of age, and let us say; wisdom …. I’m prepared to forget all that bad judgement of his in the past.

  24. Results of bigfoot DNA analysis:

    “Results revealed that the mitochondrial DNA was human, but the nuclear DNA was “unique,” – that is there were unknown sequences interspersed with human sequences, she said. This suggests that something non-human mated with humans to create the Bigfoot species. “We don’t know what the other side of Bigfoot is– we know it’s not any ancients that are on file, we known it’s not any apes that are on file, we know it’s in the primate range, but there’s no type file for the progenitor,” she commented.”

  25. I’m not mucking about when I say that Judaism is a satanic cult. But ignorance of Judaism BY JEWS is central to the way this racket works. But here’s probably the best man to explain it. His name is Michael Hoffman:

  26. You can see that the idea of the enslaved people getting out of their enslavement and finding liberty is a chief obsession of mine. So naturally, now that I’ve seen this preview, all I really want to do is see the movie. Violence is a bad thing of course. But the fever that can be brought to bare, of someone who wants to bring others out of enslavement …. well this is a worthy sort of bloodlust I think. Like when they finally took down Sparta and set the Helots free.

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: