Mangled Thoughts

Disgraces the title Professor. And a word to “ESS” at the end of this item.

The title of Professor is close to literal in meaning. Someone who is learned in a sound discipline. Steeped in its history and an impeccable exponent of it. It is not necessary to have made a seminal contribution to a field. An essential quality and test is the capacity of a Professor to expound the field. There are qualities expected of a Professor:

Integrity; upholding truth; advancing truth; honesty; rigorous reasoning; forthright debate.

Good professors serve not only scholars but also the public. Too look through the history of scholarship and not only scholarship as such but the seminal thinkers in various fields, quite a list with no degrees at all, is also to read a history of generous men addressing the public honestly. Consider a field aside from economics, theology. From St. Paul through the Fathers, into the 20th century, we find men of the first rank who paid the same respect to laymen as to their intellectual equals. Their sermons alone are not soap, they are demanding. Indeed, to recount an anecdote, as a child, I looked forward to attending each Sunday a Lutheran Church, because of the Pastor’s stunning sermons that made such a contrast to the dismal, infantile drivel and reading pumped out in school. A sheer delight.

The history of the best engaging in public controversies and fighting causes from principles is quite a record in itself. In economics, Von Mises blitzed the way in defending the free market cause. The importance of this and the success with which von Mises executed this vital work was a revelation, as it were, to Hayek who proceeded to do the same in England. They also understood the vital importance of encouraging new talent to take up the cudgels.

Mr. Jackson has the depth expected of a professor and has made theoretical contribution to economics. He also writes not only for his equals but for the public and, engages in the vital work of intellectual warfare to defend the free market cause. The Right is absent on all counts. So we arrive at Professor Sinclair Davidson:

A fifth rate mediocrity whose depth in economics is shallower than a spit of water on the ground, and whose notion of forthright honest debate is to smear others. Whose notion of serving the public is to write trite articles which end as they do, shot down in flames. Who implies he his learned but there is no demonstration of this. Who cannot hurt the Left but does not hesitate to smear his superiors. Let’s first consider another example of Professor Sinclair’s stupidity.

Professor Sinclair suffers some delusions beginning with, genuine Professors do as he does and he’s right - the disreputable types do. A few hard leftists have been noted for it and this places Davidson in good company -

Holds that debate, challenge, and responses rest on:

1. Mere assertion and then running away when someone destroys what he asserts. This he does before Leftists. Quiggin enjoys humiliating Davidson.

2. Smearing some-one who has put a soundly reasoned case, but not to a man’s face. Oh, no. Davidson runs around various blog sites to deliver his cheap shots. This is profound debate and defence.

Cheap shots loaded with ad hominem innuendo and insinuation and never explained nor substantiated. He delivers these powerful arguments in safety of numbers. He stands firm with his intellectual equals who include the economic ignoramuses John Humphreys and Chris Berg. With such talent to vouch for him, I defy any man to deny Professor Sinclair Davidson is a giant of economics.

So, for the umpteenth instance showing what a great, learned Professor he truly is, this:

CIS organ grinder, Greg Lindsay, really knows talent when he sees it. Can’t do better than his pet monkey, John Humphreys. This genius can’t help demonstrating his prowess. Smearing Jackson, with Davidson joining in and not only joining in but Humphreys citing Davidson as an authoritative source for one of his usual masterpieces (ah the scholarship) is awesome. The cynical might say which of the two hides behind the other’s fat bum but I wouldn’t say that. Not me, no fear. I take the reasonable, restrained line; they take it in turns.

Humphreys contends he is still in a debate in which, according to this warlord, he has emerged victorious. I’m referring to Jackson’s demolition of the Sinclair-Davidson paper on manufacturing inviting, to Kim “Il” Carr’s joy, ‘industry’ policy.

Surprise surprise, it ends with a call for the Capital Flattener Tax Davidson is in love. For it means he will be, in his wet dreams, immortalised. Sure will, “Sinkers”, all those livid Australians smashed into the ground by Co2 taxes might well “immortalise” you along with Greg Lindsay, Rudd, and Right-wing clique supporting carbon taxes.

Look it this way, Sunker Ker Plunker Davidson:

Immortalisation through carbonisation at the hands of millions of the immiserated sounds like a real hoot. Look at the United States. The man in the street is already up in arms against Obama and the few treacherous Republicans who supported his carbon tax. I look forward to your apotheosis along with the aforesaid criminal bastards.

In their ‘paper’, Berg and the good Professor asserted that manufacturing is only a home cottage hobby of ‘making things’ and so it won’t be missed if it is wiped out. Well, what are imports about must be a huge mystery only these two geniuses can solve, with help form Humperdink Humphreys.

Here it is, Humphreys and Davidson in courageous action, and what a gentlemanly title it is too in acknowledging Jackson:

The hater strikes again

What on earth did Jackson do. Oh, I know, he wrote this:

Is monetary policy destroying the country’s manufacturing base?

“Any paper relating to industry policy that the Institute of Public Affairs sponsors deserves to be carefully read. This is precisely what I did with their Thumping the Table: Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’ (authored by Sinclair Davidson and Chris Berg, January 2007). It ought to be extremely difficult for any economist to write a paper on industry policy that is basically worthless. Unfortunately, Davidson and Berg managed to do just that.”

Well, I suppose telling the truth is, according to these two geniuses “hateful”. I ponder Davidson’s approach to his students and their papers. Mind, this clown struggled to work out what the Laffer curve was. He can hardly be expected to assess whether one of his undergraduates is writing crap or not, but this saves him the hateful hurt of hating them by telling them a paper is worthless.

Such hate! Sound graduates and their tutors didn’t realise they engaged in mutual hate crimes. I’ll let a couple of Cambridge Profs I know that they are hateful too, when we are not sober together and taking the piss out of each other.

Humphreys asserts that Jackson claims he is “Australia’s only Austrian economist”. It never occurred to this inveterate liar that Jackson did not write the piece in which it is set, a bio by a U.S. free market news magazine that has as one of its commentators, Jackson,

Free Market News Network Corp.

That, it might just be the editor who wrote the bio and not Jackson. That, in delivering the smear, ie. opening his fat gob first and not bothering to check with Jackson. That in ignoring this, he picked on a cheap and nasty scrap of nothing in another attempt to impugn Jackson. For good measure, the bum tacks on, “Jackson is neither trained in economics nor understands basic economics”. Let’s see:

Animals are trained. Soldiers are drilled. Scholars read deep and wide, absorb theory and advance it. The standard undergrad texbook bound economist that prevails in Australia might be ‘trained’, as parrots regurgitating their master’s voice, but:

Humpers and Sunkers are closer to trained rats. They scrabble around the Internet trolling for anything they can construe as damnation of anyone they seek to defame. They are trained. Yet, they they are an insult to rats - rats will, if cornered, come at you from the front and go for the jugular. No, just a pair of trained monkeys.

As for the second, the idiot pretending to be an economist, as Greg Lindsay tells donors -, there’s none finer than Humphreys and hey, Humphreys is a Mannkel scholar. Mr. Ron Manners, this is where your scholarship fund is being spent, on a nasty little monkey that trolls the Internet in order to get hold of something to defame his superior and genuine free market economist. Are you sure, Mr. Manners that that is what you proudly boast is a free market economist, defender, and scholar? I won’t say much more on it, for now, Mr. Manners, but is that the echo of a blown light bulb or only a loose screw hitting the concrete.

Humpy makes what he believes are killer economic statement against Jackson’s paper. I won’t go into this but they are, and I am being charitable here, as ‘worthless’ as the Davidson-Berg paper. The statements are so wild as well as misleading that they demonstrate for the umpteenth time, and we are talking millions of time, that this bozo is not only an economic illiterate, he is incapable of even a modicum of reasoning. Consider another example:

He is fond of saying to any who criticise Lindsay’s Co2 tax claims that Humphreys voices:

If they oppose a carbon tax, they must be for Cap and Trade. Ah, no. The second is a tax too and that critics have made it plain the real debate is carbon tax or no carbon tax, and the economic force of the proposition must be examined. This is what Lindsay and his putrid gofer savagely smear anyone for: challenging and examining the economic force of the proposition. How on earth did this irrational idiot matriculate, forget actually go up to a University?

Now we arrive at the Good Professor - what he’s good at is a mystery to many. Sinclair has been smearing Jackson for some time around the internet. His usual approach is innuendo and insinuation. Sometimes he can’t help himself, and really let’s fly and in this mode the nicest term he uses  frequently is , ‘Jackson rants’. In comment No. 37, providing authoritative, erudite support to Humphreys, Sinclair the Professor wrote:

Comment no. 37:

“DO a google search of Gerard Jackson and what do you find

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22gerard+jackson%22+%22corporate+tax%22&meta=

On Sinclair Davidson…and corporate tax

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22sinclair+davidson%22+%22corporate+tax%22&meta=

I think I’ve done a bit more work on this than has Gerry.

…also I checked his references on the latest rant, and they don’t support his argument, especially the Schumpeter reference”

I shall comment on the tax allusions shortly. So, the good professor rates the Jackson paper and by insinuation all his articles a rant. No-one, if they are reasonable, can say they are rants. What they are is unmistakably well written, well argued treatments of grave matters, applying very neatly a solid framework of theory.

Davidson is lying again in reference to Schumpeter. First, Davidson doesn’t explain what is wrong with it and he doesn’t merely assert there is something wrong. He is insinuating Jackson ‘fabricated the quote’ and I put it like this because one “ESS” used ‘farbication’ in comments on my site, saying with glee that Sinkers had caught Jackson out. Let’s see what this means:

1. Sinclair is saying Jackson is not deeply read, and has no thorough command of the history of economic thought - it’s slight.

2. Fabrication means falsehoods and that, in truth, means lying. So, he is actually accusing Jackson of lying. But, left at the ‘genteel’ form, fabrication, the force is clear: It means Jackson is fraudulent, cannot, understandably, be recognised as an economist.

Sinclair is the liar. Jackson’s quotation of  Schumpeter is accurate, as all the seminal economists in the history of economics Jackson quotes and this is reinforced by:

Jackson not only quotes, he supplies the work and the page.  Well, what do you know:

Jackson in the above paper not only accurately quoted Schumpeter but it is accurate usage as explanation in the argument Jackson mounts and it shows:

Jackson demonstrates routinely he is working from established theory, when it was established, and by whom. It is not Jackson saying it, it is not him, it is solid economic theory. The sheer exhaustive bibliography Jackson furnishes of leading exponents is inseparable from the hard core tradition of economic reasoning in which Jackson stands, works from, advances and defends.

And, he gives the page no.”:

…allow me to draw your attention to Joseph Schumpeter’s observation that “the ‘classic’ writers without neglecting other cases, reasoned primarily in terms of an unfettered international gold standard”. (The History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 732).

Actually, it is Humphreys who abuses Schumpeter, for in “Hater” he shows he just doesn’t understand what Schumpeter stated. It shows in the grammar. Schumpeter, notice, says “in terms of…”. That is, the unfettered gold standard was hard background against which, economists developed and and tested theory for explanatory power. Much like Hayek had common law before him in regards to his Constitution of Liberty.

Humphreys wrote “conceived within the framework of a gold standard”. This is garbage undilute. This is numbingly idiotic. One cannot even grace it by saying, it’s a metaphysical mistake. Humphreys ends with a final telling, slimey little sneer, again invoking the authority of the greatest living scholar on earth:

“After that, Sinclair wisely decided to give Gerry the respect he deserved, and started ignoring him.”

Now, nothing Sinclair Davidson nor the rest of the CIS and IPA produces demonstrates command of the history of economic thought. Their bibliographies show this because they are completely devoid of it. Funnier still is many of the ’sources’ they use happen to all have the same name, “I”.

In his heavy tome on the Laffer curve, in which Sinclair struggles to find out what on earth it is, a Mr. I fills each page and the bibliography. Blow me down, this Mr. I turns out to be Professor Sinclair Daavidson. Here’s someone who doesn’t have a bloody clue and he uses himself as a source ?! This isn’t unusual. It litters the junk spewed out by the Right. Which only goes to show: the Right is inbred, to Mr. I.

Mr. I doesn’t appear to have expended time and application to economics but he sure was busy reproducing himself and marrying his offspring to each other. No wonder Mr. I needed a couple of charities, IPA and CIS. A daddy has to stump up for all his little ‘dahling’ girlies’ weddings.

Now for those two links. One of the Augustan poets’ put-downs for the ‘grub-street race’ was the total weight of all the books the grub-street race had churned out. Credential-ism in Australia has achieved the same result. Quantity, no quality. Davidson’s and co. strive one better, no content at all. The link to Mr. I on corporate taxation was as to be expected, because the very expression, ‘corporate tax’, smacked of no economics and possibly destructive of the fight against a great problem:

Taxation, it includes regulation, is strangling capital and entrepreneurship in Australia. 

The point to Davidson’s contrast is transparent, to insinuate that Jackson, contrary to his claims, is not defending free markets and firms, and is idle on the matter of taxation.

No-one who is honest and has read Jackson can say that against the man. Nor would they have missed Jackson’s starting point, reasoning from free market economics. From within this sound framework he has consistently addressed the problem.

There is no economics in Davidson’s drivel on tax. Worse,  Davidson supports another tax on capital and entrepreneurship. It’s the capital destroying carbon taxes. Another thing, Davidson and the Right have been so successful on this matter that under Treasurer Peter Costello, their hero and guru, they multiplied and intensified the tax regime.  What a bloody joke.

Now, while Davidson smears Jackson the economist and free market warrior, what turned up?

Yesterday, on other matters, I came across this:

Davidson: “On this point I do have to depart from my colleague [at RMIT] Professor Legge…”

Well, that’s a relief, he found something to disagree with Legge on. Though, I don’t know why it’s a relief when it is considered Legge is the same as Kenneth Davidson, a hard Left, anti-free market economist. Funnier still, Legge once challenged Jackson. Jackson did what Davidson failed miserably in, eviscerated Legge.

Davidson played footsies with another hard Leftist economist, quibbling over a point. Well, he would. He’s afraid of Quiggin, so the notion that this mediocrity is about to acquire muscle and smash Legge in the face is a ludicrous suggestion. Besides, he can’t do it and if he tried, Legge would chop him up into little bits and just to check, here’s another Leftist smashing Davidson up for public enjoyment:

Rob Watts, Professor of Social Policy, School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT,

Unrestrained markets are as noxious as unrestrained state socialist regimes

How interesting and let us quote a fascinating opening:

 SINCLAIR Davidson’s splendidly vitriolic rant….

What happened? Thanks to his incompetence and feebleness, Davidson discredits the free market cause and thus presents another cheap way for diseased Leftists to gain traction where it counts, with voters.

Brilliant. Just bloody brilliant. He keep this up and their won’t be a gong big enough to pin on Davidson’s chest. He’ll have to be content with the order of Lenin for services rendered. Here is an indication of the damage he caused:

RBA got it wrong on rates, Sinclair Davidson

While Davidson struggled long after it was too late with what the RBA might have done, Jackson was explaining and warning years before of the force of the RBA’s actions, the perils involved. Moreover, in the three articles below on Soros, it could be said that Jackson had demolished Watts’ article before Watt’s even thought of writing it. 

George Soros: economic buffoon and enemy of democracy

George Soros, economic illiteracy and monetary policy

A George Soros myth lives on

Done, finished. Notice, Jackson saw the danger Soros posed straightaway and thus immediately challenged Soros. But the Right didn’t and they ingnored Jackson. So, instead, we find Davidson, pretending to be bright, couldn’t help himself. He had to pen more muck and gave Watt’s oxygen when that hard leftist was asphyxiated. 

Professor Sinclair Davidson is an economic illiterate. He had to compound the defect with stupidity. This is what has the bloody hide to smear and impugn Jackson for one purpose only, to damage Jackson professionally. This bastard is no Professor, he disgraces the honour. He is a bloody disgrace and a liar.

Now for ESS:

It is curious how ESS’ linguistic range is the same as John Humphreys’, right down to the snide remarks, smears and the professional defamation of a man who is a learned economist.

It’s no secret that “ESS” is John Humphreys, the evidence is overwhelming. This ignorant, lying, whining, cretinous bastard has joined the IPA’s defamation of Shostak and Jackson.

Humphreys and Davidson are dragging the IPA down in the defamation effort. How much self-inflicted pain can the IPA withstand? Isn’t lousy economics humiliating enough? Feebleness embarrassing as it is? Cowardice before the hard Left shameful? To cap all the defects off with idle, illiterate, lying, thugs smearing others who happen to be their superiors is a self-inflicted icing. 

These two can’t damage the CIS any further because Lindsay has sunk CIS deep into Carbongate and they are his flag-bearers.

Against Mr. Jackson and Dr. Shostak?

First a clarification. By IPA, I do not mean all at the IPA. There are, unquestionably, those who must be ashamed by the snivelling cretins smearing the two gentlemen. This matter has occupied some time, noting that I was attending to the failure of the IPA and how much damage to the free market cause they are also responsible for and this is interesting in the case of Mr. Alan Moran.

Some recent articles by Moran shows that, underneath it all, Jackson’s economic analysis and warnings of the consequences of the Right’s lousy economics and their failure to fight the Left entailed grave dangers. In a couple of articles, without fully setting it out, Moran concedes the economic impact of carbon taxes, it destroys capital. He concedes  up to a point because a more robust case means outright concession. Mr. Alan Moran’s efforts, bye the bye, are too little, too late. However, Mr. Alan Moran would not smear either gentlemen, would never occur to him and he must be ashamed that a pack of lying bastards, and they include Professor Sinclair Davidson, are engaged in this smear campaign and that they are tied to the IPA and CIS.

The IPA has idly stood by the defamation of the professional reputations of Jackson and Shostak by the retarded, developmentally arrested delinquents. This is not recent. They have been committing this against Jackson for some time now. This is now a serious matter also for the Director of the IPA, Mr. Roskam and other principals of the IPA. Any decent man would denounce the scumbags and how difficult is it to do this?  

Until I came across Jackson’s work on the Internet, it was frustrating there was no genuine free market economics voice,and I was puzzled as to why so. Then I found Jackson. As I began probing what was actually going on, and sources began informing me of the antics of the Right, it became clear, for some years, the Right simply ignored Jackson. Things changed with former Director Mike Nahan.

Mike Nahan infamously emailed a smear note calling Jackson ‘delusional’. Nahan’s companion, Warby, then declared to Jackson to be against free markets, not a defender of free markets.  What changed?

Over the Internet, Jackson was giving his warnings with his analysis and commentary, and smashing Leftists - from economists to journalists. This is work the Right, including Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair have never done and, in truth, cannot do, qualities reinforced by cowardice. There-in is the reason.

The conclusion is obvious. It dawned on the Right that Jackson is not only a genuine free market economist of the first rank, for which crime, apparently, they are now also smearing Dr. Shostak. They realised Jackson is highly effective, deadly in doing the public work the Right cannot do. Jackson is a threat to the Right. Well, arrogant mediocrities fear only one thing, being eclipsed. Resentment, jealousy born out of their inferority complex gelled with self-preservation:

They feared losing donors. The irony is, if the Right had been honest, used guns and encouraged new talent, instead of losing ‘donations’ as they are now, they would have found far greater support than there is today. They are drowning because of their own stupidity. For this, too, they defame Jackson and Shostak.

Best of all, if they had been the small and nasty types they are, and used guns and recruited and encouraged new talents, the Left would have been blown out of the water long ago and, Australians would not be enduring the impact of lousy, destructive economic policies. But, no, not the arrogant, narcissistic Right. Better to let Australians be ground into dust than act out of genuine principles. Michael Kroger made this plain in his grand ‘re-election strategy” Let the ALP inflict tremendous pain on Victorians and the serfs will come crawling back to us. This is the Right.

However, The IPA is publicly skewered. In going for Dr. Shostak, they demonstrated the truth of what I have stated time and again, all along, certainly since Nahan, the Right have engaged in deliberate professional defamation of Jackson. The likes of that little gutless liar Tim Blair joined. This ‘freedom fighter’ , this terror of the Left, this Genghis Khan, joined his new Right-wing ‘pals and called for Jackson to be censored and Brookesnews shut down; he demanded it be done. It’s no secret, the Right have Jackson on a black list and want him shutdown. So much for free speech.

[Under Prime Minister Howard, the Right, through their MPs, demanded Internet censorship but Howard stood hard against them. The Right still supports censorship. Howard, at bottom a genuine Liberal, was not supported by the Right and in the end, as was made very public they worked to hard to undemrine him and make Peter Costello Prime Minister, unelected - Andrew Bolt used his Herald Sun column to fly cover for the Right and promote this aim.]

It seems insane and it is but it is the truth. Here we are, thanks to the ignorant, arrogant Right, Australians are now about to face the realisation of appalling perils Jackson warned of over the year, and explained the reasons for why they could eventuate and the Right are still at it not eviscerating the Left. They cannot eviscerate the Left and it shows, the Left laugh at them daily. Still at it, defaming Jackson and now Dr. Shostak, and smearing other genuine Liberals. When brought to book over this, what do they do: They scream and howl and whine and cry “Unfair. You are smearing us.” What a pack of lying scoundrels.

But now, in defaming Dr. Shostak, they took a step too far. But then, the stupid cannot help themselves. Now they are exposed.

Now will the IPA do the decent thing and do it in public, and it does involve denouncing the bastards defaming the two gentlemen. Denouncing the scumbags in public. This what a decent man would do. How hard can it be for principled men to do this? This is a matter Roskam and others now need to reflect on, because:

The IPA has sat idly watching the defamation campaign. Does this mean they approve it? Support it? Encourage it?  Unlike their little army of cretinous, slimy, mediocre hacks, including than gutless, pro-carbon tax crawler called Professor Sinclair Davidson, without question there are those in the IPAwho know how serious this is (but not Michael Kroger’s chums in view of the Right’s actions within the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party. What an embarrassment to the IPA he is, Liberal Party destroyer a Director of the IPA!)

It’s up to the IPAnow. Standing naked on an ocean swept rock in the middle of winter cannot be pleasant. A little anti-freeze per the above suggestion should warm them up a little bit. But let’s not appeal to base motives, personal comfort. It’s the decent thing to do.

 In view of the seriousness of the IPA’s smear campaign against Dr. Shostak and Mr. Jackson, it was important to keep the front page reasonably free for today’s article on this scandal. However, now and in brief is some of the matters I had intended drawing out today.

The Centre for Independent Studies, asserts falsehoods in the name of science and economics, then smears Jackson for writing a paper applying Austrian capital theory that sets out the economic force of carbon taxation from within that framework. The CIS has interests to serve but even they cannot prevent the CIS being buried under the mountainous tidal waves of evidence rolling in confirming Jackson’s analysis of the impact of carbon taxes.

In Australia the narrow media has ensured much evidence is never brought to the attention of the public, and the Right have made sure of it too.

First, off from science:

Polish Academy of Sciences Questions Gore’s Man-Made Global Warming Theory,Washington Examiner, 24/4/09

Well, the Poles endured first the National Socialist Regime then the Communist regime of the Soviet era. They have developed a grave concern for freedom, economic Liberty and the importance of truth and are not about to cave into a new era of numbing, devastating tyranny imposed through carbon taxation.

The Polish scientists are cited hear with more scientists deciding to fight against the Greens lie,

The Climate Change Climate Change

None of this is given airspace in Australia. Not with the Right and the Left pushing for carbon taxation.

From Economics:

The evidence keeps rolling in in tidal waves. This, too, is not paid attention by the mainstream media, and must be a criminal offence by the Right and the Left to even mention it; certainly by the CIS in view of their antics.

Though the Waxman - Markey Bill has only been forced through the House by Obama and his fellow diseased Leftists, notably Commissar Nancy, it has to pass the Senate. Even so, oil companies are no loner nervous. If the Bill is enacted, oil companies are ready to shutdown their operations in the US, and are examining whether they can import finished products into the US. In other words, Obama’s carbon taxes will destroy not only one of the efficient sources  of energy, coal, but oil production too.

Big Oil’s Answer to Carbon Law May Be Fuel Imports, Bloomberg Press, 26/6/09

The Waxman-Markey Bill was rushed into the House. Representative not allowed to read it beforehand. An unexamined Bill. The attempt to read it to the House by a Republican because the Bill defies a sustained reading.

No-one has had time to digest it but one thing that is clear about the Bill is, apart from capital destroying carbon tax, it is also a comprehensive totalitarian measure. It is truly shocking, but this is what I have stated time and again, carbon taxation is a totalitarian measure as well as a capital destroying tax.

Waxman-Markey litigation shell game Open Market, 9/4/09

The Waxman-Markey Travesty, 30/6/09, National Review

The Biggest scam of all, Vincent Goia

A descent into totalitarian hell

The Bill has caused a reaction. Americans are up in arms.  The Internet is filled with websites and blogs all using three expressions, “totalitarian”, “criminal”, “economic” destruction”, in the same breath. Even funnier, I came across a Green’s site and the fully horrific force has dawned on the Greens on that site! I will throw up a link in a small item on it tomorrow but, to say the least, in the face of totalitarian horror, this was laughter inducing.

Americans are facing the truth of what the Green Lie is all about. What carbon taxation is all about.

The US Stalinist Democrats claimed a 60 seat majority. This is a lie. It was passed by a handful of Republican Reps who had been bought by Greens Fanatics handing millions of dollars. The Republican Party is a genuine democratic party, and their is intellectual engagement with in it. Members already have the hatchets out against a few Senators who betrayed the Party and supported Obama’s ruinous spending spree. Now the Republicans have brought out their axes to decapitate the bastards who betrayed them and all Americans to a retarded, diseased, Castro and Islamo-Fascist hugging Obama and his chums.

One thing is clear, there will be a spectacular bloodletting of US politicians. It, as the Internet makes plain, will be the man in the street. But patriotic Republicans have been fighting. In Australia, the Right will definitely be wiped out with the Left over their treachery and support for a devastating measure.

The other day, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years for fraud. So, what about the Obama administration and those Republicans who supported the Bill? Is it 300 years each, or all eternity? Interestingly, Rush Limbaugh also noticed the contrast and brought out something more; there are more criminal aspects to it (as if the above is not enough to damn the bastards as it is) -

Madoff Sentenced to 150 Years, Waxman and Markey Remain Free

Where does this leave Greg Lindsay? He is party to (should carbon taxation be rammed down on Australians too), as I have stated in the past, one the greatest crimes perpetrated by mere politicians (Government). This is what the CIS supports. And, hey, there is the IPA too, with its Sinclair Davidson-Chris Berg ‘paper’ pushing carbon taxation so that they can impose a flat tax.

Oh the carbon tax is a flat tax alright, a right old flattener. Sinclair Davidson’s Flatterner.

Yes, Sir, CIS is a right Centre for Independent Soviet studies.

Their motive is not personal, it is professional. This is not new. They have engaged in efforts to damage the reputations of others over many years, Mr. Jackson’s certainly. Their motive for this is summed up in one word, venality. Their concern is to obtain ‘donations’ and those they see as a threat to obtaining ‘donations’ have to be dealt with. By donors, I mean company officers handing over shareholder funds into their hands.

Professional. So let’s consider: Is it verging on deliberate defamation? Let’s relate an anecdote. A city source told me they noticed another senior figure with a copy of Jackson’s The Labour Market Wars. A clown noticed it too, and began to smear Jackson’s work, and steered the gentleman to the material of the HR Nicholls Society - their garbage that blew the fight for free markets and the Liberal Party out of the water.

Jackson has delivered devastating criticisms of ‘papers’ by the CIS, IPA, and HR Nicholls Society. There is good reason. Those papers are not only at best defective. They bear upon matters that have grave force for Australian, and purveyed as sound analysis and, crucially, sound policy positions, which claims give ACTU heavies and the hard Left a good chuckle everyday.

“Carbongate”, and the CIS’ lobby papers pushing carbon taxes amplifies things rather well. It is remarkable that the Rudd Cabinet is using the tissue of falsehoods to push its case. Manufacturing is another instance.

Lousy fiscal policy is hollowing out manufacturing in Australia. This is compounding the devastation wrought over decades by Australia’s hideous tax regime (regulation is a tax too). AIG’s data over a year is confirming this. Jackson has repeatedly applied Austrian theory to explain and warn over a few decades. What do we get from the Right? Papers such as the Professor Sinclair Davidson-Berg rubbish on manufacturing calling for ‘industry policy” and carbon taxation (it is one of the IPA’s classics and a monument to stupidity).

The Right have not rebutted Jackson. What they do, repeatedly, is smear him, never to his face, but running around the Internet to smear him. ESS has supplied another of infinite instances of this in comments. He links to Greg Lindsay’s pet, John Humphreys, a whining, feeble, gutless monkey, who is fronting Lindsay’s lobby campaign for interests seeking to enrich themselves through carbon taxation.

The smears are for “professional” reasons. Now the IPAhas decided to smear Dr. Frank Shostak, former Professor in economics and, importantly: Now works in the private sector. This is, to repeat, what the IPA’s effort is about.

The effort to impugn Dr. Shostak has not backfired. It has blown up in their faces. Well, they produce suicide bombs and someone will oblige by detonating them using a rocket launcher. So enters another IPA cane-toad to the rescue, calling himself “resumechecker”, with a stunning comment:

So this Dr Shostak, a professor you say? Professor where? A man with a
PHD from Rand Afrikaans University would be struggling to be a professor
anywhere

Even children in Queensland splatter cane-toads with golf clubs.

Deceitful of him. Rand is no obscure University. It is is the core of what is now called University of Johannesburg. Even if, though, it were obscure? So what?! What has it do do with Dr. Shostak’s work and the calibre of it?

Can the IPA say how many universities there are in the world? I can. There are about 30,000. Can the IPA name off the cuff the top 50 universities. It might come as a surprise to readers how many of the top 50 few have, to follow the IPA, not been ‘heard of’, and this is before trying the same for a list of 300 and then, say, a thousand and so on.

So, there it is, another asinine, infantile comment by the juvenile, ‘ga ga’ company of the the IPA with the obvious force of an attempt to smear Dr. Shostak’s reputation as their usual direct ad hominem smear. 

Consider, readers, scholars you know of, the most distinguished scholars. Can you name their universities? How many of them belong to well known universities?  I can name some very distinguished scholars in their fields, known around the world, but their universities are not known around the world. Yet, these narcissistic, professional dole bludging bastards at the IPAseek to impugn Dr. Shostak’s reputation by such a snide reflection that only inbred, intellectually challenged, ignorant, venal brats could manage.

Worse, Dr. Shostak has never mentioned the IPA. He has not written anything about their puny efforts. Nothing at all, and yet those lying bastards come out and smear Shostak.

That in itself, that Shostak has not referred to them in anyway, makes crystal clear that their smears of others is not personal, it is professional. Readers, this is exactly the point I have been making on the the Right’s sustained smearing of Jackson, to damage his reputation in economics where it counts for those craven cowards, in the eyes of ‘donors’ and potential ‘donors’.

These yellow pygmies don’t have the guts to challenge Jackson and now Dr. Shostak directly. In contrast, that lot:

Refuse to defend what they claim. They believe they do not have to defend what they claim. They believe they are not only entitled to make claims unchallenged but others must accept them without question and worse:

They expect what they merely assert to be implemented by Cabinets and obeyed by companies. Debate? These bastards brook not even a hint of it! Instead, they smear two gentlemen behind their backs, and then pour out their bile over the Internet against any others who exposes gaping holes in the rotting hull they float as the height of economic reasoning.

What a contrast, these brave heroes, the Right. They are afraid of the Left. When a hard Leftist says boo, they scream, “Don’t hurt us”. Professor Quiggin certainly has great fun bouncing the bums. Instead, these vicious housewives run around smearing genuine Liberals and in the case of Jackson and Shostak, two very fine free market economists to blacken their professional reputations.

Having mentioned this week that I pay these two gentlemen the same regard and respect as I do professors in other sound fields of learning, I meant it. Having debated, discussed, and also engaged in private discussions with also some distinguished professors from very famous Universities, the two gentlemen rightly stand in good company. Their work shows they are formidable and there it is readers:

The ignorant, incompetent, feeble, ignorant Right, who refuse to defend anything they claim, resort to the only ‘debating’ method they do command, smearing others. But as I said, it is not personal on their part, it is ‘professional’. They continually apply themselves to damaging the reputation of others for on aim only:

To make themselves look good before the only types they consider worthy of respect, those who have the authority to hand over shareholders funds to them. What is meant by respect in this regard is buttering up and grovelling before those who hold the keys to loot.

The IPA has extended it’s efforts to include Dr. Shostak. It is clear why they have. Shostak is in the private sector.

The Right and their clunker tanks are, at last, being recognised for what they are. This is why donors have stopped being donors to them and why others, very irritated, are considering why they bother propping up a bunch of bludging, developmentally arrested, delinquent, juvenile, whining, venal, narcissistic bastards whose great achievements are:

- Betraying firms

- Supporting lousy policies that strangle companies to death, with the consequences many Australians are made poorer or, thrown into unemployment outright and face the appalling prospect of destitution.

- Discrediting free markets and free market economics.

- Destroying the Liberal Party.

- Supporting new, destructive policies and the big one is carbon taxes that will raze Australians into the ground.

This is in addition to what they did in Victoria; what they did to Victorians. What they did in Victoria was driven by their in fact anti-free market, not debated lousy economics. Victorians are wearing the consequences, and the shocking, criminal treatment of rather many Victorians through the STO and OPA draws out with great clarity what a callous, stupid pack of bastards the Right truly is.

Now the Right also supports the totalitarian, capital obliterating criminal action of carbon taxation and one of the funniest excuses one of them, Professor Sinclair “Sunk like led” Davidson (who also smears Jackson in back alleys infested with brats), is:

He supports it because then he can impose a ‘flat tax’.

The Right is possessed of another fine virtue, the Fuhrer principle runs thick in their veins and not blood.

I will be emailing this item to my City contacts, to ensure they read it to ensure they fully appreciate what an appalling pack of gutless, feeble, bastards the Right truly is.

It is apt that that thug, Michael Kroger, is a Director of the IPA. Reprising the antics of the KKR might be a good idea. It is something the Right is not keen on the public being reminded of:

How the Right strangled the Liberal Party

Smeared and threatened genuine Liberals

Strong-armed branches

Re-wrote the Constitution to consolidate total control over it

Stuffed 104 Exhibition Street with their monkeys

Stacked Parliamentary seats with their clones as candidates.

It’s a long list of their nice habits. Reduced the Victorian Liberal Party to the laughing stock it is today. But it is no longer the Liberal Party. It is the Right-wing Clique Party.

Liberal members and donors have, as a consequence, left it in droves. Except, perhaps, for a few hardy, persisting but unhappy Liberals, the membership today is no more than the Right-wing clique. The numbers tell it; diced from an active 30,000 to a bare 1,000.

The matter in the KKR items might be the past but the Right remain the same.

So, that lot have the hide to whine about ‘betrayal’ on this site. I’m not betraying anything. I’m defending the Liberal cause, and it is about principles and this means I am coming at those bastards from the front with fists wrapped in knuckle dusters each day.

The Right smears Mr. Jackson and Dr. Frank Shostak, to damage these two professionally. It is telling the IPA continues to smear them on this site. Some of their pet narcissistic bastards are on the loose and:

That lot of professional, wealthy dole bludging parasites sit on their flabby backsides in their bolted clubrooms believing it would not blow up in their faces. They never learn. These geniuses are so bright they could not even spot a train about to roll over them. And they have sat in their bunker as their ’gofers’ blabber smears.

Well, the IPA, the CIS, and the HR Nicholls Society owe Mr Jackson an unreserved apology, stating that that is what they have done, acted to impugn Mr. Jackson professionally. A public statement of this fact, and also directly stated to all ‘donors’ before whom they have smeared Mr. Jackson.

They now also owe the same unreserved apologies, with the explanation that it is about impugning Dr. Shostak, to the public and ‘donors’. That they have impugned a man who has never examined their ‘work’ at all, never said a word about them at all.

Bye the bye, Dr. Frank Shostak challenged hard Leftist Kenneth Galbraith in public. Galbraith ran away. In contrast, the Right hide from hard Leftists. While the IPA and CIS wet their pants each time Professor Quiggin says boo, Shostak sought a vigorous exchange with Galbraith and Galbraith ran away. In the mean-time:

ACTU heavies and the economics guns they hire fear Jackson, while Quiggin is a bit of target practice for Jackson. Here’s Jackson eviscerating Quiggin, the hard Leftist the Right are scared witless of, once again: Austrian business cycle theory defended.

I challenged ESS and the IPA to a meeting at the Sherlock Holmes, to eliminate all possible excuses they can find to insinuate that I am Jackson. I repeat the offer but with a difference, they buy the beer but there’s $1,000 on the table:

And there will be an open debate with witnesses, including company executives and any other serious figures who would find it very beneficial to witness it. Anyone who is in contact with Mr. Jackson, please show him this proposal.

There will be an open proper debate on crucial matters. The audience is free to challenge any speaker.

It would be good to see Sharon Burrows turn up, and some ACTU heavies. But she wouldn’t because she knows that after 30 seconds of facing up to Jackson, she’ll be leaving inside a couple of hundred plastic shopping bags.

I mention Burrows because I heard this half-wit on the Hinch show and saw her on TV yesterday. Hinch didn’t know what to hit her with, but then the Right don’t know either, but I know. Who was put up to lay out the case for firms? A PR man. This is a hard economic fight, it needs economics and, thanks to the Right, it’s now a mere PR job.

What did the PR man have to say? Firms have to tough it out themselves. Well, yes, because that is what they have been doing for decades and all due to the gutless, ignorant, venal, unprincipled Right. Then there are all those who will be given a 100% pay cut because the Unions are now free to exact effective minimum wages.

It was damned annoying listening to that ga ga half-wit, Burrows, spout a litany of bilge the Right conceded entirely. No wonder Australian TV and radio are prisons built by the IQ challenged. They exist to protect thugs Left and Right, and reinforced with propaganda sheets euphemistically called newspapers. No-one with muscle can break into the hovels to tear inmates apart, particularly for prime-time viewing.

Yes, that is the offer. A no-holds barred, honest debate, and so no rocks for the Right to hide under and feeling safe, secure, and comfy, stick their tongues out, blow bubbles, and smear their superiors. Next:

There will be advertising fliers sent out all around the City with time, date and venue stamped on them. And it will be an open invitation to the public. 

It will, to suspect, require a venue slightly more spacious than the Sherlock Holmes.

Yes, a good, honest debate and I’ll look forward to it, as should other parties. The cleaners will be months cleaning their guts and blood off the carpets by the time Jackson, and any other gun willing to engage, has finished with that lot of lobotomised baboons.

In view of the content, I let the article, Institute of Public Affairs smears DR. Frank Shostak, stand on its own for today.

The IPA continues to smear Dr. Frank Shostak in comments.

All this is being noticed and remarked on. Contacts and sources have communicated to me very interesting observations. Taken with other material, their nervous irritation is increasing rather noticeably.

Tomorrow, we resume with the CIS, “Carbongate”, and the IPA. Carbongate is important, not only because of what the Obama and the US Democrats are doing to Americans through carbon taxes, but underscores what Rudd, Swann and Wong will do to Australians with the support of the CIS.

It  must be kept in clear view that carbon taxation is a policy of the Liberal Party destroying Right.

I look forward to ramming home this bayonet tomorrow into Greg Lindsay and his CIS, the Kemps and their IPA, and the Right, and the Rudd Cabinet.

This comes as no surprise. So far, over some decades to date, the parasites in the Right-wing clunker tanks the CIS and IPA, have confined themselves to an all out attempt to damage Mr. Jackson’s reputation as an economist. Now the IPA, in it’s typical style to counter exposure of their appalling performance to date, has decided to attempt to defame Dr. Frank Shostak.

IPA ‘man’, ESS, and there is no doubt, came out and took the Right’s notion of a stinging attack, calling Dr. Shostak a ’sock-puppet’.

Dr. Frank Shostak is a former University Professor of Economics. Dr. Frank Shostak now works in the private sector. Dr. Frank Shostak is as Mr. Jackson a leading exponent and theoretician of the Austrian school.

Dr. Frank Shostak, who contributes to Brookesnews, related an axial period in his intellectual development. While a Professor, Dr. Shostak taught econometrics. As the following article shows, Shostak questioned and challenged intellectual foundations and renovated them.

Why economic modelling fails, Dr. Frank Shostak, Broookesnews, 10/3/2008

The Right funds such intellectual demands intimidating and this is one of the many reasons they resist challenges to their position. They do not merely run away from debate and try to suppress vigorous exchange. They are afraid of having their intellectual foundations, as shallow as they are, challenged exposed and hit. It shows in the muck they produce; it is undergraduate standard textbook bound.

They have not progressed, which is matched by them being overall developmentally arrested. No progress at all, and reinforced by no intellectual curiosity at all and this is also telling - curiosity drives progress. Confined to themselves, they would simply be eclipsed by talent to disappear from view. The difficulty is, the Right have made sure they have been central advisers to Cabinets and Liberal Party, and this is reflected in the extensive damage they have caused.

Until now, they have refrained from attempting to smear Dr. Shostak, precisely because of his position as a former Professor and now in the private sector. This is telling, for Mr. Jackson, though he does not have a doctorate, is a leading exponent and theoretician of Austrian school economics and so is Dr. Shostak.

The distinction is matched by Jackson’s depth and scope of his reading in the history of economic thought; these are basic requirements expected of anyone in any core discipline of learning and it is called scholarship. The clunker tanks are voids in theory and this is matched by the amusing fact that they are blanks in scholarship too. This is all the more telling because they pretend that they are masters of economics, that they profess economics, and squirm hard in their efforts to convince those they seek to impress and relieve of ‘donations’ that they know all that there is to know.

It must be understood, the Right are fixated with credential-ism, no matter if the ‘credentialled’ are incompetent and the IPA and CIS are incompetent, feeble mediocrities.

In January 2008 I related an unamusing but telling anecdote:

Some acquaintances attended a conference, with Dr. Frank Shostak as one of the key speakers, and when Dr. Shostak speaks, you sit up and listen. Not some Liberal MPs, of whom, funnily enough, one was Senator Nick Minchin; they decided to have a kip. This boorishness was remarked upon by those present. Shostak’s address was matter the Liberal Party MPs needed to be informed of and come to grips with.

Senator Nick Minchin was one of the HR Nicholls Society that destroyed the campaign for free Labour Market. Today, ACTU thugs are celebrating the final end of that effort; this morning they announced that they will press for effective minimum wages. Already there are Australians taking pay cuts in order to retain paying jobs by working a day or two less. What the ACTU and Rudd will now do is cause a 100% pay cut for far too many Australians. Unemployment rates are about to take off, thanks to the Right and their incompetent think tanks.

It is clear why the IPA (and CIS?) has decided to attack Dr. Shostak. He and Mr. Jackson are doing work the IPA and CIS have never done and are incapable of doing. “Carbongate” has made this crystal clear.

Carbongate has exposed them for what they are and with transparency and force. Companies are now realising the Right and the IPA and CIS, having taken tens of millions of dollars in “donations” and in return completely betrayed them all the way. Indeed, more than tens of millions, if we add on what the Right that has wrecked the Liberal Party has wasted. The exposure of Carbongate has decided ‘donors’ to cut off the funding pipeline to the parasites, while others are nervous and reconsidering. The same applies to the AIG and BCA, who are whining because abandoned firms are cutting off the pipe to their bank accounts too.

My articles demonstrating the further force of the muck the CIS and IPA have only served to draw out how bad the Right is, particularly those, to date, on Vic Inc. Vic Inc is the creation of the Right and is the foundation of Brackistan. The epitome of their stupidity is what the Right did with the STO and OPA, as we recapitulated again in brief on Monday,

The Victorian Bushfire Commission is a white-wash

What particularly disturbs the Right and their clunker tanks is not the facts, nor the resulting real crimes committed against the victims. What disturbs them is that they, along with the Bracks and Brumby Cabinets, are responsible and that they can be brought to account through what must be done - thorough, uncompromising criminal investigation. Never mind the very many victims, what are they compared to the precious, delicate fat backsides of the Right. This sums up the moral compass of the Right and their clunker tanks.

Berg, the window into the IPA (See item immediately below, Chris Berg reflects the IPA) and the response of the IPA in comments also shows this lot have no moral compass what- so- ever.

They, the CIS and the Right have no principles. For this lot, as the OPA-STO crime racket set-up and Carbongate amplifies, what counts is their bank vaults are filled, their tawdry ambitions realised, and they remain the centre of the universe. For this, they are willing to see Australians cruelly dealt through unambiguous, systematic criminal action, and as Carbongate demonstrates, only too willing to see the majority of Australians ruined entirely. It is not merely, therefore, their wrecking of genuine Liberal causes that is disgusting. Their treachery against Australians is truly appalling.

It is important to keep in clear view that the Right is not the Liberal Party. It is a small clique that is strangling the Liberal Party for their personal benefit. In Victoria, their control is complete. Through Michael Kroger, who is aptly a Director of the IPA, they have seized total control, having altered the Constitution of the Victorian Division to make sure.

Liberal members have left it enmasse. There may be a few persisting genuine Liberals, but the Division has now an effective membership of barely 1,000 and that shows the point, the membership is the Right. It is not the Liberal Party, it is the Right-wing clique Party who use the name Liberal to appear so.

This lot have managed to fix in the public eye identification of themselves and their rotten notions and actions with free markets and general Liberal principles. Thus, they have gravely discredited liberalism. In Victoria, though the ALP Cabinet is hated, the pretend Liberal Party is held in contempt.

When Kennett lost to Steve Bracks, Michael Kroger stated the strategy to defeat the ALP: When the ALP has inflicted as much pain on Victorians as they can manage, voters will come running to the Right-wing clique Party and their clunker tanks. Disgusted senior figures told me this.

Brilliant - ALP is still in office. The “Liberals’ are set for another State election defeat. They are set to be wiped out in the Federal Senate and the numbers show this.  Notice also the callousness. This wealthy lawyer, Michael Kroger, who doesn’t know what production is if it hit him in the face, is content to see Victorians immiserated so the Right can regain office. The only differences between these little dictators and hard left dictators are:

Hard Left is ideologically motivated, fully steeped in the diseased cult of socialism.

The Right-wing clique are motivated by their own particular aims. Their name is Venality.

Otherwise, both sides’ craniums are filled with mush and this they call brains. They are bi-partisan in their great putsch to immiserate and enslave Australians. They are, amusingly, gutless - despite their thuggery. But, the hard Left does know what will come at them as soon as the Right is finished off and fear the day when it slams into their rib cage and shreds it. 

Lastly, the IPA is at it again, in their odd approach to ‘debating’, trying to insinuate through “ESS” that I am Jackson. The last time they did this, they received a right hiding. Even, as an act of loyalty, their Right-pals abandoned them on this, particularly when I probed the identity of Ess as Chris Berg.

The point is that Jackson and Shostak are the only two fine free market economists doing what the Right cannot do, write for Australians, explaining grave matters and from within a solid, impregnable framework of theory. They also hurt Leftists.

Jackson is also the only free market economist bringing his ability to directly hitting the Left in public and hurting them and carving them up. This is important, because while I have corresponded with equally fine economists overseas for intellectual engagement, as a layman, the reality is Jackson is supplying readers, and so is Dr. frank Shostak. This is obvious cause for the Right to smear Jackson and, now, Shostak. But there is more to this:

I entered the fray in the fight for free labour markets. This meant hitting the Right and the HR Nicholls Society in order to avert the disaster they are responsible for. This meant intellectual penetration of the solid, so highly moral, economic case, into the framework of sound theory.

The reasoning demands are not obvious, nor ordinary and it required systematic, sustained application and concentration. I used Jackson’s articles as the beginning point and a framework for my reading. With it I also carefully attended the work of others concentrating on this subject. From this, in order to publicly fight, I then corresponded with some fine economists overseas.

They appreciated why it was important and assisted me. One upshot was, we had great rows, me taking punishment because, the gentlemen had to jump-shift me into the theory. It enabled me to punish the Right accurately. And, indirectly the ACTU and chew up false claims they and their guns made. All this is not obvious. It requires depth. 

Even so, there is still much more, many more steps involved in reasoning, extensive theoretical depth not open to the layman. Yet, it chuffed me because I knew that on this I as a layman was superior to the pretend economists of the Right on the subject, and I don’t have Jackson’s depth.  All this was built on Jackson’s articles.

It is not only labour markets. Jackson’s articles on money, production and so forth, complete with when theorems were settled, who settled them, and the bibliography to match has fuelled this layman’s intellectual curiosity. It opens up what economics is about, as opposed to the inane, standard textbook bound ‘courses’ palmed off as degrees in economics in Universities. It shows, graduates walk out not read in the field. CIS and IPA ‘papers’ show how shallow the undergraduate course is and that lot have made no effort to correct the defect.

I acknowledge Mr. Jackson and owe him a debt, because his work armed me and continues to arm me, and so does Dr. Shostak. This does not make me an economist, I remain a layman, but a layman armed and being armed by these two gentlemen. It is something MPs of the Liberal Party are in need of but they are bone idle to bother.

As for Right-wing MPs and wreckers of the Liberal, they are idle and ignorant. Their ignorance fuels their arrogance. The Arrogant do tend to be ignorant. They are complete know it alls and in good company with their fellow retarded cretins of the IPA and CIS.

I extend the same respect to Jackson, and to Dr.Jackson, as I do the other learned gentlemen I have corresponded with. I extend to each the same respect as I have to other distinguished Professors in other fields, with some of whom I have enjoyed the joyous riot of open, fierce, uncompromising, hold your own ground or die fighting debates. When I read Jackson and Shostak I see the same toughness, and have indeed read elsewhere forthright exchanges between them and other tough, learned gentlemen turning on great depth in theory and pushing it to the limits. All this the mendacious buffoons of the IPA and CIS are incapable of and they stand condemned for it and not because I condemn them for it, but as with all else they touch, they condemn themselves.

Some pals in the city, following my items and noting the Right’s attempts to defame Jackson, mused they would never do the same to Dr.Frank Shostak. I doubted the conviction. The rats are desperate now and in their stupid efforts to save their own backsides are now lashing out at anyone they consider a threat to themselves and their wallets.

Well, they are right, Shostak and Jackson, eclipse them as eagles soaring high above the earth. So, the first degree inbred pygmies, flat feet earthbound, pick up their rotting little bows and shoot rotted arrows into the air and, plop, they fall down only to prick the little pricks.

I inform the IPA that this will be emailed to acquaintances who happen to be very serious figures. I’m sure they will find the IPA smearing Dr. Shostak, on top of “carbongate” and the rest of the destructive mush the IPA , and CIS, pumps out, the final straw. 

As for another IPA inmate called, “yoyo”. This ‘yoyo’, in typical good IPA-CIS good form, came out with a remark that as of all their comments is only another snide but risible attempts to deflect attention from the substance of the articles on their antics. His latest sums up the talent of the IPA and CIS rather well:

yoyo wrote:

Oh dear is Dougie planning to destroy Shostak’s reputation like he has destroyed Gerard Jackson’s?

Posted on 01-Jul-09 at 8:18 am

I thank “yoyo”, for his effort in advancing the IPA’s attempt to smear now not only Mr. Jackson but also Dr. Shostak, for furnishing another example in an already multi-volume book length list of close written script demonstrating the calibre of the Right and their clunker tanks the IPA and CIS.

Some articles covering Senator Nick Minchin’s treachery, in tandem with his pals of the Right:

Liberal Party: “Federal inquiry into the election loss is to be a whitewash”, says Party insider. 

Liberal Party scandal: Insiders call for sacking of the responsible Liberal MPs

Quality control is a dead letter to the Right and the clunker tanks. Berg sums it up.This chump has written a long list of pieces any treacherous Leftist would be proud of but it has for them a distinct advantage, they don’t face being savaged for them and Berg does great work discrediting the free market cause. Let’s begin with some of Berg’s lighter moments:

Che chic: you’ve ignored the horrors, now buy the T-shirt The Age Sunday, October 14, 2007 and in the IPA’s collection of classics.

Berg stated:

“In 1940, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator mocked the effete airs of Adolf Hitler, without diminishing Chaplin’s serious contempt for the Third Reich.”

It didn’t gel with him that leftist Charlie Chaplin’s made “The Great Dictator” as a stinging attack on the Nazi regime.

He speaks of “capitalist culture”. The left uses this expression to attack capitalism and free markets. He also doesn’t know the source for the notion of “culture” asserted by the Left and in his flippant phrase, Hegel’s collectivist rot.

He states,

Guevara was a Marxist guerilla who made a specialty of executing his opponents and prisoners without trial. He pioneered techniques of psychological torture. And he directed “suicide squads” that were sent into battles with no hope of victory.

He also founded Cuba’s concentration camp system, extolled the virtues of class hatred, and persecuted homosexuals.

Yet, he triviliased it by a reprehensible continuation:

Even when he wasn’t waging war against civilians, he was still a disaster. After the Cuban revolution, Guevara took a government position as Cuba’s central economic planner, and promptly drove the economy into the ground. Michael Moore and Oliver Stone may flatter the achievements of Fidel Castro, but much of the blame for the poverty of Cuban socialism must be laid at Guevara’s feet.

He completes his inane descent by stating:

There is hardly a more recognisable symbol of revolutionary chic. Guevara’s image is plastered on T-shirts, backpacks and posters. One online store sells clocks with his iconic portrait to emphasise just how anti-establishment wall-mountable clocks can be.

For this reason, it would be easy to chalk up the modern admiration of Guevara to dormant totalitarian fantasies in the left. But there is already too much self-righteous indignation in politics. Just because someone has a poster of Guevara on their wall, doesn’t immediately imply that they want to send homosexuals to a prison camp and execute those who are not doctrinaire Marxists.

his is hardly surprising. Popular culture has a wonderful habit of appropriating meaningful symbols, processing them into accessible packages, making jokes…

But Nazi kitsch has not been so comfortably embraced by popular culture — perhaps a testament to our continued inability to fully comprehend the horror of the Holocaust.

Or, “perhaps it is testament to our continued ability to fully comprehend the horror of the Holocaust.” Perhaps Berg might ponder why neo-Nazis are reviled, and neo-Nazism a criminal offence in Germany. I have plenty of Jewish friends who survived Auschwitz and Buchanwald. Perhaps Berg can enlighten my friends directly, repeat it directly to them.

He finished by telling another grand lie any hard Leftist happily asserts and it sums up Rudd’s anti-free market rubbish too:

But capitalist culture doesn’t obey moral judgements.

He continued that flippant remark with,

Ironically, Che Guevara’s longevity as a cultural symbol has been thanks to the very economic system he sought to destroy.

Well, he is the kid who could dismiss values as a vague notion. He is the kid who doesn’t have a clue that free markets and capitalism involves high moral values. This is a kid who completely ingores something else in his generalised smearing of capitalists (don’t forget, the IPA is supposed to defend capitalism):

It is the diseased Left that pushes Che Guevara and Castro. The treachery of the Clintons and the US Demoncrats, and their co-operation with that Stalinist regime are no secret. It never entered the pea that is Berg’s brain it is the left who are engaged in a major propaganda exercise by producing that “chic merchandise”. There he is, helping treacherous lairs and the nice touch in all this is, The Age, aka The Spencer Street Soviet galdly published it. But this is not all.

In another article on the death of Fidel Castro in the IPA Review, he trivialised the continuation of that Stalinist regime and depicted Raul Castro as someone with whom the West can get along with. Never mind that Raul is a Stalinist butcher too - eg.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: The Cuban Connection, Humberto Fontovo, Decemebr 2008.

Associated Press’s terrorist-linked photographer honored in NYC, David Paulin, December 2008

These are only two of a mountain of items stretching back some years (I cannot recollect how far back) relating what jolly ‘teenage idols’ those butchers are.

Due to the very helpful assistance of Obama and the US Democrats, Raul has resumed the suppression and worse of Cubans with renewed vigour:

Heads roll in Havana as Raul Castro tightens his grip, Fontovo, 23/3/09

This is what Berg wrote, Castro’s retirement brings out the narcissism of the Western left.

 Chris Berg, Nobel Prize winning economist

This section explores the amazing work of Professer “Sinkers and Sunk” Davidson’s distinguished colleague.  Let’s open with a recent contribution to, surprise surprise, The Age, 28/6/09, as well as in the IPA’s collection of classics;

Crisis? What crisis?

It begins,

By now, we’ve all read the story, dozens of times. It goes like this: the financial crisis has brought down the Potemkin village of consumerism. The recession has exposed the internal contradictions and long-term impossibility of the neo-liberal order.

This garbage ends with a touch worthy of Janet Albrechtsen, who blamed modest house buyers for the bursting of the financial bubble last year and calling them criminals who should be slung into prison. So Berg:

If before the crisis hit you were a reckless spender and debt-accumulator, then I’m glad a recession could come along to shock you out of your idiotic ways. And if you refused to share your clothes with your friends, but now that your investments have tanked you’ve been able to find just that little bit of residual neighbourliness deep within you, then that’s marvellous.

Nevertheless, for the vast majority of Australians, life will continue as before, largely unaffected by the economic downturn. The global financial crisis is a big deal. But it’s not that big a deal.

This is the same wag who in the joint paper with Davidson, Thumping the Table (see article below) dismissed manufacturing as nothing more than a home cottage occupation that should it be wiped out won’t be missed. The Right can’t help themselves, their innate callousness oozes through their pores incessantly.

However, Berg has done a service: he has shown he is not only an ignoramus in economics. He is totally ga ga.

Berg doesn’t have an inkling of the financial crisis was a symptom of and what occurs first, and what the explanation is. Let’s not prejudge this genius too soon, though. In the article below, his efforts on regulation are summed up and it is nothing more than, ‘what is the best way to strangle firms to death’.  Let’s look at Berg, exponent of free market economics and distinguished theorist, and distinguished historian.

Islam and the Free Market, Berg and his playmate, Andrew “Andy Pandy” Kemp.

Not only does the IPA rate this as one of the greatest contributions to scholarship on the history of economic thought, such is the acclaim they followed it with, Islam’s free market heritage (March 2007).

In the second opus, Berg and Kemp give their findings far greater definition and certainty in expression as to the force of their ‘thesis’ than in the first. For example, they declare Adam Smith was indebted to the great Islamic founders of economics, and here it is:

Indeed, Imad A. Ahmad argues forcefully that Adam Smith was ‘simply picking up where Ibn Khaldun left off’. Ibn Khaldun’s writings display a clear and unambiguous familiarity with many of the cenral tenets of what we know as classical economic thought….

In a PDF magnum opus, a bold header is splashed across the top of the page:

Ibn Khaldun recognised the limits of proto-Keynesianism, and he anticipated the Laffer Curve by about six centuries.

Chris Berg found remarks I made on Islam and the Free Market ‘vituperative’. This cretin doesn’t know what the meaning of expression of vituperation is. He and Andrew Kemp and the IPA are bloody lairs. That muck, and I got it right the first time, is a deliberate falisfication of history. It is a betrayal of history, the history of economics, and the West.

In a bad, straw-man of an attempt to rebut Jackson’s masterful criticism of the paper and setting the historical record right, Berg asserted theology and by implication also philosophy are indebted to Islam.

It was plain then that he was told to write what is another travesty and betrayal of history in the ‘rebutal’. These myopic halfwits seem to believe there is no-one who is actually read and steeped in a field. I rebutted the rebuttal with this:

Rebuttal of Chris Berg’s Apologia (his defence of the IPA - Berg- Kemp Paper)

Here’s a summary of some points, IPA and its editor, Chris Berg lies to readers, to Australians, and their donors.

It must be noted, their primary authority was an obscure editor of an obscure newspaper in a country that has a certain Islamo-facist connection, Turkey. That was their formidable scholarship. The question, and the scandal was very hot, prompted the City to speculate on what interests prompted the heads of the IPA to publish it. The City was speculating on whom and how much.

Berg’s and Kemp’s false, inane ’history’ of economics. Mr. Jackson demonstrated that in an address to a society and completely demolished the paper in what my sources declared a tour de force.

Michael Moore (brother of Des Moore of the IPA and one of the HR Nicholls Society clubmen who completely wrecked the fight for labour markets), alerted to the subject of the lecture, attended the forum. He declared to Mr. Jackson, and I quote sources:

He was there “to represent the IPA”. My sources are firm on this: Moore was attempting to intimidate Jackson, to protect the IPA. Jackson replied to the effect, “I’m here too”.

By the end, my informants related, Michael Moore had crumpled into a cringing heap. He crumpled up in his chair as Jackson thoroughly destroyed the fabrications of Kemp and Berg. He felt worse because he realised it exposed the IPA too - well that was why he tried to intimidate Jackson, fear of exposure.

Jackson followed his lecture on the history of economics with a podcasted survey of the history of economics, on solid vox. 

Economics, theology and philosophy owe nothing what-so-ever to Islam and it is fraud to assert so. It is a betrayal of Western history, and it betrays history to the joy of diseased, treacherous Leftists and Islamo-fascists. The IPA pushed this tripe.

Berg, IPA Editor.

I refer readers back to correspondence with Berg, The Right’s deficiency and, Scoop: Correspondence with IPA and noting the introductory remarks:

The point to this is not about Berg, as the following comments make plain. Mr. Berg is incidental, a minor figure.

It is about those at the IPA on top of Berg. Next,

It also confirms, due to their warped view, Mr. Jackson is black-banned. This, some readers can recollect from an earlier item, was confirmed by none other than Mr. Tim Blair, over the Internet.

We have more to say on this, but the response from Berg was not needed to confirm it, it only provides another block of evidence. The following needs correction:

It’s unfortunate but true that our so-called right-wing would rather see the country sink than admit they don’t have all the answers.

It’s not that they don’t have answers, it’s the reason why they don’t, lousy economics and they have no depth at all and their ‘publications’ and those of the CIS too demonstrate  it - vacuous, tedious rambles matched by self-referential bibliographies showing that they have not even begun to read in the field they claim to profess let alone defend it.

I stress the conclusion to the introduction:

I thank Mr. Berg for his candour and his request that the correspondence be published (as expressed in his final reply). It had never occurred to me to do this. Though reluctant to do so, the signal importance of the material that Mr. Berg is correct.

The IPA

The Right, the CIS and  IPA like to pretend they are big-hearted guys, more sinned against than sinner. They are not. They are back-stabbing vicious houswives who put up a front to donors and Right-wing heavies. Berg is only one more reflection of them.

Berg, an economic illiterate who happily asserts fabrications that otherwise only the treacherous Left would be content with. It is not, though, simply Berg.

Berg’s garbage is what the IPA pushes as well reasoned analysis and commentary. This lot has the hide to assert their vicious tripe is a defence of the free market cause. It’s not simply Berg discrediting great causes. It’s the IPA doing a spiffing job in betraying and wrecking grave causes.

This lot have the hide to smear those who are their superiors behind their backs but whine when someone comes at them from the front. What a pack of gutless, craven mendacious pansies. These are what Harold Clough and Ron Manners consider guns.  

Berg’s record amplifies how bad, feeble and incompetent they are. He amplfies them, is transparent to them and the great damage they have caused and why they have caused it.

Professor Sinclair Davidson and the IPA have done enough, have damned themselves as it is. The scoop is off the grapevine, so I can’t vouchsafe it myself  but there it is, it’s on the vine and spreading fast all around Australia. I bites and how. First, it is pertinent to recapitulate some of Davidson’s antics.

Davidson tried to help out in 2008 in the attempt to rescue Lindsay over his carbon taxes position, using such brilliant debating methods as smearing Mr. Jackson. It was very curious to observe:

Sinclair isn’t simply attempting to extricate Humphreys, and the CIS from what is now a shocking scandal. The question is: what is his position, in view of his ties [also] to the CIS? The answer is, Sinclair has been mounting arguments for carbon taxes all along.

The position was set out in the paper with joint author the IPA’s editor Mr. Chris Berg, Thumping the Table. The main body was concerned with ‘industry policy’, it invites -music to Kim “Il” Carr’s ears. Besides denying the inverse of the J curve is true, a denial Davidson is yet to defend, and failed to rebut Jackson’s criticism, it is sombre to observe the evidence rolling in demolishes their paper and confirms what Jackson set out from a solid framework of theory.

Tacked on was a statement declaring the Green’s lies are true, ‘the science is in’, and a self-exculpating bit of hand-wringing, ostensibly asking how can the Cabinet achieve carbon taxes without destroying capital. It is rather suggestive of, it’s an advert promoting the Walker-Morgan-des Crespigny ‘nuke Australians into the ground power plant’ scheme. It turns out:

Scoop:

Professor Sinclair does support carbon taxes because, according to the grapevine, he sees carbon taxes as the way to get up a flat tax.

Ladies and gentlemen, I nearly hit the floor, from laughter. How stupid can Davidson and the IPA be? Well, Davidson is right in one sense. Carbon taxes are flat taxes, they flatten capital and that means millions of Australians flattened.

What will it be called? The Professor Sinclair Davidson Flattener. Davidson’s Pyramid - the guarantee of his immortality in Australian history?

There is a need for an honest tax debate in Australia. The tax regime is hideous and has long been strangling enterprise, and is why many have located production in other countries, including China. The IPA, CIS and the Right have never fought against this. Amusingly enough, they multiplied the taxation, it includes regulation, under their Pulitzer Prize winning economist Peter Costello.

Indeed, Chris Berg wrote a dreadful little tome on regulation and how to identify the best ‘model’ of it, complete with vacuous little graphs. Here’s the punchline, Professor Sinclair Davidson’s fellow economic genius couldn’t, and never could, ask the real starting question, Why regulation at all?

The excuse for ‘regulation’ is the myth of perfect competition. Reduced, it is nothing less than an assault on free markets. One of the fortes of the IPA has been devising the ‘best way’ to regulate.

The IPA alone has published piles of papers on the destructive mush. And. have abandoned companies they have never fought for to it. They have abandoned firms, left them to be strangled to death, despite taking donor’s money for this very purpose.

Yet, the IPA has always acted as any PR man does, for self -preservation and enrichment. PR men are at least honest. They won’t fight politicians and bureaucrats because the next day they might be working for the enemy. The IPA eats cake both ways, pretending to fight while recommending how to strangle firms to death.

Now we have this:

Professor Sinclair Davidson, a Pulitzer prize winning economist in his and his pals eyes only trying to immortalise himself by seeking a ‘flat tax’ with carbon taxes as the lever.

Never mind the firms and Australians who will be destroyed by carbon taxers, this genius, typical of the Right, know what is good for all.

Stupid people are conceited, callous and cruel, and hold themselves to be the yardstick of all things and the job of everyone is to obey them. This is the attitude of the Right. Does it show – this lot laid the foundations of Brackistan, and what they did with the STO and OPA is a testament to the callousness and cruelty that stupid types are capable of.

Sinclair wants carbon tax destruction day so he can raise a flat tax. What a bloody joke. This clown is a Professor in economics? He’s not only lousy on manufacturing, money, capital theory, and the Laffer curve. This clown has no compass at all.

Ron Manners and Harold Clough funds with the IPA and CIS a right anti-intellectual freak show filled by spivs who spit on Australians, don’t care a hoot if Australians are utterly ruined so long as they and the Right-wing pals get what they want.

So, Davidson’s interests and those of the Kemp Family IPA Trust Fund and Lindsay and his CIS Super Fund coincided in more ways than a few. No wonder Davidson expended so much energy flying interference and smearing Jackson, and doing his bit to boost carbon taxes and discredit the solid, highly moral fight against this tyranny.

Well done Manners and Clough, funding this pack of spineless, indolent, backstabbing vicious fishwives.

Of course, these are also more nasty reasons why the Right proceeds to destroy the Liberal cause – can’t let principles and truths stand in the way of their ‘ambitions’ and enriching themselves. Bloody mendacious parasites.

I ask of Manners and Clough again:

Look at what your ‘pals’ did in Victoria. You look at what they did with the STO and the OPA, and the victims of this thuggery, many victims put through hell and all because of the arrogance and stupidity of your chums.

When will you, Manners and Clough, cut the bums off:

When some more mining firms and engineering firms are wiped out or all of them finished off? When only more tens of thousands Australians face greater hardships or the vast majority are ruined because of the Right and their clunker tanks.

Well, other donors, as we have observed, have cut off the funds and others are very nervous.

Sinclair Davidson, what a brain. Now I am beginning to fully appreciate why the hard Left enjoy playing around with them. After all, the diseased Left do not wish one bit to see the Right finished off. They want the Right kept centre stage to maintain the lie that they are genuine Liberals and fight causes. Besides, why bury those who are doing good work for the treacherous Left. 

Do Manners and Clough find intellectual fraud and worse comforting, and a real solid effort in fighting the free market cause? 

Kevin Rudd will, no doubt, hand Professor Sinclair Davidson a suitable gong for the advance of fascism and service to the death cult of the Greens, The Glad Badge of the order of Little Brown Shorts, first class, with a signed pic of Deah Leadah Kevin Bloody Rudd himself, and smiling!

Articles on, On Thumping the Table

Is monetary policy destroying the country’s manufacturing base?

How America and Australia’s central banks badly damaged manufacturing

Posted on Mangled Thoughts, a number of items here.

That is aside from, for example, Davidson’s drivel on the Laffer curve.

In one sentence, the point to the curve was to ram home to President Kennedy and the Democrats savings and their accumulation is the imperative, the only way out of recession and the only driver of growth and for this to occur they had to cut the tax burden.

Leftists have lied about the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, asserting they failed to deliver growth. A bloody lie but the Right and their clunker tanks, in typical form, did not come out and crumple the hard Leftists on this. Instead we see the likes of Davidson ‘rediscovering the Laffer curve’.

The Right’s non-defence of Capitalism and free markets

Making Davidson’s tedious efforts all the more dreadful is the rotten, all-consuming policies of the Rudd Cabinet, States’ Cabinets and Local Councils.  

In addition to the evidence that has rolled in from Japan, Europe, Britain and even within Australia of the disastrous impact of carbon taxes, which in Victoria led to the wide blackouts in summer that killed Victorians, we now have not only:

Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources, by G.C. Alvarez Phd., R.M. Jara, J.R.R. Julian, and J.I.G. Bielsa, Rey Juan University, 2009.  53 page report.

It can be anticipated more damning reports will roll in over the months ahead. The Spanish report alone flatly condemns each claim Greg Lindsay merely asserts - doesn’t bother attempting to justify and defend them, he merely asserts them. It is very important to note the Rudd Cabinet is using the same assertions to push its carbon tax. There’s more:

Arnold Schwarzenegger claims to be a Hayekian too. As the IPA and CIS, he’s heard of Hayek, he has like them, to be generous, seen the titles Road to Serfdom, Constitution of Liberty and stopped there. Schwarzenneger is far from being a free market Republican. Before Obama and the diseased Left Democrats were handed the keys to the White-house,

Schwarzenneger has done his bit. He has razed Californians with carbon taxes. Speaking against Obama’s villainous act of tyranny, the Waxman-Markey ‘cap and trade bill’, Republican Rep. Tom McClintock summarised the impact of Schwarzenneger’s carbon taxes and McClintock has a particular advantage, he is a House Representative from the state of California:

In addition to destruction of capital, and the flight of capital, McClintock attest to the contrary of what Lindsay also asserts:

Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs — exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs the UC Santa Barbara economic forecast is now using the D-word — depression — to discuss California’s job market.

Waxman-Markey Is Our Smoot-Hawley

And this is what Greg Lindsay, the vested interests he is connected to, and Rudd,. Wong, Brown, Garrett, Turnbull and Greg Hunt want to do to Australians, wipe them out with carbon taxes and ‘alternative energy’. The difference between the Right and the diseased Left is the latter are motivated by their vile cult beliefs while the Right are motivated by their own wallets, they want to rich themsleves more by inflicting great pain and what promises to be irrecoverable long term economic damage. Let’s carbon taxes for what they are, deliberate economic sabotage on a tremendous scale backed on magical beliefs held by the fanatical Greens, propagated by their diseased Leftist allies and embraced by the kleptomaniacal, inbred, brain challenged Right.

The final abject act of Schwartzenneger was to betray the Republicans, attacking George Bush and expressing his full support for that treacherous Leftist thug called Obama. The CIS is in good company.

Obama, the only time he has told the truth, did declare the object is to destroy energy production, which means, as is occurring in California under a ham whose sobriquet takes on a certain twist, The Terminator, the destruction of the capital structure of the U.S. What was that you said, Professor Sinclair Davidson? Never mind, Professor, we have cause to return to you. Obama had an amendment attached to his carbon tax, a bit redundant in some respects but not in others, namely:

The amendment reinforces the totalitarian thrust of carbon taxation. It, moreover it is a measure the Brumby Cabinet of Victoria is working on - this is in addition to all the other ‘Kyoto compliance’ frauds he and Brumby before him dictated Victorians must waste money on when building new house, sending up the cost of house up by no trivial amount. The amendment is:

RUSH:  Have you heard about this, folks?  When you sell your house, environmental experts have to come in and do a survey to find out if you’ve got leaky windows, if all the environmental systems are correct, if you have relatively new appliances, and until you modernize in the way they say, you can’t sell — that’s in the bill.  I’m not kidding, Brian.  See, you can’t believe it.  You can’t.  It’s in the bill.  It was in this amendment that Boehner (Republican) read [the bill in the House].

 Arnie, diseased Leftist hugger and The Ratinator Terminator.

Greg Lindsay, through his monkey John Humphreys in asserting the anti-science and anti-economics lies, asserted carbon taxes are “as everyone knows the cheapest way” to effect compliance. It is lie. The Australian tax regime as it is, and by taxation I also include regulation, is very complex and very expensive to comply with and it is why companies have closed and transferred production to other countries.  Keating and the ALP, Costello and the Right intensified and extended the tax regime that strangles companies to death. Wayne Swann and Rudd have multiplied new measures which will swallow many in a right tax compliance nightmare.

Forget capital theory, the Right are no more clued in as to what is involved in running enterprises in Australia. All the evidence to date indicates carbon taxes are a nightmare to comply with but this problem becomes hypothetical, since the destruction of capital means no-one has to worry about compliance.

Anyway, the Rush page contains links to other damning items. In the meantime, the scandal of a suppressed report is blowing up in Obama’s face.  Here is the suppressed report:

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act,  

By Alan Carlin NCEE/OPEI  March 2009.

The developments are related here:

RELEASED The censored EPA CO2 endangerment document – final report

EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed

Source inside EPA confirms claims of science being ignored, suppressed, by top EPA management

Fraud, and Lindsay and his chums see nothing wrong with its perpetration in order to perpetrate crimes on a tremendous scale, horrific crimes.

Last week we concentrated on the CIS and its treacherous betrayal of Australians and the free market cause by pushing carbon taxes. This required a follow-up today.

This item is a lead into the IPA and the tremendous damage it has caused to the free market cause and it’s success in delivering victories to the Left, and readers will recollect the IPA published a bumper issue blaming Howard for the failures that lead to the defeat of Howard in the 2007 election and so, for example:

Liberal Party: Right-wing continue to blame Howard for election defeat

A two pronged attack. The spine uniting the two tines is lousy economics and we shall proceed from this and into the IPA. Though, it must be said that at least the CIS has ceased pretending to be a genuine free market think tank when it took up the ‘let’s wipe out Australians with carbon taxes’ diseased, hard Left cause. Still, lousy economics is the common link.

A noticeable thing occurred at the forum. John Quiggin no longer attacks free markets as such. He has narrowed his attack to “neo-Liberals”, a tag that is directly pinned to the CIS and IPA. This is not an accident.  When Quiggin did directly attack free market economics, he was eviscerated by Jackson. He has not attacked genuine free market economics again and this is reinforced by the observation that when Quiggin commented on the financial market meltdown last year, he did not blame it on free markets as such, he pinned it to “neo-liberalism” and “neo-classical economics”.

Oddly enough, soon after Jackson eviscerated the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, for the atrocious rubbish he wrote against Hayek and free markets, Rudd also narrowed his attack to “neo-liberalism”. As a very good guess, Rudd was told to do this because of the obvious. He has never mentioned free markets since. The trouble is, Rudd, his Cabinet, and those ‘advising them’ are attacking free markets, sapping them, and overthrowing them through their policies. How can they get away this?

For the purposes of public warfare, the Right and their lousy notions, buttressed by the IPA and CIS has been firmly identified as the genuine free market cause. This is how destructive not only Right-wing politicians and their advisers have been. It is a damning indictment of the IPA and CIS.

The discrediting of the free market cause by these clowns has been reinforced by the mainstream media, because there is none in it who publicly correct and attack the errors and lousy economics. This has made it, along the way, for the RBA and Treasurers to get away with lousy, destructive policies. No wide public debate in coverage means Treasurers and the RBA face little or no damage and humiliation. It means they face little pressure, and the Left know this and why this is important:

Great causes are won or lost not between a few politicians, their advisers, and think tanks muttering between themselves. The Left know the voting man has to be convinced of  a cause; exactly the point to why the Right blew the campaign blew the fight for free labour markets and made it very easy for the ACTU to convince enough voters to turn against reform. Some of those responsible for this disaster are not only in the club primarily responsible for this disaster, the HR. Nicholls Society. Some, notably Ray Evans and Des Moore are in the IPA too. It might also be remarked, the CIS also did its bit to wreck that cause by publishing their own lousy, destructive, notions on labour market economics and reform. All this was, for good measure, reinforced by more garbage from Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen.

Von Mises remarked, any competent economist can smash the Left and he lead by example. What stuffs the IPA and the CIS are not competent and the Right that has wrecked the Liberal Party have no one in their ranks who is competent either.

 An article illustrates what the Left are attacking freely. The interesting thing is, it is written by a Leftist who is, on the strength of the content an illiterate but has summarised what has been identified as the free market position and it is false, entirely false. So long as the Right and their think tanks remain centre stage and identified with the genuine Liberal cause, they and not the Left will continue to sink it. It is, after all, why Rudd and his gang of thugs are in office.

Neoliberal pseudo-science

The article will be pinned to the IPA in the course of this week as we push on to carve up this pack of spineless clowns.

We leave off with a sharp contrast. Here is Jackson carving up Leftists in solid defence of free markets:

Free labour markets and a leftwing academic’s propaganda 

Australian protectionists do not even know what they are talking about 

Labour market reform and the costs argument

America’s credit crunch — we’ve been there before 

Professor John Quiggin gets it wrong on taxes and jobs 

Socialist economist screws up on free trade and Keynesian policies 

Savings, jobs and Professor Quiggin’s bad economics* 

Government spending and jobs — another Keynesian fallacy 

9-11, an academic’s libels and Letelier’s treason 

Kevin Rudd’s economic illiteracy and his attack on Hayek

What makes the contrast all the more amusing is, while Jackson shredded Quiggin effortlessly, the CIS and IPAare scared witless of Quiggin, who happily bounces these rubber balls.

It is well to add in a defence that is also in stark contrast to the IPA’s self serving “let’s bash Howard” exercise,

Kevin Rudd’s imaginary contradiction, by Charles Murton, published in Brookesnews.

Readers, to gauge, can now appreciate why one did not rush in with the treatment of the IPA last Friday. There is more involved than generalised shots. There is much involved and it needs systematic setting out and, by gum, I’ll enjoy working up every bit of it.