Mangled Thoughts

Great damage.

In the case of the IPA, due to the lateness of their cautious decision to take a stand, and its ignoring of guns who could have helped it fight this over the last decade.

In the case of the CIS, not only the IPA’s sins but also by descending to advocating carbon taxes and using the specious claims of green cultists. Compare the following two items with the CIS’ great economic treatise on how carbon taxes will be a boon for them for all.

Cutting greenhouse emissions will double GDP ,Steve Hatfield-Dodds, The Australian, March 20, 2008; Steve Hatfield-Dodds, a senior economist with CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems:

The…economic impacts of making massive reductions in emissions appear relatively small…Economic growth will continue even with very large reductions in emissions, along with increases in income and employment.

Recent modelling of Australian emission reductions of 60 per cent to 100 per cent (*) found, for example, that GDP almost doubles by 2030 and more than triples by 2050. Real income per person increases about 150 per cent; employment is up more than 70 per cent.

This is not a magic pudding: annual GDP growth would be about 0.1 per cent lower than it would be otherwise, averaging 2.8 per cent rather than 2.9 per cent over the decades to 2050. Income and employment are much higher than today, but 2-4 per cent smaller than they would be without emissions reductions (disregarding any direct impacts of climate change)…

It would be nice to assume Hatfield-Dodds made a view typos such as he meant to write, “This is a magic pudding”. He’s another ‘economist’ who is oblivious to capital, and the impact of the carbon tax, in the form of ‘carbon credits and trading’ has on capital. Has it occurred to him, there is no income if, first, there is no production and this because capital is wiped out? Evidently not.

Incomes can only rise if there is capital accumulation. So, how does he arrive at rising GDP when under the tax capital is destroyed and consumed? If he were truthful, he would have to write another column, apologising to the public for the deception.

the basic point that economic growth continues is universal.

Consumption is not economic growth. If he was arguing correctly, he could not in any case claim “that economic growth continues is universal”. There are those who stated exactly that soon after Rudd’s election victory. Governments can destroy economic activity. We know that, from history.

Government regulation and spiralling government consumption can result in savage depressions. Analysis of Germany 1933-39 shows that if Hitler had not been bent on war, was just a ‘nice’ German Socialist, his ministry had sent the Germans on a short trip into a hideous depression. The war concealed this. Between, say, the Bracks and Brumby administrations, and now Rudd, it is easy to contemplate large scale ruination, before the impact of carbon taxation.

We can decouple emissions from economic growth, without derailing the economy.

He’s off the economic rails and ‘ga-ga’. He must be ‘ga-ga’ for him, employed in the CSIRO, to descend into a-scientific greeny babble, which he continues:

The basic reason is that emissions trading will take the carbon out of energy, without taking the energy out of the economy. We can’t have a modern economy without energy, but we can maintain a modern economy while dramatically reducing our greenhouse emissions.

Most Australian analysis of deep cuts in emissions suggests national energy use is likely to stabilise, while energy use per person falls gradually.

What, at zero energy use? Well, that can be arranged. Kill off all foliage, animals, humans. That only leaves the raw earth. Blast, a nasty meteor has to hit the globe.

The introduction of emissions trading will revolutionise electricity generation in Australia…

The old ‘once the tax is imposed non-existent capital will suddenly appear ex-nihilo trick’. The ‘war is good’ fallacy is becoming a security blanket for the demented. He combines both falsehoods. Jackson observed:

Supporters of a carbon tax would be quick to stress that investment would still continue in the form of alternatives. But Austrians point out that these so-called investments are really malinvestments that could not pay for themselves in a truly competitive environment. Therefore, expending money on them does not promote capital formation but the dissipation capital.

Hatfield-Dodd continues:

…dramatically reducing greenhouse emissions over the decades ahead, but will have only modest impacts on total electricity use relative to today’s levels.

This is so bad it warrants one word only, ‘baloney’.

Emissions trading is expected to increase energy prices substantially: electricity by about 50 per cent over 20 years and petrol by about the same amount spread over 40 years. This is a significant increase, and the introduction of emission trading will need to pay careful attention to avoiding adverse social impacts and protecting low-income groups. As noted above, however, the modelling also suggests that incomes will rise three times more than energy prices over this period.

Energy is thus expected to become more affordable, consuming a smaller share of our income over time, despite the introduction of emissions trading. Indeed, for policy makers…

A forced increase in price, which is what the tax is aimed at, is a cut in supply. We know there will be a massive cut in supply, and Australians made to attempt to rely on inefficient sources, because that is the aim of the tax. So how can it become cheaper, which is what he asserts? Oh, I see, income rises. So, consumption solves the problem of capital destruction, this is the rubbish asserted by the CIS.

Again, as the CIS, he misses a bound major point: destroying capital cuts income. On the scale Rudd is about to launch the tax, millions of Australians will face real cuts in income, with total destitution for most of them a real threat should Rudd proceed.

Emissions trading ‘could produce $20b windfall’By environment reporter Sarah Clarke

Economist Ross Garnaut…

Green groups say the money must be used to help low income families make the transition.

The Monash University modelling, commissioned by the Climate Institute, found the Commonwealth will generate between $7 and $20 billion in new revenue through the sale of emissions permits.

Next to the obvious lies involved, Viv Forbes sums up the fools’ gold of ‘carbon credits’:

Carbon emissions trading, the new Bubble Economy, Viv Forbes

For over a decade now, the left-dominated media has sustained propaganda on behalf of the Greens and their lies. The ABC’s Robyn Williams once broke convention and wrote a letter slamming the ABC for televising a show on the claims of those charlatans called psychics, under the head of its science department. Robyn Williams however, has not once slammed the ABC for promoting the bogus, non-scientific claims on co2 emissions. He has instead used his science show to propagate those lies.

Williams is party to the corruption of science on this count. He has to face the fact of: it is a massive, anti-intellectual fraud that is overthrowing science. Does Williams have the nerve to attack the ABC over it in public. Does he have the decency to give a profound and deeply meant apology to the apology for being party to what is an atrocious, highly immoral abuse by the ABC? He hasn’t to date, but he has time before it is too late and much worse is realised.

Shams purveyed as economic analysis is the same thing, the corruption of economics. Combine both and we have a perversion that is very grave. For over a decade the media have been pumping out that bilge. Unchallenged, ignorant to venal politicians and bureaucrats have taken it up as an excuse to, at bottom, reduce Australians again, and impose even greater burdens. They have got away with it because of the likes of the CIS and the IPA. The CIS has proceeded by asserting a sham is economic truth.

That is the damage Australia’s rightwing and their misnamed ‘free market think tanks’ have done. They have wrecked the fight against the putsch to entrench the death cult of the Greens and bring ruination of Australian through governments imposing the very measures the Greens have long sought.

The IPA and the CIS have served the treacherous left and power hungry politicians and bureaucrats so well in these matters. Their gutless conduct over the last decade has helped bring this about because: as the “Liberal think tanks’ that have cornered the funding dollar they have not countered the Left at all. They have not advised the Liberal Party correctly, nor companies. Neither have they mounted the effort required to eviscerate the Greeny lies in public.

They have not done so because of their bad economics, their bad ’science, and their spinelessness. The left has sustained a massive propaganda progrom over a decade, made easier by ‘watermelon reds’ pretending to be Liberal MPS, and the Right’s stranglehold over the Liberal Party.

The Right has surrendered most of the public battlefield to the Left. This is exactly what they have done through their institutes for wealthy, professional dole bludgers called the IPA, CIS, and HR Nicholls society. They have not hurt the Left at all. No, they have given comfort and great aid to the Left. Their indolence alone has done that. This is before the CIS’ atrocious direction on carbon taxes, springing on a question of venality.

That lot does not hurt the left in public because they do not even bother with what the economic case is. No, the CIS is content to sell out the case entire. How can they damage the leftist ‘economists’ in public when they are not armed and loaded? This is before taking into account; they also needed scientists who can also fight in public. No, the ‘know-it-alls’ have bumbled around for over a decade while the Left has succeeded in brainwashing a very large number of Australians with their lies.

We know the Left have done that, because their lies litters the speech of many a man in the street. The Right has done nothing to arrest this, and destroy it. Rather than do this, they have ‘advised’ former ‘Liberal’ ministers on imposing ‘watermelon red’ measures. They have yet to explain to Liberal Party members how they were destroying the Greens and the ALP by ramming down the very measures they howled for daily.

No, what we see from the CIS is just smears and slanders because a few have pointed out the obvious - rather than fight the left, they have conceded the left’s false economic claims and willingly promote the Greens’ great lie. Not content with that, they are helping Rudd to ruin Australians.

That is how much damage the Right have wrought, and through their “thunk tanks” the CIS and IPA. Any companies and genuine Liberals who donate to them should stop funding those useless, unprincipled, venal, craven professional bludging wreckers, because that is exactly what they are. For all the millions you have put their way, all they have achieved is undermining and burying great causes.

Forthright donors should funnel funds to headless chooks because, headless chooks have more fight in them than that lot of cowering pansies.

I nearly wrote ‘intellectual incest” but that assumes they have intellectual spark.

Australia’s Rightwing is one of the very few exceptions in history and anthropology to reproduce by 1st degree incest. The reason why it is generally held an evil, besides the perversity of marrying a cousin, is the population perishes. In the Right, we see also another reason for strong condemnation of incest, and preceding extinction, is congenital idiocy.

The fight over carbon taxes is just one more disgusting example of their affliction borne of inbreeding. This is where what was foreshadowed in, “The CIS and its PR men for carbon taxes are now ready to attack the IPA”, is picked up, commencing with the remark:

The second objection is the IPA, through Marohasy conveniently ignored all those in Australia, who entered the fray long ago, and brought to bear powerful scientific arguments…

listening to Marohasy on Counterpoint, many listeners could be forgiven if they were given to understand that until the recent conference in New York and the IPA this month, the body of evidence damning the lie is nearly non-existent. That is very misleading.

The same applies to Alan Moran’s ‘submission’ paper, ‘Economic issues in carbon dioxide abatement’. Another note on Moran’s paper is, while he sets out strongly carbon taxes are not costless, that they are highly destructive, the paper comes after years of some economists, inclusive of Mr. Jackson of Brookesnews, setting forth the case and soundly. Soundly, because they work from 1st principles in economics:

The self-inflicted defeat in the fight for labour market reform is a vivid example why this counts. Evans, Moore, and Morgan combined conceit with ignorance and incompetence. Senator Nick Minchin unilaterally rejected crucial material prepared for Cabinet; and Cabinet was in urgent need of that material. It was material that also destroyed the rubbish put out by that lot. Minchin, to protect his mates, deliberately refused to do his oath sworn, honour bound duty to Cabinet and Australia.

What, did he presume it was supplied for his private amusement? That his job was to keep his pals happy?

The Federal Opposition is, properly, refusing ( not without internal bickering) to relinquish what is a thoroughly sound, a highly principled position. The problem is, they are still using the same shocking ‘advice’ the three amigos supplied them. In doing this, they will continue to discredit the highly moral fight for free labour markets.

There it is, the Cabinet and the Ministers responsible for running the Government’s case needed the intellectual ammunition to fire. They had to be thoroughly grounded in it, and they were not. They had to be carefully stepped through the case, and how to fight it in public, and how to convince voters it is sound. Only running from first principles serves. It requires sound economists, and not the woolly headed mutton birds of the Right and it shows, the Opposition is floundering in the mud the ‘think tanks’ piled on them.

Labour market reform aside, the Right enter fights for principles late in the day, after having-

Ignored those capable of running a fight.

Ignored an accumulated mountain of evidence.

Rejected offers of assistance from those who can run a fight.

Attacked and smeared those who can run a fight should they come to public attention.

Ensured attempts to supply sound advice to those requiring it is headed off at the pass.

Mr. Jackson is one example of this treatment. Mr. Aaron Oakley is another example:

And while they are scratching their heads over Nahan’s emails they might like to wonder why the IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) turned down an offer by Dr Aaron Oakley. Dr Oakley is a respectable research scientist who is deeply concerned about the anti-scientific activities of the greens.

Because of these concerns he offered, gratis, his scientific services in an advisory capacity to the IPA. He had one interview and that was that. A research scientist offers his services free of charge to the IPA and they turn him down! What kind of organisation is that?

Tim Blair and the Rightwing controversy, Joe Cambria

It would not surprise me at all to learn many capable genuine Liberals have been given the Right’s treatment.

Rightwing Unionists

Their ‘think tanks’, CIS, IPA and HR Nicholls Society, typify the right. Closed shops, millions thrown into their bank vaults, making sure ‘donors’ and politicians are advised only by their inmates. In Victoria, certainly, this meshes with Melbourne’s Rightwing control over the Victorian Liberal Party, through Kroger, Costello and their stick puppets. The list of names behind each shows out how tight the loop is. The upshot is obvious.

Intellectually they are extinct. They do not even function as a narrow debating club. They admire their navels and elevate their puny output to the rank of classics in economics. They use that bit of slang, ‘in the market place for ideas’, but they are absent from it. They are completely incapable of fighting great Liberal causes as measured by their non-existent public campaigns and engagement. A fight for them is to pucker up to ABC cameras; they want to be loved. Anything tougher than that, they run for cover and bolt the steel doors to their clubrooms, fulminating at the injustice of being questioned.

Never mind the obvious because, “they are in the union until the day they die…’

Infantilism begets cowardice.

A closed circle has no feedback mechanism, thus no new input, checking and correction. They assert things and expect many to merely accept that, and obey them. It comes as a complete shock to them when not treacherous leftists, but Genuine Liberals raise objections on any matter they err in. That is why the dud trio, Morgan, Evans and Moore were shocked at the voters’ rejection and ridiculing of them.

They could not comprehend genuine Liberals also would find their rubbish highly offensive, and a treacherous betrayal of a highly moral cause. It showed in their venomous attacks on Prime Minister Howard, Archbishop Pell, and others they blamed for what was their own dismal failure. Nick Minchin, grovelled on bended knees over broken glass to apologise to them for Howard’s failure!

The sting is, the Right’s ‘think tanks’ do not simply consistently undermine the fight for great causes. They are paid to supply advice to companies and Cabinet. They are playing a monstrous game with grave matters that have extensive, serious force for the lives of Australians.

Each time they completely stuff up a case, they are not merely setting that cause back a few generations; they are helping to stuff up the lives of many Australians and worse. In doing that, they are not merely handing victory to Statists and the treacherous left. They make it very easy for politicians and bureaucrats to impose ruinous measures and entrench them. The CIS’ position on carbon taxes is another nasty demonstration of this. The IPA’s impressive record of consistent failure in fighting regulation is another grave instance.

The CIS is not drawing on some of the millions donors throw at them to fight this highly destructive tax. It is usiing some of those millions in campaigning for the imposition of the tax. To add insult to injury, the reality is that Rudd and Penny Wong can declare in public, “it is not merely the former ‘watermelon red’ Liberal Ministers of the ‘Environment’ who back the Greens’ death cult. One of the Liberal Party’s major advisers commends the destruction of the coal based energy companies as a highly responsible measure.”

Even if a cause is lost ( temporarily) they run up the white flag, and assist government in how to rain down more punishment on the raw backs of Australians. It is of no consequence to them, as they make plain, that a sound principle must still be fought for. Though, this assumes they are principled. Like PR men, they pretend to fight for their ‘clients’ and on principle, when the real aim is to look good without causing offence. That way, they count on donors keep on pouring loot into their coffers:

“We tried. It was hard work. We saw the Minister and his advisers. They were tough but we agreed to a compromise. Instead of being broken in 6 months, your firm will die over a few years. How good is that, eh!”

Unfortunately, too many donors do swallow the falsehood and stump up. How mnay times do the donors have to be let down before the penny drops, those ‘think tanks’ are duds stuffed with duds?

The Right fights the treacherous Left by imitating them?

There it is the ‘free market think tanks’ are completely wrecking the sound, solid, highly moral cause of free markets by stuffing up the economic case. This points to serious flaws in their grip on economic theory; the gripless grip of a mountaineer sliding down a cliff face. The CIS’ Professor Saunders for example, praised the Howard Cabinet for exemplifying the ‘trickle down effect’.

There is no such thing as ‘the trickle down effect’. Worse, as one recollects well, it was leftists, including leftist clerics, who coined and freely use the vulgar, nonsense term in order to attack free markets and capital accumulation, and Professor Saunders is ignorant of this! The same applies to the term ‘globalisation’, and yet the Right freely uses this term too.

Words count and yet the Right is happy to accept the Left’s deliberate abuse of language. They are oblivious to what that entails. They are helping the left to undermine not only free markets but with it, Liberty. These dopes call themselves “liberals”, when they do not even attack opponents of freedom on such a mundane level as eviscerating the Left for their Orwellian tactics! Instead, they cave in to the left on this! How can they even begin to work through the load of economic reasoning and correctly relating it to companies, politicians and the public, when they are stuffing themselves up over language?

How can that lot fight the left in public when they freely use as ‘economic terms’ words the man in the street knows full well are used to attack free markets and liberty, and to undermine forthright economic debate? The man sees the Left might be right after all, since the Right concede so much to the left. The Right do not see that even this is highly immoral, and that it is scoring goals for only the treacherous left, and complete morons such as Rudd and his fellow buffoons in Cabinet (we are now seeing a repeat of what has transpired in Victoria but on the Federal scale, thanks to the brain dead, treacherous Right).

Chooks are tough

As for the Right’s capacity for terrifying street fighting, chooks have more pluck and ‘know-how’. Sitting on millions of donors’ money, they continue to publish the same few decades old titles very few bother to read - Quadrant, IPA Review, the CIS glad mag. They don’t have a clue as to how to work the media. As for the power of the Internet, they are again duds – also look at the vacuous Liberal Party ‘websites’ set up by the same incest group. Where are the ‘free for all’, ‘all comers welcome’ conferences? None, not a single, good public scrap. They have not one clue as to how to fight.

It is as well the ‘free market think tanks’ are absent in ‘street fighting’. Their abysmal performance in what they advertise as their strength would see the Liberal cause finished off completely. With it, the Liberal Party, severely crippled by the Right as it is, would already be what threatens, an extinct species (the flight of members continues – it’s a crisis in the Victorian Liberal Party).

The anti-intellectualism of the Right and their ‘think tanks’, their spinelessness and cowardice before the public comes together in the CIS’ disgraceful advocacy of carbon taxes. The closed shop is manifest again in the IPA on this matter. Both have damaged this serious cause and on two counts, science and economics.

Only now is the IPA entering the fray, though confined to its IPA Review and a brief bit of mincing about on ABC radio. The IPA has entered late. For over a decade, there are those who have been fighting the Green cult of death but, thanks to the Right and their think tanks, have been ignored. For all those millions, the IPA has in consistent good form made harmless bleating noises on these grave matters.

There might still be time to fight off carbon taxes. Not much time now, but it might be enough. Accordingly, a massive, and very expensive public campaign is required. The IPA has the millions to mount it but it does not have the people who can do the work.

The CIS has bettered the IPA. Not satisfied with being derelict in its duty to its Liberal donors, by its non-existent efforts over the last decade, it has decided the cause is lost. Its conflict of interest decided the this grave cause is lost. The chance to profit from deliberate economic destruction is a powerful argument.

It’s, therefore, reasonable they see nothing wrong in the fraudulent claim man emitted co2 causes climate change. Doesn’t give a hoot that it is a grievous debasement and corruption of science. Doesn’t care a hoot that that intellectual perversion is due to the left, politicians and bureaucrats and craven “businessmen”. On economics, they don’t give a stuff about the carnage carbon control will wreak, and the ruination of very many Australians that will follow. They have made their venal, callous, craven position plain over the last couple of months.

The Right has the hide to whine genuine Liberals are ‘disloyal’ in criticising flawed claims and in eviscerating nonsense they publish.

Loyalty schmoyalty. It is always about principles, and the principles which the Liberal Party should stand for but doesn’t thanks to the incest club. Principles must always be hammered out, and subjected to withering fire. They not only whine, but smear and slander any who even give off a hint of disagreeing with any of their statements and any who are competent, unlike that lot.

What makes their whine about ‘disloyalty’ all the more offensive is, they are playing games with the force of principles, and unconscionable measures, the lives of Australians. That lot is the same as the left: they hold most Australians in contempt, mere vassals to be worked to death then flung on a dung heap. While they claim to be wounded by the comments of genuine Liberals, they freely smear genuine Liberals, stabbing a few in the back for good measure.

Now we see it again. The CIS, having opted for an unconscionable position, decided to defend its position by smearing those who dare point out it is erroneous. They heightened their smears with hysterical tirades against those who went further and pointed out how disgraceful, disgusting and shocking their position is.

What makes it all the more hilarious, that lot pretend to occupy the moral high ground. Well, that must be the ‘the high ground’ the treacherous left occupies because that is their position. They certainly conduct themselves much the same as the treacherous left.

How can that lot run first principles in economics, when their general principles are non-existent? This assumes they could run economics so, which is impossible to a closed circle reproducing through 1st degree incest; congenital lunacy leads to extinction only. The ACTU and their treacherous leftist bosom buddies know this and that is why this they are delighted for the Right to maintain their stranglehold over the Liberal side; there is safety amongst their own kind, congenital cretins.

Genuine Liberals cringe.

In Parliament today, Martin Ferguson outlined the Government’s plan to ‘break Australia’s dependency on oil and develop a suite of alternative fuels’. As for electricity ‘alternatives’, he didn’t specify what the ‘alternative’ new fuels will be. He just knows they will be produced, and oil based Co2 emissions will be cut.

Well, one thing is clear. The Cabinet must be taking its ‘economic advice’ from the CIS.

In the item below, The CIS and its PR men for carbon taxes are now ready to attack the IPA, some points were raised that are also pivotal to why the Right are appallingly bad defenders of free markets and Liberalism. The CIS is an exception, they practice white-flag waving, and hugging leftists. These considerations, with most interesting illustrations, is the subject of the next item, which will be on the 31st of March.

Taking a 10 day break, I wish readers a happy Easter, this tridium of the Passion of Christ.

The IPA has sniffed where the wind blows, and finds the breeze from the carbon tax side whiffier by the day. Watching the CIS strangle itself has also disturbed the IPA. Oh, the IPA is still having a bob each way, but has placed some new bets. I suspect some bookies (donors) are beginning to dissuade them from the CIS race-track training schedule – the horses are galling badly.

The IPA has recently arrived at the same conclusion as all who to date have criticised the CIS position, it is not costless, that it is a heavy, destructive burden. This puts Professor Sinclair Davidson in an invidious position, he’s fast become an embarrassment to the IPA. This is unfortunate, because they already have Chris “The Kid” Berg and Andrew “Andy Pandy” Kemp exposing them as it is. Oh dear, and the good Professor only recently wrote a ‘joint paper’ with the kid, stating some now embarrassing for the IPA things on carbon taxes and emissions and heavens, what can be done but scrap coal and bung in nuclear plants.

The consistency of the Professor can lead him nowhere else but to sniping at and smearing Nahan, Alan Moran and Jennifer Marohasy. This requires integrity; intellectual, and of principles, and courage to advance them. So, Professor, when do we read your first swipe at the IPA? Why not today? Why put off until tomorrow what you can so easily do today? Surely he has no wish to be called a coward? Besides, he has good backup in the CIS and John Humphreys.

Humphreys will be smearing the IPA too? I can’t see how he can avoid it, since the IPA has also decided the CIS position is false. Alan Moran will be fascinated. Would it be presumptuous to assume Moran is very familiar with the Humphreys paper and how discreditable it is? No, it wouldn’t be. So, go on Humphrey, they await your witty rebuttals. Go Humphrey, go Prof; show all how to biff more critics.

Alan Moran

Unlike the CIS-Humphreys paper, and the Davidson - Berg IPA paper, Alan Moran doesn’t introduce his paper with waffle. He states in the first sentence what the essential matter is, and leaves no doubt as to, in the main, the argument to follow:

Contrary to many assertions, including those of the Stern report, the costs of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be considerable.

Far more draconian emission reductions are required than agreed to at Kyoto if the world is to see a reduction in the concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases said to be responsible for global warming. This would require vigorous action by all countries. It would require more intensive measures by developed countries, the only ones with serious abatement commitments under the Kyoto Convention. It would also require the adoption of abatement measures by developing countries, the emissions of which now surpass those of the developed world.

The difficulties recorded by developed countries in abating emissions would be far greater for developing countries. Per capita emissions of developing countries are presently only one quarter of those in developed countries. Absent a technological breakthrough, requiring developing countries to reverse, or even reduce their trend growth in emissions would, if enforceable, consign them to income levels that would remain considerably lower than those of developed countries.

For this reason alone, short of an as yet unheralded technological breakthrough or widespread global adoption of nuclear power allowing a phasing out coal and gas based electricity generation, lower levels of emissions cannot be achieved.

Australia has more to lose than other countries from measures that require abatement of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. This is because we have a comparative advantage in cheap electricity based on our easily won and plentiful supplies of coal…

Australia is also one of the most important world sup-pliers of coal and natural gas, both of which would come under increasing pressure if general and global abatement measures were to be taken.

It follows that whatever interests the world has in low-ering emissions of designated greenhouse gases, Australia has much more to lose than other countries.

Economic issues in carbon dioxide abatement, Submission, Alan Moran, Monday, February 11, 2008. (In Pdf format here. )

What a punchy and no-nonsense opening. Gee, Moran cannot have an objection to what has already been said by JC, Bird, GMB, Jackson, Prodos, any other I have not mentioned (apologies) and me. This is pleasing; not that such encouragement is required. I would only correct the last sentence. Other countries, Japan and China for example, have much to lose too if coal production for power plants is smashed, as has already been well observed. The reverberations also have mutual impact for all three countries.

The remainder of the article is exposition and demonstration of each point. I only draw attention to one statement that is pertinent to the CIS paper and the Sinclair Davidson - Berg paper:

Environmental activists often favour the economic inefficiency of command and control regulations, since they are indifferent to costs and consider lower levels of consumption as a per se goal.

Moran does not discuss the lie of Co2 causes ‘climate change’, that man is the major culprit, and the emission must be cut there. His paper is confined to the economics of the force of measures aimed at cutting Co2. The fence sitting is irritating but, not the force of the above.

Problematic is Moran saying nuclear power can be a way out. In view, though, of the main lines of his paper, the statement is carefully couched - the least cost option. (I hope he is not cautiously pushing the nuclear power interests the CIS serves. The odious two, Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan keep cropping up). For, obviously, coal has a huge advantage over nuclear, and thus the switch would impose heavy costs as it is, and compounded by wiping out existing capital and rebuilding power production with new capital.

There it is, capital. Moran stated it (whether he actually understands that that is what he has stated is another question but some of his other remarks are encouraging). The carbon tax hits capital in coal-based firms and the impact damages a vast array and vast number of plants.

Moran is in no doubt as to the final impact on the consumer, a major reduction in living standards. Moran is spelling it out; immiseration of millions of Australians is a reality should a carbon tax be imposed. He is spelling it out; the tax would wreak destruction on a massive scale. How do the CIS answer another economist stating the same conclusions some have already set out? Will Sinclair Davidson smear Moran? Will he call Moran a “ranter”.

I am chuffed to read Moran makes a point I have re-iterated many times over (I have lost count):

In fact, regulations have effects that are almost indistin-guishable from taxes and can be usually expressed as a tax.

There can be no question of the extensive regulatory provisions taxing carbon requires. Neither of, at bottom, the police-state goon squad that will have to be raised to enforce it. Humphreys in his paper said a straight tax as opposed to carbon credits would avoid the corruption that accompanies credits. No it won’t. The corruption devolves on the calculation of carbon emissions, with firms trying to stop being bled to death by vicious politicians, and bureaucrats and their advisers responsible for the monstrous fraud of carbon taxes.

What is telling is, in the first instance, before economists explaining the force of the tax from economic theory, the force should be a readily made, ordinary observation. It is a central point I have been making in citing cases demonstrating the impact. It is the explanation of this that is not ordinary.

The laws of economics cannot be ignored without great peril but they are not self-evident and, hence, theory and its advance. We had a telling insight into this throught the complete wrecking of the fight for labour market reform by Hugh Morgan, Ray Evans, Des Moore and Senator Nick Minchin. They wrecked it through false economic explanation; it was a complete mockery of economic theory. Contrast the efforts of that lot to Jackson’s, compiled in Labour Market Wars.

I am not under-estimating the epistemological distinction either. Take the false definition of inflation as price rises and measured by the CPI. The rotten thing is, having been drilled into generations of Australians, through the media, that vulgar notion is accepted as the true explanation. There was a day when Australians did understand sound money, as opposed to funny money, even though not able to explain it from theory.

What the CIS has published is intellectually dishonest. It is worse than that, but I am being polite. This is why I call it a deliberate deception of the public, or at least an attempt to deceive the public. I cannot but suspect some senior figures in the CIS know it is intellectually dishonest, with unconscionably worse, immoral implications riding on the back of the economic force of their position. In the dishonesty the matter of conflict of interest pops up all the time; it breathes, it belches black smoke, it snarls, it’s a bad ‘boof headed’ mongrel. Moran knows such a position is indefensible; his paper shows it. Now for Mahorasy.

Jennifer Marohasy

Until recently, March in fact, the IPA’s position on man causes climate change by Co2 emissions, has been a half-hearted, spineless bob each way. It is understandable why - Hugh Morgan with mate Walker, Toorak Brahmin and doctors’ wives.

It must have been a real quandary for Nahan until, it seems, the penny dropped. It appears he has realised that there are many more Liberals, some donors, who happen to be engaged in firms that will be razed by carbon taxation. Then there are the three former Liberal (in name only) ‘watermelon red’ ministers for the “Environment”, Malcolm Turnbull, Ian Campbell, and David Kemp. Kemp is a right headache for the IPA.

The IPA, with “The Kid” has “Andy Pandy”, and David Kemp. David Kemp boasted, when the Minister for the Green cult, he was defeating the “watermelon red” Greens. He never did explain how he was managing that while he was busy imposing many of the ‘policies’ the “watermelon reds’ demanded. Kemp, as Garrett and Wong today, had only one tune to sing to those who were calling the grand lie a lie and for sound reasons -everyone of them scientific, venomous tirades and smears. All together, on this matter, the IPA had the rightwing establishment breathing down its neck, and the donations they fork into IPA coffers.

It seems the IPA and Nahan have suddenly realised, on carbon taxes and the lie of climate change by human co2 emissions, they can boot the Right out the front door and into the gutters. Hugh Morgan’s backside must be smarting, and his knees scarred from hitting the bitumen. After all, Morgan threw millions of WMC shareholders’ funds into IPA. Never mind, Hughie, you still have the CIS flying propaganda for the nuking of coal based energy companies.

On the 17th of March 2008, in the name of the IPA, Marohasy came out on ABC radio’s Counterpoint, hosted by former ALP heavy, Michael Duffy, and firmly slammed the grand lie. Right in enemy territory, she put the IPA’s firm nyet to the lie. The transcript is not up yet, but the ‘listen now’ option kicks in quickly.

I have, on the count of science, one major objection. Marohasy has committed it before in one of her IPA articles. ‘Computer modelling” is rubbish full stop. This is crucial because computer runs are asserted to be evidence of “anthropogenic caused climate change”. They are not at all, and I have explained before why they are not. The computer ‘modelling’ is meaningless rubbish. Sadly, taxpayers are forced to shell out millions to fund that grotesque fraud. No, Marohasy, not even adjusting program script according to science alters that fact. Mahorasy does need to get this right, because it is not trivial at all in combating the liars.

The second objection is the IPA, through Marohasy conveniently ignored all those in Australia, who entered the fray long ago, and brought to bear powerful scientific arguments. Those doughty freedom fighters were smeared by the Left, the media, and ignored totally by the ‘free market think tanks’. Right now, the CIS has every motive to join the left in smearing those good men:

Louis Hissink, Aaron Oakley, Jon Ray, Warwick Hughes and the splendid John Daly.

They brought to bear a mountain of evidence raised over, what, nearly a decade, not simply in other countries, but by scientists from within Australia. Marohasy and the IPA ignored all this. Indeed listening to Marohasy on Counterpoint, many listeners could be forgiven if they were given to understand that until the recent conference in New York and the IPA this month, the body of evidence damning the lie is nearly non-existent. That is very misleading.

I suppose, coming from the IPA, a litotic summation of the science against the lie is nonetheless better than nothing. After all, they have done what the CIS has refused to do, attacked the lie. Indeed, as it is transparent, the CIS accepts the lie. The CIS’ advocacy of carbon taxes assumes the lie is true and, therefore, cutting Co2 emissions is necessary.

Conclusion

On both counts, science and economics, the CIS now has to attack the IPA. This means, since they are consistent, smearing the IPA, Alan Moran and Marohasy. The CIS now has to order its PR stuntmen, Humphreys and Professor Sinclair Davidson, to do to the IPA what they have had them do to all critics who have rejected the CIS position for irrefutably true, and highly moral reasons.

The good Professor Sinclair Davidson is now in an invidious position. In truth, the IPA is faced with having to dump him. The Professor has embarrassed them severely.

I cannot wait for the CIS to land the first blows. They have no other choice. Their position is plain. They have made it plain to all what they make of those critics. Surely, they won’t resile from treating the IPA to the same abuse? Surely, they are not cowards?

While Rudd and Wong are patently grateful to the CIS for several things, those two ‘brown-pants’ did let the CIS down. They rejected the carbon tax for the ‘carbon credits and trading’ plan. In view of this, and also the interests they serve, the CIS has no choice but publish a paper advocating the scheme.

The CIS and its ‘pals’, though disappointed, still clean up. Mr. Yates knows this, via his interest in the Peony ‘company’. On the tax side, the carbon tax paper might have been a blind after all.

They really were aiming at the ‘carbon credits’ version. They had to find someone who was sufficiently dense to write a paper advocating the ‘overt’ tax with conviction.The ensuing scandal would politically kill it, as it has, leaving the unstated, real position to run a fast time on the home stretch. It’s rather odd Professor Sinclair Davidson exposed himslef by supporting the ‘pace-setter’ all the way to a shocking collapse 3 inches out of the starting gate.

So, clearly, the CIS not only has to write a paper advocating their desired way of imposing ‘carbon credits and trading’, they must cover a number of serious concerns. They include, re-assuring all their genuine Liberal donors, Liberals general and the Australian public, it is costless, won’t damage anything if their how to screw “do it” is followed. How it will be light, and many consumers can be given income support to help cover the costless costs of the plan.

Since they have their in-house expert, John Humphreys, who is the man they chose to lead their position, they have no choice but appoint him to write the paper.

I am looking forward to another thrilling read. So are a large number of readers who have found the exchanges to date most illuminating. Darn, after the Easter tridium, I’ll be chatting with heads of firms in rural Victoria. They, like urban based manufacturers, they tell me, are concerned about the ’substance’ of the CIS position. Gee, the CIS and Humphrey have a fine chance to illuminate things even more for these gentlemen.

Oh, there are some very large factories dotting the rural landscape - which employ very heavy capital goods, quite an array of capital goods, all run on good old cheap, clean coal generated electricity. Firms, internally and externally far more complex than the firm I summarised the other day. Large scale firms; many employees; millions of customers. Professor Davidson finds the Australian ‘lattice of production’ a trivial side ‘issue’. Perhaps the good Professor might meet with these gentlemen and explain to them this outstanding contribution to (free market) economics.

Greg Lindsay and John Humphrey can accompany the good Professor. They can give a joint ‘presentation’ to them, demonstrating the costless carbon scheme.