Mangled Thoughts

Caught out in what they are doing, running a propaganda campaign to impose a carbon tax, the CIS is now in a panic. It’s a real headache for them because the kid they used to front it has cocked up badly, and they know it.

Yesterday, I suggested they have told Humphreys to shut his mouth and kill the matter, before it swallows them up. He’s tried, and he has tried again. The problem for Greg Lindsay is, Humphreys is just like Chris Berg or, indeed, Michael Kroger, every time each time he opens his mouth he only digs the hole deeper. Humphreys has done it again, in his mistaken belief he has sealed the fight:

The Gerry Chronicles the carbon tax and bad economics.

First off, since he raised it, I have not met Jackson. This is another count on why Humphreys, and Glenfarclas are liars. They can ask my friend Strider.

The only bad economics is the tripe Humphreys and the CIS are pushing, and on the grave matter of carbon taxes. However, let’s rip their heads off slowly. We will do it by instalments, this being part one of an effortless bit of hearty exercise.

We commence with one of Humphreys’ concluding comments, which is contained and preceded by another string of smears:

“Personally, I don’t think a small revenue-neutral carbon tax would do much good or much harm, so I’m not really fussed about it.”

He might not be “fussed”. There are very many serious executives, and untold numbers of investors who are not “fussed”; they are very worried about what a carbon tax will do. Let’s begin with examples, observing Humphreys has ignored those already given. There are, for instance, the coal based companies facing an initial, outright loss of capital of $10b when Rudd rams down his carbon tax. That, however, will only be the beginning of the losses they alone face.

On Monday, as I related, Caltex issued a public statement calling upon Rudd to come clean with voters and impose the tax as a direct tax, ie: Not in the euphemistic fraud of “carbon credits and trading”. They called for ten cents a litre tax on petrol. Something has happened between last Friday when it was issued, and yesterday when they released another statement to this effect:

“We are not attacking carbon taxes and reduction, we fully support a carbon tax”.

That means only one thing. The Govt. has “pressured” Caltex.

Has the board of directors asked shareholders do they approve of their support for a measure that will sack their capital? Do the board believe they have the right to throw shareholders funds at a campaign aimed at shredding the freedoms of all other Australians, and shred the savings of millions of modest Australians (superannuation figures rather greatly) and so many other firms of their capital too? Do they believe they have the right to squander funds on what is a criminal fraud?

Do the Directors really believe that it is principled of them to suddenly turn into Kevin Rudd’s and the ‘watermelon red” Greens’ cheer squad? So, why have they bent right over for Kevin “Mussolini” Rudd, buttocks bared for a right old rogering? A conflict of interest?

Caltex is a beneficiary of the ethanol fuel fraud, set up by Kemp, Campbell and Turnbull; this is detailed in its reports on its website. It also has those drivellers in the ACCC and Rudd’s new Commissars of price controls threatening to decapitate them and the other oil companies. Speculation maybe, but it’s not difficult to spot it, Rudd and his thugs didn’t have to squeeze Caltex’s testicles much more to make them obey.

A word of warning to Caltex: In supping with the devil, you cannot even use long handled cutlery. The devil, smiling at you, simply rips it out of your hand, rams it under your rib cage and rummages it around deep in your gizzards. Gee, that is what Rudd has done. Caltex now needs a gun to fight for it, but there is none in the CIS and the IPA.

There is no such thing as a neutral tax. Yes, I realise what the stand-up comic kid is saying, ‘revenue neutral’. And? Precisely, that is nonsense, it has no bearing on what the force of a carbon tax is, and this is something the CIS, through its megaphone called a ‘Humphreys’ refuses to address. Consider this as a red-hot warning:

Soaring gas prices will lead to 7,000 layoffs in plastics sector
Tracey Boles

BRITAIN’s plastics manufacturers, which make goods as varied as toys, bottles, artificial hips and car bumpers, will this week warn energy minister Malcolm Wicks that 7,000 jobs are at risk in the industry because of crippling energy costs.

The rubber industry has also lent its name to the letter. Together plastics and rubber companies in Britain employ 250,000 people and turn over £20 billion a year in sales.
There is a call for immediate suspension of the climate-change levy — which adds 12% to their energy bills — for the duration of the crisis, which is likely to last until the end of next winter when new gas pipelines to Britain come on stream.

The government is also being urged to develop new infrastructure now that the country has become a net importer of gas.

There is a temporary supply shortage, to be rectified only by additional capital. The problem is compounded into a crippling hike in costs due to the carbon tax, a savaging of capital because of carbon taxes. Indeed, who is going to sink capital into increasing production of electricity when the capital will be wiped out by carbon taxes?

An article, written in a year following the imposition of carbon taxes by Western European and British Governments, estimated the destruction of capital by then already a staggering U.S.$3 trillion dollars. I am still hunting it down but when I have located it, I will put it up. In the meantime, try this:

23.08.05 Preventing climate change will cost $18 trillion, UK economist warns

Preventing the worst effects of climate change will cost a crippling $18 trillion (€14.75 trillion) or 45% of the world’s current estimated gross domestic product, a report released by an influential UK economic consultancy company has warned.

They are economists trying to get a handle on the impact of carbon taxes. The crux is, the scale is so massive that it is almost incomprehensible.

To Russia With Love (14 Sept 02)

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)…undertook an analysis of the economic implications for Australia of the Kyoto Protocol, using three possible scenarios…

The first scenario modelled what would happen economically if Australia joined in the Kyoto process, but without U.S. participation as per current US policy. On page 9 of the report, it becomes quite clear why Russia was so quick to announce at Johannesburg that they would ratify the protocol.

According to the analysis, Russia stands to gain $8.1 billion in carbon quota purchases from the West by 2015. And who would pay this undeserved largesse?

U.S.A. Nil (they are not in the Protocol) European Union $4.06 billion. Canada, $2.05b. Japan, $1.05b. Australia, $0.53b.

That’s in 2002 money. That is estimating only one aspect of the full force of carbon taxes. Then, there are other types of problems generated by the tax and hitting capital and the freedom to work capital:

The “Economic Inputs” Fraud The IPCC has persuaded many Governments that the predictions of a warmer future have been generated by expert climate scientists running models through their powerful computers and that therefore their predictions are correct.

Many people have bought into this fiction, and accepted that the “Great Global Warming” debate is a scientific matter, which only climate scientists can resolve…

Corruption is a charge alleged against firms. In reality, it is politicians and bureaucrats, through regulation, who are the source of corruption, but they use this as an excuse to impose further, real police state measures, further wiping out liberty.

Should we be surprised ?
August 22nd, 2007 by Warwick Hughes
Abuse and incompetence in fight against global warming
Up to 20% of carbon savings in doubt as monitoring firms criticised by UN body
A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming…

A Return to Rationing in Britain? (11 Jan 04)

According to a BBC report, British Greenhouse scientists from the Tyndall Centre in Cambridge have devised a new and sinister snake-oil cure for Britain’s carbon emissions - rationing.
Britain has a lot of experience historically with rationing, having imposed it on a broad range of goods during and after the Second World War, plus some months of petrol rationing during the Suez Crisis of 1956.

The new proposal is actually a rehash of the old rationing system drawn straight from British experience of those dismal times - assign a fixed ration to every adult…

These examples are not even the tip of a mountain of material written on carbon taxes. What is crucial is the material by economists in Australia, Europe, Britain and the USA, and the conclusion consistently drawn by each of them; carbon taxes destroys capital and on a massive scale.

What does the CIS and Humphreys make of all that material? Nothing.They are inside not merely an economic vaccuum, theory wise. They have sealed themselves inside a jar to ensure they are not contaminated by the mountain of papers written long before they decided to write on carbon taxes. This is what the HR Nicholls Society and the IPA do:

They pretend to the public that they are the only ones who have studied and published on serious matters. The papers by Des Moore and Ray Evans on labour markets typify their myopic conceit. Even funnier, the HR Nicholls Society has a collection of classic economics papers, their own, all listed on their website. What makes this hilarious is, with Hugh Morgan, they got labour market analysis completely wrong. The CIS and Humphreys are doing an HR Nicholls Soc. on carbon taxes!

Wow, the wonders of ‘tax neutrality’. I recommend the CIS do the proverbial “go ask the marines” – if they are prepared to cop a blow to their solar plexus for insulting ‘the marines’. For all the millions poured into CIS by donors, all that they can manage is trite tripe. There I was, assuming the IPA and HR Nicholls Society held the rightwing monopoly on very expensive, non-existent work, a make believe scheme to justify a wealthy man’s professional dole bludging.

It is central to keep in clear view that existing taxes, inclusive of regulation, are knocking companies off, and deciding others to plonk their capital in countries far more hospitable than Australia is. This is before ‘carbon taxes’. It is not pretty at all contemplating what will happen once Kevin “Mussolini” Rudd, Swann, Penny Wong, and Peter “Corrupter of Youth” Garrett have rammed down carbon taxes.

All this and that juvenile liar called Humphreys pretends a carbon tax is ‘harmless’. Well, what else is to be expected of someone who spent his life in University, then Govt. bureaucracy, and now in another sheltered professional dole bludgers’ office called the CIS?

To conclude this first instalment, it is safe to say Greg Lindsay has a headache. It’s called a “Humphreys” type headache. As a kind suggestion for instant relief, sack him. Bad judgment Lindsay; you bought yourself a right moron who opens his mouth and sinks your CIS deeper into the bog CIS has made for itself. Bye the bye, Lindsay, what is the discount if you buy duds in bulk?

Besides vested interests that seek to make squillions out of the imposition of a carbon tax, what about your other donors, who are funding your CIS. The donors who are funding you to precisely fight for free markets against vicious, fascist Govt. and their leftist support club? What are they to make of your staff selling them out, so that scumbags can demolish what they stand for, and demolish companies by the imposition of a carbon tax? Do they realise others have already done good work on it, long before the CIS made this ham-fisted attempt. You, Lindsay have an IPA problem, the prospect of donors fleeing your CIS.

Oh, another suggestion is quite in order. Do what the IPA refuses to do. The IPA refuses to apologise for the lies, via Berg and Kemp, it told on the history of economics. Accordingly, it has not published a sound, thorough correctional paper. That is to be expected of the IPA, which has ‘governance issues’, which exude a horrible stench.

Embarrassing as it might be, there isn’t much choice now. You see, sticking to what is now an appallingly bad lie is “a chip off the old IPA block”. Oh, don’t mind the kid you hired blubbing and screaming, while you give him the bullet. He is not merely humiliating you. He is single-handedly thoroughly discrediting the CIS – heavyweights in the city are entertaining me with amusing new ‘jokes’.