Mangled Thoughts

What’s that the rightwing complain of frequently… ‘leftist rent- a - crowds of smelly, fungus faced, adult aged delinquents.’ Well I never, fancy that, Australia’s rightwing hiring ‘leftist rent- a - crowds of smelly, fungus faced, adult aged, juvenile delinquents.’ Why, it was only the other day that…

The CIS is aiding and abetting not only vested interests hoping to gain from the destruction of coal based energy companies. They are also aiding and serving the left and worse than this. Severely humiliated, the CIS is relying on a fan club of treacherous leftists in order to convey the impression that, somehow, they are being unjustly dealt with, and have far greater support than presumed. The CIS Humphreys, and Soon are cowering behind treacherous leftists and their thicko trolls.

There is no question the treacherous left has picked up on the scandal of the CIS pushing for carbon taxes. Contrary to the CIS and Humphreys, the Left realise what the CIS has done. The left is running hard on it. They are thoroughly enjoying it. I can tell, because they are popping up readily on the search engine on it, and all over Humphreys’ and Soon’s blog sites.

I had been curious as to why so many of Humphreys’ and Soon’s supporters read like leftist, Greeny cultists. I realise Humphreys is thicker than a brick, but it seems Soon is economical in telling the truth about where the great support base for their atrocious garbage, and smearing of Jackson comes from. It’s not from Liberals. It’s the Left.

A couple of examples suffice. I noted an oddity concerning Humphreys’ pal, Terje Petersen. Petersen is his fellow not ‘Libertarian’ but as my friend Strider has correctly said, libertine. They both comment on the Libertine’s website. So, fancy this one more almighty defender of liberty(-less libertinism) popping up on a certain site to say this:

The alternative energy crowd tell us that the likes of Kyoto will be good for economic growth. I have little doubt that we will need to build a lot of new alternate assets if we are to change out our energy systems. The health crowd tell us that we need to spend more on research into diseases like AIDS and superbugs. I am sure that production of new medicines will be a lucrative new source of production. And if we are to provide clean water to the poorest people of the world we will need to produce more pumps and plumbing.
There are so many worthy things to be done that all require new production that I am at a loss to see much point in calling for an end to growth.
So long as we measure production in dollars (or yen or gold grams) it tells us next to nothing about the impact on the planet. To understand the impact we need to look at the nature and content of the production. In practice it is sometimes much simpler to just look at what we are consuming and work backward from there.

Now, I don’t have to read Dr. Shostak, nor Jackson, nor a number of (Austrian) economists in other countries I happen to correspond with to work out what they would all say about that load of tripe. What is even funnier is, Terje wrote that tripe in safe company, John Quiggin’s trolls.

I concluded the last item, “The CIS and Greg Lindsay must be flushing hot red“, by remarking on how the CIS has only made a mockery of the true Liberal case, thus serving the left. I hadn’t realised that they, to defend themselves, hopped into bed with the treacherous left.

I wondered why the CIS and Humphreys deliberately ignored what is a very reasonable proposition put by Mr. Jackson:

Considering that Greg Lindsay, executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies, sponsored and published Mr Humphreys’ monograph I believe, given the seriousness of the topic, that it is incumbent on him to publish an article on capital theory and taxation. May I humbly propose Dr Frank Shostak. Frank is a former professor of economics and an Austrian and is therefore amply qualified to fulfil the task.

Instead, Humphreys flung some more smears, distortions and circuitous nonsense, evading some crucial points such as, Jackson has completed demolishing his garbage by neat, meticulous, impeccable (Austrian) classical liberal economic reasoning.

While smearing Mr. Jackson, they realise smearing Dr. Shostak and former Professor of economics at the same time would irritate CIS donors rather more than they already have. This is besides, they know and fear it Dr. Shostak, in view of his work and his items on Brookesnews, would only endorse Mr. Jackson’s analysis. Endorse, because, there is nothing to add to what Jackson has written. Readers can check for themselves, by reading an item by Dr. Shostak that, surprise surprise, does what Mr. Jackson has done, set out the guts of the analysis of capital in a few, accurate strokes:

Saving and wealth creation, Frank Shostak

If that is not bad enough, the plot sickens. I turned to ‘club troppo’, the site of another snivelling leftist called a Ken Parish and what is to be seen?

Jason Soon said:James Farrell, etc - it would actually be quite interesting for you Keynesians to join the conversation on this as well.

I see and so did Farrell. Farrell was slightly reluctant to be Soon’s patsy for the good reason of, it’s Soon’s and his pals’ job to be leftists’ patsies. Farrel, though, did chip in on the troppo leftists’ site with this odd bit of mummery:

James Farrell said:

In reply to Jason at #20:

Thanks for the invitation to join in. I’m just not sure where. The BrookesNews website you linked to doesn’t seem to have a comments threads, and I don’t feel like commenting at Catallaxy as long as naked insults and ridicule are acceptable there.

In any case, I don’t see where ‘Keynesianism’ comes into it, as far as the carbon tax is concerned. There are really ony two issues. The first is whether there is an externality that needs to be limited by government measures. If Jackson belongs to the shrinking rump of AGW denialists, it’s the science he ought be debating with John, not the second, and second-order, issue of what form regulation should take. As far as taxes versus cap-and-and trade is concerned, I’m not much of expert, but the basic micro argument — that they should have much the same effect — makes sense to me. I’m assuming that, under cap-and-trade, rights to pollute would be auctioned rather given away to incumbent firms. In that case either scheme would raise a lot of revenue, which would obviously finance a reduction in some other tax. Replacing consumption taxes would be less regressive than replacing income tax, I would have thought, but you probably don’t care about that.

Making fossil fuels more expensive will obviously reduce GDP and living standards. But the avenues by which this will happen are captured pretty well in the multi-sector models used by researchers in the area, and the magnitudes of the effects depend on elasticities that are best left to the econometricians. I doubt that Jackson, through his reading of Classical Economics, has stumbled on some avenue that these modellers have overlooked. I didn’t try very hard to get to the bottom of what he was saying in that article, but I was struck by the conceit — propogated also by Sincliar in another context — that mainstream economists are all labouring under basic logical fallacies that can only be corrected by reading Mill and Say.

Posted on 04-Mar-08 at 9:08 am

Guys like that make dud light bulbs look sparky. I challenge Farrell and his lefty mates to face Jackson out in public, say, for example, ABC. Quiggin, you see, like Hugh Morgan, puckers up to ABC TV, but unlike Hughie ABC kisses his backside. Quiggles and Fluvia know that on ABC TV Jackson would rip their heads off and thus disabuse their fans of any notion as to how brilliant those two cowards are.

The CIS is not merely protecting vested interests that seek to profit from destructive energy taxes. It is trying to conceal, badly, they have allied themselves with the treacherous left. Humphreys, Soon, and the CIS are pretending not merely to their readers, but to donors, that they are fine upstanding ‘liberals’ when all along they have allied themselves with the treacherous left.The CIS has done so by hiring a couple of moral cretins who, while slandering genuine Liberals, crawl on theoir knees to lying, treacherous leftists and ask, “Please, Sir, can I clean your boots with my fat lying tongue, so that, one day, I will be worthy to pour out your shite?”

To seal it, some Liberal Party silvertails are less than amused by the Libertines. Kroger, Costello, and other rightwing dumbkopfs in wrecking the Liberal Party, also opened the door for the Libertines, who are on the same plane as the ‘watermelon red’ Greens Party, all bonged out.

Worse, the Libertines have been busy trying to convince Liberal voters that the Liberal Party does not repesent Liberalism, but the libertines do. Moreover, in taking genuine Liberal votes, they direct Liberal voters’ preferences straight to leftist candidates. This has some Liberal Party heavies sharpening their machetes.

Look, Lindsay, I merely assumed Humphreys is dense. He has exposed what the CIS is actually doing on carbon taxes. He has written a flimsy paper, which you fully backed, and you pretended no one would notice? You pretended no one would draw the right conclusion; you have produced proganda to paper over the aim. This is shocking.

The CIS’ deception of innocent, genuine Liberal donors, Liberal Party members, and the public is worse than shocking. It is a monstrous deception, by which the CIS has allied itself with treacherous leftists in order to garner support for the CIS, in order to bolster its advocacy of what is a massive criminal fraud.

It is obvious, to say the least, they could not hire direclty a green cult member. Hiring Humphreys to write it was clever. A guy who is a member of a Party that deceives genuine Liberals out of their votes might pull off the big number. Oh, no, dear dear, the Humphrey has Humphreyed the CIS with its own stinking swamp-mud.

To say that lot are absent of a moral compass, is a litote. The intellectual fraud involved, the wicked, unconscionable force of what they are pushing is damning. Then, to realise, on their side and backing them to the hilt, is fan club stuffed with gutless, treacherous leftists, begs the question of how far can that lot sink?

They have not yet, clearly, plumbed the bottom of the stinking gene swamp in which they swim. How is Greg Lindsay going to explain all this to his donors? How can he face genuine Liberals? He bloody well cannot on both counts.

That lot is typical of Australia’s rightwing. They spare no effort in smearing and defaming genuine Liberals, and none in apologising to leftists. None spared in licking the boots of leftists, in making up to them, in sucking up to them, in apologising for even the most inoffensive of comments. Australia’s righwing mirror the left. What a pack of lying hypocrites Humphreys, Soon, and the CIS are.

There they are, defaming fine economists such as Jackson, totally lying about what he wrote, refusing to meet solid, neat economic reasoning with economic reasoning, and all along, they kiss the fat bums of lying, treacherous leftists. Good help might be hard to find, but it’s impossible for the CIS, because, to find the right help you have to be able to recognise it.

And, I might add, Humphreys has been at it again, in the comment box to his own item the “Gerry chronicles”. Now, as I said, I have a few more grenades to throw Lindsay, CIS. Only, it’s a good year’s supply of them at hand.