The CIS and Greg Lindsay must be flushing hot red.
In the last item, I was economical with the truth. In fact Humphreys and the CIS ignored other carbon taxes and their impact too. These carbon taxes were also put in place long before they decided to publish the position paper, in flying cover for vested interests seeking to gain from the destruction of the coal based companies, by Rudd’s Federal carbon taxes. Today, I am posting a number of short items; throwing grenades is an enjoyable past-time.
This item is a response to some interesting notes and questions. On Catallaxy, GMB took up the matter of the CIS’ conflict of interest. GMB asked, as comment 182:
What Douglas of Mangled Thoughts is saying about the CIS?
Is it true? Do they in fact support a carbon tax as an organisation?
Humphreys, and Soon replied.
183. Jason Soon
The guy is an obsessed nutter…Anyone can submit a paper, it is then peer reviewed and if peer review accepts it, it is published. You could submit a paper and have it peer reviewed. Unless you are a CIS employee writing the paper there is no presumption that it reflects the views of the organisation.
That carbon trading link he yammers on about it also absurd. The CIS has lots of people on its board from a range of different industries including resource companies. Humphreys got the idea for the paper without even knowing who Yates is. I know because I’ve discussed the idea with him.184 GMB:Right. But the question I asked was: Does the CIS support a carbon tax as an organisation?
They can always come on out disavow any such idea.
Soon continued the evasion, and does an Humphrey too by adding a few insults. As Soon sank further into the mire, Humphreys wrote late in the piece:
204. John Humphreys : GMB the CIS hasn’t taken a position on the AGW debate and they think their time is generally better served on other issues.
Ah, wrong! The CIS fully backs the paper. They only advertised the fact in their publication. Desparate, Jason latched onto a comment by JC (234), which was actually a barb against leftist Lambert:
235. Jason Soon : Spot on JC. That was exactly what I was referring to.
No, you were not Soon. It didn’t occur to you until you read that comment by JC. All your previous entries make that plain. You took it up as an escape hatch. Well, it didn’t open.
Their refusal to answer GMB’s question first up, is the answer, as GMB also observed. Mr. Lindsay, your friends have just ratted on you. Oh, stressing the rider is dissembling, a misleading of the readers of Catallaxy because, the paper is fully endorsed by the CIS. The rider is, certainly in this case, meaningless.
Humphreys dissembled again on the matter of Mr. Yates and his interest in the pseudo-business, Peony. This is a governance matter. Even before Federal ‘companies’ Acts’, just in common law, companies can be very cautious about directors who might have a conflict of interest in matters that can prove detrimental to the company.
Those directors, if the counter interest is restricted, have been required to absent themselves from discussion, negotiations and final decisions in such instances. Others have been required to resign from boards. This can apply right down the line.
I recollect from the 1960’s and 1970’s majors dragged into nasty court actions, seeking to extract a slab of flesh from each other.Those cases did not proceed to court, the parties settling beforehand, for one reason.
The confrontations lead to the identification of an employee, who was the cause of the trouble, because that employee had a conflict of interest. Those employees were sacked. They included, interestingly, sales staff.
Despite the very few who have tried, in reality, most employees of companies and corporations are honest. The reason is simple: their reputations are at stake, thus their current job, and their future prospects. Honour counts.
Parliamentarians are required to declare their interests, and are required to absent themselves from Committees when treating matters in which an MPs interests are involved. In the case of MPS, however, I?m not sure it makes much difference given they readily tax and strangle sound things while funneling funds into, eg., ethanol, windmills, and solar frauds.
Coupled with Humphreys’s and Soon’s confirmation the CIS is in fact working for certain interests who hope to be enriched through the destruction of energy companies, the matter can no longer be evaded by the CIS. Neither can they evade the question of Yates’ obvious conflict of interest. It might turn out to be only a perception of interest, and not a factual one, but the smoke fills the sky.
If the conflict of interest is merely perceptual, this still does not alter the fact; the paper is the CIS’s position paper. It is advocating a tax on energy. It is doing so, by using the lie that man causes no longer ‘global warming’, but ‘climate change’ as the excuse, for advocating what is nothing less than criminal fraud mounted on a massive scale.
I say, GMB, that was good work winkling that damning admission out of them. Lindsay must be in flames from flushing hot red; seems good help for the CIS is hard to come by these days.
Humphreys has called me a coward for not answering his risible, fallacious question. He keeps harping on it like a parrot interminably screeching out, “Polly wants a cracker”:
Which do you prefer ? a high fuel tax and no electricity tax? or a low fuel tax and a low electricity tax?
Stop rambling churkey. Just answer.
Heres’ the cracker, Polly. Humphreys must be blind, for it is clear it has not occurred to him I have been answering his question, but to muse a bit more:
A tax on electricity is a tax not simply on energy, but the production of energy, and, the crucial grave matter, a tax on capital required to produce energy. It is capital destruction. Imposing a carbon tax on petrol is the same.
Humphreys question poses a false dilemma, illuminated per reductio ad absurdum: How would you prefer being stabbed to death: with a carving knife or a pitchfork. A sane man would simply, if capable of it, physically put an end to the murderer, or run away.
Humphreys, apparently, would do neither. He would stand there and figure out which implement he prefers to be stabbed to death with. And, this is what the fight against ‘carbon taxes’ is about, not standing their waiting to be stabbed to death, but kicking in the heads of those out to ’stab to death’ capital and millions of Australians. What do we see the CIS and Humpreys doing?
Contrary to their claim to be free market economists and fighters for liberty, they are on the side of those bent on economic carnage and wiping out Liberty. Carbon taxation, energy taxation entails both. Brilliant, just brilliant.
There is one more question in need of a response.
observer wrote:
Douglas you silly silly man…You’re giving Humphreys a renewed boost of publicity that it hasn’t had for a while? But keep up with all the free publicity anyway, you dope
How many read the HR Nicholl?s papers? Precisely; their readership is most likely far lower than for the vapid IPA Review. The crux is who reads them, and that they advise cabinets and MPs. What did they do?
They only wrecked the campaign for labour market reform. With that, they ensured the defeat of the Liberal Party last year. Worse, they brought about the 2007 election defeat in 2005, when Hugh Morgan puckered up to ABC’s cameras. ACTU research, in 2005 merely confirmed it. Lastly, they greatly damaged the high moral ground of free markets. The ACTU knows this, and so do their treacherous leftist buddies.
Janet Albrechtsen and Andrew Bolt have also wreaked great damage to the great cause of classical Liberalism.
The CIS just doesn’t publish papers for the fun of it. It is paid to act for the cause of classical liberalism, and for donors who hire them to fight govts. over grave matters, to advise Govt.’ and canvas governments. The CIS is doing exactly what the HRS Nicholls Society, and the IPA, have done, wrecking the great cause of classical Liberalism. They are not simply handing the Left victory after victory; they are doing what the fight for labour market reform showed:
They are turning many voters against classical liberalism. They are discrediting it because of not mere inept defence of classical liberalism. They are doing it by getting it entirely wrong and in that, making a complete mockery of it. This is why attacking the CIS over their atrocious conduct in this matter is not some whimsy. It must be done, and done ruthlessly because nothing less will do.
John Humphreys wrote:
oh dear… “d” has dug a hole for himself.
to quote the retard: A tax on electricity is a tax not simply on energy, but the production of energy, and, the crucial grave matter, a tax on capital required to produce energy. It is capital destruction. Imposing a carbon tax on petrol is the same.
So a petrol tax is just as bad. Therefore a tax swap between the two would have negligable net impact. Bingo!
Now… we currently have high fuel tax and low electricity tax. I have suggested cutting the fuel tax and increasing the electricity tax to make the equal. “d”, Gerry & GMB say that my option would lead to a catastrophy. Therefore, they are saying that the current system is better.
In other words — “d” supports a high fuel tax!!
I expect another 4000 words on this issue by tomorrow you anonymous coward.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 2:33 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
Stop this jive about theft-neutrality as justification and address my many supplementary arguments.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 2:40 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
theft-neutrality isn’t the justification… it’s the explaination for why my proposal is better than the other ones being considered.
do you agree?
would you be willing to agree with the following:
“john’s proposal is crap because it doesn’t cut tax and it doesn’t cut spending… all it does is shuffle deck-chairs on the titanic… but at least it’s better than all those other crappy proposals that actually make the situation much worse”
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
CONSIDERED BY WHOM???
Why weren’t you coming up with the best proposal you could?
You could have mentioned in passing that carbon tax…. HATEFUL AND POXY THOUGH IT IS is a little bit less poxy then cap and trade.
Why did you not do this instead?
What you came up with was totally prosaic as analysis on that basis. OF COURSE cap and trade is even worse. Thats obvious.
You promoted the global warming fraud and Kyoto. Thats what you did and there can be no denying it. You did this on the basis of triangulation, betrayal and CO2-bedwetting fears.
If the above is not true then why did you not do what I did? Admit that though carbon tax is appalling cap and trade is still worse!!!!
You did not do this. You promoted the whole fraud. And you cannot fool me on this because you’ve always tried to scam the scientific side of things as well.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 1:27 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
considered by whom? do you really not know? are you really that stupid?
considered by the government of course. I hope you’ve heard of the government before. Do you know that we have a government in australia?
you say that carbon trading is obviously worse… but the reality is that trading is by far the most likely outcome as it’s supported by the ALP, the Liberals and the greens. Therefore, it is extremely relevant to make the point that there are better alternatives.
GMB — either you understand this now, or you’re an idiot. We will likely end up with carbon trading. And you will share the blame for that outcome.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 8:36 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
There is never any need to support bad policy!!!
So why didn’t you say what I’ve always said? A pox on both these measures. They are both horrible. Cap and Trade being even worse.
That was my position. So how did your position end up being different from mine?
And here we get to treason to our movement. You pushing the thin end of the wedge in to the great praise of the leftist enemy. And we get also to your unresolved CO2-bedwetting fears.
The first argument that you were constantly evading wasn’t your unreason in economics. It was the scientific argument. You refused to come up with any evidence.
Once again. Why did you promote this crap? When you could have taken the same position as me?
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:37 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
to repeat: you say that carbon trading is obviously worse… but the reality is that trading is by far the most likely outcome as it’s supported by the ALP, the Liberals and the greens. Therefore, it is extremely relevant to make the point that there are better alternatives.
Either come up with a response to this point… or admit that you’re secretly supporting a carbon trading system.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:42 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
No get to work on engaging the arguments.
You wound up supporting the side that will give us cap and trade. What you are saying is simply irrelevant. You jammed the thin end of the wedge in for the left. You surely did it knowingly and in accordance with CO2-bedwetting fears and fraudulent science.
Why did you do this? And why didn’t I? Its because you supported the environmentalist fraud and I opposed them.
Now you have my arguments there. Start going to work on them.
Here they are again. I’m repeating in an effort to attempt to stop you from being evasive. If you are evasive one more time, you ought to then just admit it that you were unable to beat these arguments of mine:
1. Industrial-CO2 is a positive externality. There’s no getting around that.
2. A carbon-tax will fall more fully on productive expenditure than just about any other tax as Gerry points out.
3. A carbon-tax may lead to malinvestment. So its a massive exercise in deliberately “picking losers”.
4. A carbon-tax will lead to a reduction in reinvestment in energy production.
5. It is in fact a tax on energy production IN THE MIDDLE OF AN IMPENDING ENERGY CRISIS. A crisis not caused by inherent lack of fuel, but by enforced deprivation of energy-producing capital.
6. Our hydro-carbon energy resources are fundamentally carbon-rich and hydrogen-poor. So our next move is away from using gasoline and natural gas and towards using more coal and heavy fuels. So the carbon-tax sits directly on top of our adaptation efforts. Its about the worst tax imagineable at this time in our energy history.
No-one twisted your arm and forced you to promote the goals of the science fraud. The fact is that if we are successful we will be emitting massively MORE CO2 in 2050 and not 70% less.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:49 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
to repeat: you say that carbon trading is obviously worse… but the reality is that trading is by far the most likely outcome as it’s supported by the ALP, the Liberals and the greens. Therefore, it is extremely relevant to make the point that there are better alternatives.
Either come up with a response to this point… or admit that you’re secretly supporting a carbon trading system.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:54 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
It an idiotic and irrelevent point. THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO THE POINT.
You sold out. You’re a traitor. To recognise that a tax is slightly less worse than a cap and trade is NOT to do what you did.
You actively promoted this fraud.
You sold out.
You sold out in the most harmful way from the point of view of triangulating from an alleged libertarian position.
You sold out you filthy creep.
You didn’t do what I did and in passing note that while both were horrid put-upons one was even worse then the other.
You did not do this.
You betrayed your adopted country and sold out to the left. You didn’t even do it for money. But for the sick narcissistic benefit of getting something in print.
Those morons, Hamilton and Quiggin released their petition just after you sold out. You closed down the argument on Thoughts on Freedom.
Then you sold out again during the election.
You are traitor. And an unrepentant traitor. And you could not have done what you did without being an irrational CO2-bedwetter.
Now repent you filth.
My position is not the same as yours. To recognise that some forms of cancer can be worse under some circumstances than malaria is not to promote malaria.
You sold out and you promoted THE FRAUD ITSELF.
You are just filth mate.
You are a traitor.
Your argument is irrational and politically naieve. Your argument holds no logic value at all.
Your monograph was nihilisitic because it took the point of view of advocating bad policy. Its just disgusting Humphreys, what you did.
And you ought to have seen a psychiatrist to help you deal with your gutless CO2-bedwetting irrationality before you so much as sat down to type your anti-economics idiocy.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 5:34 pm | Permalink
Jeff wrote:
Obviously, Bird supports carbon trading. I don’t know why John even feels the need to mention it.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
Well this is obviously a lie spammer. Like everything about you environmentalists its a convenient lie. This was convenient for me at least since Humphreys was bugging me to come up with a lie that he had told. And this was the convenient lie.
These people aren’t into inconvenient truths. Thats the first lie in the film. They are about convenient lies.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 7:57 pm | Permalink
Jeff wrote:
Given John gave you a chance to earn an honest living as a politician by letting you run on the LDP ticket, why don’t you show the man some respect, you disgusting market-hating socialist?
You haven’t posted a single coherent response to Andrew Reynolds on the fractional reserve banking thread. He defeated you and exposed your socialism for all to see. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
Jeff wrote:
Join the Green Team, Graeme.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
Because he’s acting like a traitor-jerk. He’s got to learn some economics, do something about his narcissism problem, stop wanting to play to the cheering crowds on the left, and start doing the right thing for his adopted country, or think about going home.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 8:51 pm | Permalink