Mangled Thoughts

A rumour that has not been denied has bearing on the CIS’ atrocious position on carbon taxes. The smell of a conflict of interest is strengthening. The rumour is explosive. In all this, who turns up? Sinclair Davidson. Greg Lindsay et al have retreated behind bolted doors in their clubhouse aka CIS HQ. It seems like they brought out their lone gun, Professor Sinclair Davidson to cover them.

I am fully aware of, for obvious reasons, Davidson’s connection to the IPA. Entering the fray, he made a very odd comment, followed with a few more oddities. Wishing to read more by Davidson, Google threw up the the Davidson- CIS connection.

Why was Sinclair defending an atrociously bad paper, and helping Humphreys? The CIS link is the answer. It is a scandal, and it is hurting the CIS. It is clear to thousands of readers that Humphreys and many of his supporters do not have a clue about capital theory, nor Austrian theory and certainly not Austrian theory of capital. Enter stage left one Professor Davidson to the rescue – what, another one!

The nail in the coffin is the question of their conflict of interest. Mr. Yates as also a Director of Peony has a direct interest. This is not a trivial matter. The rumour looks bad for the CIS.

Then, there is the common denominator between the CIS, the IPA, HR Nicholls Society, and Melbourne’s rightwing, who have thoroughly wrecked the Victorian Liberal Party, it’s called a Hugh Morgan. Now we have a second, common denominator, it is called a Professor Sinclair Davidson.

The first link has a chain attached to it called the Ron Walker-Hugh Morgan Nuclear Power Company. To date, I am unaware of any other nuclear power company in Victoria or anywhere else. This is very important. Before proceeding with this unamusing rumour, a few more questions of Professor Sinclair are in order.

Catallaxy, comment 39 by Professor Sinclair Davidson:

Graeme - unlike you I understand Gerry Jackson’s argument. I just don’t understand how his rant in any way is a critique of the very carefully narrowly construed argument John H. made.

What? Let’s step this out:

1.He “understands” Mr. Jackson’s case but calls it a ‘rant’.

If it were a rant, it would be incoherent, unintelligible nonsense. The speeches of Hitler, Castro, and Gueverra were rants. So, if it were a rant, what is it he understood but nothing at all.

2. Since it is not a rant, because he understood it then he cannot ignore what many readers can see for themselves; Jackson’s articles are a solid analytical assessment of what the CIS, not merely Humphreys, is pushing.

It is important to stress, incisive analysis, as opposed to that nonsense of “critique”.

3. Humphreys’ paper is narrow; because, taken with all else he has said it is obvious he doesn’t have a grip on what he is nominally expert on. It shows in the absence of capital theory, the complete lack of grip on Austrian economics and, crucially, the Austrian theory of capital. This lacunae is reflected in his outright failure to meet Jackson’s demolition of the case with well reasoned arguments. It shows; he is all over the place on the matter.

In fact, Sinclair admits this, because that comment, 39, is double-handed. It warns Humphreys to stop – “I understand” and the implied “you don’t Humphrey” is as sun glare hitting the peepers.

4. If Sinclair considers Jackson’s case is in error, then why does he not demonstrate it with a reasoned response? He doesn’t.

5 Following Sinclair, then anyone who rants is yet not ranting. And, someone who isn’t ranting is yet ranting.

6. Is Sinclair a ranter?

So, we have a Professor, who leaves his RMIT shelter to defend the indefensible. Thus risking his reputation, he compounds the risk by saying “I understand Gerry Jackson’s argument” but it is a “rant”. Is this the conduct of a Professor?

He says he understands Jackson’s case and yet he dismisses it without explanation. This is the fallacy of asserting the conclusion, Jackson’s case is trivial, when he demonstrated no such thing at all, and has not in all his subsequent comments to date. To indicate, as an example:

as comment 59: …Fiddling with Hayekian triangles doesn’t allow anyone to measure the marginal costs of the taxes. Until I’ve seen the numbers being crunched I’m happy to reserve judgement.

Far from being reasonable, Sinclair smeared a fine economist. That is what he has done, and it is unmistakably clear that that is what he has done. He dismisses Jackson’s case by smearing that too. This from a Professor who, presumably, is engaged in the quest for truth, through economics?

What obviously has upset that lot in the CIS is a common rightwing affliction. They have never engaged in debate and defended their claims, and they do not do not believe they should have to - not even with genuine Liberals. This attitude was typified by Morgan, Evans and Moore. They did not believe they had to convince voters of labour market reform. They expected voters to be gobsmacked by their ‘wisdom’ and obey. I was gobsmacked, so were ACTU bosses, and many genuine Liberals too:

We were all gobsmacked. For, how could that lot of arrogant, incompetent ingoramuses have been entrusted with such a grave cause. Voters were not gobsmacked; they fled the Liberal Party.

They are a closed group. A party line is fixed, they all obey, and expect all else to obey. Being a closed loop, there is no feedback to check them, nor induce them to check what they are doing. This is not intellectual engagement; it is intellectual sclerosis and blackout. It shows out in why they are so ineffectual in fighting the left.

Back to Professor Sinclair Davidson.

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 to the CIS? The answer is, Sinclair has been mounting arguments for carbon taxes all along.

The IPA search threw up this gem:

Thumping the Table:Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’ Sinclair Davidson, Chris Berg

It is bad. Firstly, it seems to me they are asserting Australia doesn’t need manufacturing. This dismissal of what is of grave concern to many Australian’s is offensive enough. Capital structure? It’s not mentioned at all.

Senator Carr has indicated that ‘ship building, automotives, pharmaceuticals, information technology and green-house abating technologies’ were all sectors worthy of policy…

These industries all require massive financial investment. Where will the money come from? The tax burden is already very high, and the budget surplus already under some strain. Will a Rudd government take money from middle-income families and give it to industrialists?

A the end, Sinclair and Berg slipped this in:

In 1998-99, the energy-intensive manufacturing industry accounted for 26% of primary energy consumption and 34% of electricity consumption. Greenhouse gas emissions the artificial stimulation of manufacturing will have a corresponding increase in greenhouse gas emissions, both directly from the processes of ‘making things’, and indirectly, from the increases of electricity use in these sectors.

If, as the Opposition Leader has stated, ‘the science is in’ on climate change, this government-stimulated increase in greenhouse gas emissions would seem to be counter with Labor’s climate change policy. Conversely, if industry policy is to be coupled with explicit measures to reduce harmful emissions, such as carbon taxes or trading arrangements, or mandatory emission reduction technologies, then this added burden on manufacturing would seem to be against the desire to encourage Australian industry. It is beholden to Federal Labor to detail how these two seemingly disparate and irreconcilable policy areas can coexist under a Labor government.

“Making things” is an immature expression. It conveys the false sense of capital and production are some little, homey cottage industry, which if wiped out it won’t matter at all.

How interesting. I see what they mean. To avoid total devestation, something has to be done, but what? Gee, I can’t guess right now, but the answer is coming very soon. No, they already gave it, in the CIS paper.

It is important, I suppose, to build a case for carbon taxes, though it rests on a pack of fallacies, nonsense and the lie of man causing global warming, for the destruction of manufacturers too. Carbon is the building block of life. Science does count as much as economics in this very serious matter, for the ‘anti-co2′ brigade are running against science. The CIS has decided to promote what are cultic beliefs and not science, as the excuse to run the carbon tax push.

It is very interesting they slipped this in in view of what they said on manufacturing.

Could the CIS be involved in a major scandal and trying to cover it up?

The position of the CIS is undeniable. It is pushing hard for the imposition of a carbon tax, pumping out propaganda to secure this, ably assisted by their chums in the IPA.

The rumour is this:

A company in Victoria is currently preparing land for a development. This development will be the building of a nuclear power plant. The evidence is this:

Some local chaps overheard employees of the company discussing this. Those employees are engaged in preparing the land for the plant build. The locals heard them discussing what their jobs are in preparing the land for a nuclear power plant. The rumour has not been denied, and the evidence doesn’t seem to bad at all; it is, on the report, from first hand witnesses.

I am aware of only one nuclear power company in Victoria. It’s the Ronnie and Hughie ‘Nuke the coal industry’ power “company”. I might be wrong. There might be another, but this doesn’t alter the substance of what is involved.

In Victoria the Govt. has such a stranglehold over energy companies they cannot blink without it recorded, licenced, taxed, and regulated by Cabinet. It’s the same for land usage these days too. For a company to begin preparing the land for construction yields the inference: the principals behind the ‘company’ are in negotiations with bureaucrats and politicians.

Since a nuclear plant is not economic, requires subsidisation and coal plants destroyed, it requires negotiations with the Federal government too. It’s a must because it is political dynamite type matter for the Federal Govt. Further, negotiations are required in order to secure Federal carbon taxes and subsidies.

Morgan and Walker launched their ‘company’ early last year, and as everyone in Victoria knows, Ronnie is bosom buddies with those leftist thugs inhabiting the Treasury benches, Spring St. His mate, Bracks, curiously enough, is now also an adviser to Rudd.

We know what Walker and Morgan want, and we know what the CIS has published. This is besides Yates and his Peony interest, which will turn to gold in Australia once Rudd rams down his carbon tax.

I have said it before, right at the start, there is smoke pouring out of the CIS clubhouse. They have to be scrutinised. For while they smear fine economists such as Jackson, we have these little problems:

1. They assert as true the lie man causes climate change, that human CO2 is the villain and must be cut. These are lies, but they are also an excuse to justify massive capital destruction, as well as other vile developments.

2. They happily contemplate overthrow of private property rights, and the coerced destitution of many Australians.

3 They push for ‘alternative energy’ and what is meant is a nuclear power plant; they have made this clear.

4. They happily push for the transfer of billions of dollars of stolen private property into a company. Right now, there is only one company seeking that: the Hughie – Ronnie company.

That lot has the hide to smear Jackson and others when that is what their position is: nothing less than the perpetration of a massive fraud.

This is truly amazing. The CIS did not declare the Yates’ conflict of interest. Humphreys did not declare his conflict of interest as an LDP candidate; one of the LDP’s major planks is the imposition of a carbon tax. This partly explains why Humphreys chums are not debating the matter; their comments show what they are actually on about:”We are going to impose it on you, full stop”. They are the words of not Liberals. They are the words of authoritarians.

Sinclair isn’t facing up to a problem: the monstrous position the CIS has taken, against a backdrop of developments and one Director. The position of the CIS looks very bad.

In the face of what he is backing, Sinclair and his pals owe genuine Liberal donors to the IPA and CIS an explanation, and the Australian public an explanation.

They owe all a deep apology. They owe a profound penitential act of denouncing what the carbon tax is, a massive criminal fraud to be perpetrated against Australians, one which requires authoritarian force to impose it.

They have the hide to smear genuine Liberals!

That lot are a pack of bastards