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.