Mangled Thoughts

That is what ‘Industry Policy’ is, and it destroyed, thankfully, the Soviet regime.

Reagan, though, did give it a ruddy good shove over the cliff with the arms build up - the expense of keeping up with the Might of the United States finished off the rubble that diseased Leftists hailed as the miracle economy. Yet this only agrees with the rule, central planning, besides involving increasing absolutism, has only one conclusion, economic annihilation.

Last week, Senator Abetz, leading the Liberal Party, believed he had Kim “Il” Carr’s number over the contraction in manufacturing. Not one of them, Abetz, Turnbull, Bishop, the CIS and IPA, can connect it to keynesian arsenic and this is damnable as it is. They seem to believe the decline in manufacturing only commenced under Rudd, Swann and Carr, in the last few weeks.

Abetz accused Carr of poor industry policy, driven by even lousier advice, and called upon him to implement stronger measures. Needless to say, Carr thanked Abetz for his question, profusely and then observed, a year in Office only is hardly sufficient time for his policies to bite, and that, since it is his first term as ‘industry’ minister, some early errors are natural. He will perfect, he continued, industry policy. He then went on the offensive, stating and with an element of stinging truth to it that the Coalition had 12 years in Office to do something about manufacturing. I will be posting the text of the exchange from Hansard, but for now this summary of it suffices.

Some readers will spot the trouble, unlike Abetz. Abetz only witlessly called for far more exhaustive Soviet style central planning and to be implemented quicker than perhaps Kim “Il” Carr feels brave enough to stomach (electorally). One thing is clear, how ignorant and thick the “Right” is has not yet been plumbed, the bottom of the ocean of stupidity is not yet in sight. Carr, naturally, was delighted with such a coperative question.

It’s not simply the arrogance of “Rightwing” MPs and their staff advisers. It’s also the advice they receive from the think tanks that is not only destroying major, grave, causes and their is non greater than the fight for free markets - by definition, capitalism. The HR Nicholls Society, the Institute of Public Affairs, and the Centre for Independent Studies, have each caused grave dmamge and carnage and to cap it off, they do not give a stuff about the impact of it on Australians. The CIS amplifies the contempt in its lobbying for economic destruction day through Co2 taxes.

We have to turn to them, the clunker tanks, in order to explain Abetz’s stupidity. It is they who paved the way for Soviet style central planning under Rudd and Kim “Il” Carr.

A matter of months in office only and the Cabinet was already making it plain they are out to destroy free markets and impose central planning. What did the “Right” have to say? Nothing then and nothing now. It is clear why they don’t see anything wrong with it because they are economic voids. Indeed, under Howard the “Right” within Cabinet, and their clunker tanks had pushed much prepared the way for what Rudd and Carr about to do, immiserate millions of Australians by central planning. Now we see Abetz demanding it be imposed rapidly and exhaustively!

The Opposition’s position is not accidental. Though illiterates, they have great ‘intellectless’ support and here is the telling paper, by Professor Sinclair Davidson and Chris Berg:

Thumping the Table: Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’ (IPA).

The paper is badly written, soporific, immature, superficial, and also calls for carbon tax destruction day. These two geniuses, Davidson and Berg, effectively demanded Kim “Il” Carr impose “Industry Policy”. In the process, to remind readers again, they dismissed production as nothing more than a trivial home cottage knitting needle exercise that won’t be missed if it is wiped out. When I showed it to heavy-weights in industry their reaction was automatic - shock, disgust, and more than a mild dose of irritation.

Due to the seriousness of what Davidson and Berg put, Jackson criticised the paper, as he mentions in the beginning of a devestating article:

Is monetary policy destroying the country’s manufacturing base?

To repeat some of my previous remarks on Jackson’s paper:

1. The clear concern in the paper is not simply the damage money creation (which is inflation) does. The concern is also the capital structure in Australia might be less than is assumed.

2. Secondly, it is plain that Jackson is working within a framework of relative prices. Davidson does not; he works from aggregates. Monetary expansion disrupts the framework of prices which informs and guides entrepreneurs and thus this does the damage.

3. In launching into the paper, Professor (economics) Sinclair Davidson did not consider the inverse of the J Curve. The J Curve is true, so its inverse must be true. Jackson raised the inverse as a consideration in his paper and that, ladies and gentleman turned the paper, already a solid demolition of the Davidson-Berg Paper, into a devestating, shocking exposure of what those two clowns set out.

Consider it, there are those who are saying the recession will follow the J curve. Ohers are coming up with novelties such as v curves - heck, why not a w but let’s pass over this nonsense. With none I’ve listened to so far has it gelled that the inverse of the J curve is a possibility. To repeat, when I mentioned it to a CEO, his jaw dropped.

Well, we now face an imminent danger from the Rudd Cabinet, before carbon taxes, on the strength of central planning, through Kim “Il” Carr. It’s due to the “Right”:

That Davidson and Berg did not nail the contraction in manufacturing to keynesian snakeoil is not a failure on their part. To say so is to assume they made an effort to come to grips with the cause, and this assumes some level of intellectual activity occurs within whatever resides in their craniums. No, there is nothing there, and so there can be no economic grip, as their fascile dismissal of manufacturing makes plain. They don’t have a clue about what they pontificated on.

In failing to nail the problem, they showed the complement, not even a hint of what the cure for arsenic poisoning is. Keep this in plain view - the work of recessions is to wipe out malinvestments. It means good capital wasted, and unemployment, but it’s part of the cure (the RBA and its officers have a lot to answer for). What do these two geniuses make of it all? They play games, “footsies”, with the concerns of adults.

In their stupidity, missing the nail that would seal a coffin, they compounded their grotesque errors by proceeding to call for “Industry Policy”, again bereft of any suggestion of a clue as to what it means, the destruction of capital and immiseration of Australians. Given the response of these two buffoons to Jackson’s paper, they also exhibited the “Right’s” contempt for Australians. The “Right” do not give a fig about the impact on Australians of rotten measures, the carnage they cause.

Thus, Kim “Il” Carr knows it is safe for Rudd and him to proceed with the imposition of Soviet style central planning. Abetz made it plain it is safe for them to proceed, because Abetz and the other idle bludgers occupying
precious Liberal seats are ignorant and kept in ignorance because they are briefed on economics by the clunker tanks. Abetz’s performance is a fitting tribute to his tutors, Professor Sinclair Davidson and Chris Berg.

Berg’s and Andrew “Andy Pandy”Kemp’s development was arrested in infancy. It pains me to agree with a diseased Lefist, it is very painful, but on this I cannot fault John Quiggin who has observed Professor Sinclair Davidson is as nearly retarded as those two kids. I mean to say, Davidson is so hot he couldn’t even identify the point to the Laffer Curve, which Rudd and Swann, and States’ Cabinets are busily defying to the ruination of millions of Australians.