Comment on “Industry Policy Is Absolutely Essential”

Unbelieveable stuff from a self-described libertarian. Next he’ll be railing against free trade. Oh, wait…


29 Responses to “Comment on “Industry Policy Is Absolutely Essential””

  1. graemebird Says:

    Communists like Z are using the phrase “Industry Policy” in order to prevent liberty. Hence we libertarians are forced to claim the phrase. Even though in the past it has been associated with trade barriers, subsidies and politicians affecting to be capitains of industry.

    Now naturally no libertarian industry policy can include any of the above. Libertarian Industry Policy simply relates to Ad Hoc programs to grant the effective benefits of property rights where the possibility of providing instant liberty doesn’t present itself.

    The idea of leftists and bonehead neoclassicals fixating on a phrase as opposed to the meaning behind it reinforces my disdain for these mental midgits. But there is no use dwelling on the stupidity of such people. The fact is that there blatant demonstrations of idiocy are powerfully effective in their ability to obstruct understanding and debate.

  2. Lyam Says:

    Bla bla bla Graeme feels persecuted bla bla bla.
    Bla bla bla Birdy thinks he and only he sees bla bla.
    Bla bla bla respect Birdy’s liberty whilst doing what he wants bla bla bla.

    Get to the point Birdy

  3. graemebird Says:

    Its just bizzare what these leftists do. They know that old-time industry policy was about subsidies, compulsion, tariffs and the like. They know thats not what I’m talking about. Yet apparently all the odiousness of the old-time industry policy is IN THE PHRASE ITSELF…….

    Truly we are dealing with a shocking new level of mindlessness billowing out into our society.

    The odiousness IN THE PHRASE ITSELF.

    The craziness of the environmentalists apparently invested WITHIN THE PHRASE PEAK OIL.

    Word-magic from primitive degenerates.

  4. Lyam Says:

    Bla bla bla Graeme feels persecuted bla bla bla.
    Bla bla bla Birdy thinks he and only he sees bla bla.
    Bla bla bla respect Birdy’s liberty whilst doing what he wants bla bla bla.

    Get to the point Birdy

  5. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:


    Your industry policy is about subsidies.

    I don’t want my business taxed excessively because the govt thinks it would be a good idea to set up some dumbarsed fish farm.

    I mean that is so fucking stupid. Irredeemably stupid.

    It’s a fucking Stalinist tax.

  6. Mark Hill Says:


    Your ideas and your rhetoric look comical. It is like you come from bizzaro world.

    Man up and admit you are a pinko jerk who has been given the task to infiltrate and embarrass the libertarian movement with distinctly anti-freedom ideas.

    “Now naturally no libertarian industry policy can include any of the above. Libertarian Industry Policy simply relates to Ad Hoc programs to grant the effective benefits of property rights where the possibility of providing instant liberty doesn’t present itself.”

    But he’s against a revenue neutral carbon tax (the atmosphere has no effective property rights) where mitigation has a net benefit [admittedly that’s never been proven] and the tax is the best possible solution…Jesus H Christ…

  7. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme is also against free capital flows.

  8. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Graeme, where you aware that the word “libertarian” is based on the word “liberty”? What does liberty mean to you? Does it mean being compelled by state action to fund someone else’s fish farm?

  9. Lyam Says:


    A great opportunity a true libertarian entrepreneur like you shouldn’t miss.


    It’s a chance of a lifetime Birdy, you could become the Rockefeller of biodiesel!

  10. graemebird Says:

    My opponents base their whole case on lies. Nowhere would I be advocating subsidies. So really thats the end of this argument until the lying stops.

  11. Mark Hill Says:

    “My opponents base their whole case on lies.”

    No that’s bullshit.

    “Nowhere would I be advocating subsidies. ”

    You play the leftist definition changing game for subsidies and then call something fraud when it isn’t fraud, but when you think it should be fraud (the social utility being based on a debunked mutant offshoot of a decent theory).

  12. graemebird Says:

    Look what we have here with these idiots. They know that there is no way to homestead ocean territory without political favouritism. They know that fishing is basically hunter-gathering. They know that fish-farming is currently getting subsidies. They know that there are fishing bans currently in place.

    So they ought to know that the conclusions of their models don’t apply here. But still they insist that tax exemptions are not allowed. Why? No answer! Just a mindless tribal position.

    We see that things are like this all the way down the line. Medicine, Education, power generation, money and banking. All of these subject to an anti-capitalistic environment which cannot be righted in timely fashion by passive libertarian pietism.

    The Feds cannot dictate policy to the states and local government. Nor ought we hope for such centralism. So we cannot expect any government to come in and magically restore property rights. Hence the only way to go is with industry policy. Which I would define as ad hoc programs to restore a property rights environment in a given area.

  13. graemebird Says:

    No Mark. Tax exemptions are not subsidies and cannot be made that way through your intellectual incompetence.

  14. Mark Hill Says:

    Ah but Graeme, you can make something that is not fraud – fraud. Because you believe there is no difference between ought and is in your mind.

    For your next trick, please try to put your credibility back together after we’ve sawn that poor assistant to pieces.

    “They know that there is no way to homestead ocean territory without political favouritism. ”

    What the fuck are wrong with auctions Graeme? Please tell us how you’ve debunked price theory once more.

    We’ll nominate you for the Nobel soon. And I’ve got a hot date with Princess Madeline. Honest.

  15. John Humphreys Says:

    I don’t even know what Graeme is saying because I couldn’t be bothered reading his crap, but I’m fairly sure it’s wrong.

  16. Lyam Says:

    Well basically, it’s central planning using land allocation and tax credit to attract private capital. In other words: fascism without the pagan cultism.

  17. graemebird Says:

    Look Humphreys you are an idiot. Whenever you and I have disagreed you’ve always been wrong and this will be no exception.

    Remember you are so totally ignorant of economics you imagine that a carbon tax is a consumer excise. That is blinding ignorance and idiocy. You ought to have your economics degree stripped from you. You are an embarrassment.

  18. Mark Hill Says:

    “In other words: fascism without the pagan cultism.”

    What about the mystical way he teaches kids economics?

    “Kong Solomon, ritualised prostitution and paradigm shift”

    “For the love of Allah and big busted blonde virgins”

    “If only we kidnapped and married the good looking Arab girls”

    I dunno. There has got to be some strory in that.

    John’s tax would be a consumer excise. The burden of taxation would fall on both consumers and producers, but mostly on consumers. The supply of fossil fuels is elastic. The demand for them isn’t perfectly inelastic but much more inelastic. You can figure this out in three seconds if you knew what you were talking about.

    The joke is that you “strip” people of Bachelors, Honours, Masters and Doctorates, but have never clearly earned any degree yourself.

  19. graemebird Says:

    No his tax is a targeted tax on industrial investment. In no way a consumer excise.

  20. graemebird Says:

    What is appalling about this is that the tax was conceived at a time when it could still be believed that the environmentalist bullshit still had some merit to it. I myself might have supported it were that still the case. When the science tells you that this is bullshit the policy ought to change right away. Without delay. But no. Where the ego is involved new excuses just get made for a policy built on bullshit science.

  21. Mark Hill Says:

    ” graemebird Says:

    March 2, 2009 at 8:29 am
    No his tax is a targeted tax on industrial investment. In no way a consumer excise.”


    Draw a supply schedule with a gradient of about 1/4.

    Draw a demand schedule with a gradient of about -4.

    Here we have a rough representation of the market for energy.

    Now draw the market price and quantity. Now note the producer surplus udner the price, and the consumer surplus above the price.

    Now apply the tax, for graphical purposes 1/3 to 1/2 way up the demand curve above the market price, and mark out the new price and quantity (post tax).

    There should be a large triangle (a) consisting of two smaller triangles (b) [above the old market price] and (c) [below the old market price], formed by the new quantity line and the supply and demand schedules. The total area is the deadweight loss of the tax. Triangle (b) represents the loss in consumer surplus, whilst (c) reflects a loss in producer surplus. Note than (b) is greater than (c). This is why the burden of taxation is said to fall on consumers and that this tax is a consumer excise.

    Cap and trade on the other hand directly puts the burden on producers.

  22. graemebird Says:

    Oh my god. Come and check this out Z? I was just telling you that elasticity was time dependent. And that we cannot put figures on it? That the curves tend to be more elastic the longer is the time?

    Well look above and you see that dummy Mark understands nothing of this.

    In all of economics now the supply curve for traditional oil-wells would have to be the most inelastic with the supply curve for inner-city real estate alone accepted.

    Yet if only we get you dummies off our backs we can produce as much synthetics as we can guzzle. And many years down the track probably what amounts to unlimited supplies of the very deep deep oil sources. But the latter may well turn out only marginally economic. I don’t know.

  23. Mark Hill Says:

    Yes, elasticities change over time – hence why the carbon tax actually works.

  24. GMB Says:

    “Yes, elasticities change over time – hence why the carbon tax actually works.”

    WORKS????? WORKS???? Works for what purpose dopey?

    It works for the purpose of SKEWING OUR ENERGY PRODUCTION HISTORY!!!!!

    When science tells us that it can and must come down to nuclear-enhanced-hydrocarbons to fuel our trailbikes and four-wheel-drives and nuclear for all our electricity needs.

    Thats what the science says.

    But you would have us negating our carbon resources. The leftist plans work to either waste or negate our carbon heritage.

    This is because they spring from the same evil that would murder the running brumby horses. The environmentalists pronounce the brumby horses as being genetically unfit for Australian soil and they set out to murder them with the help of helicopters that men of reason have unwittingly supplied them with.

    We don’t want to murder the brumbies. WE WANT TO BECOME THEM. At least in our dotage we want to ride with the horses. To be free like the horses. To steal one of them from the wild and whisper in its ear and make it out own. To ride and ride and never want for fuel. On our trial bike. And on our four-wheel. And with all the cheap synthetic diesel that we could ever want.

  25. GMB Says:

    We’ve just got to stop fooling ourselves here. These people are trying to steal our manhood. HOW CAN YOU BE A MAN WITHOUT LIQUID HYDROCARBONS.

    I mean you can be a man on a budget. You can be provisionally a man. But you rely on the cover that the men with firearms and liquid hydrocarbons give you.

    It was said that God created man but Sam Colt made him EQUAL. And thats valid all blowback aside. But the deal is that saying assumes that we all have our HOSS. So to be a man you need your HOSS and your revolver.

    Taking things more modern its pretty clear that you cannot really be a man if you or the men around you don’t have ready access to liquid hydrocarbons.

    Louis Hissink attends a site called “Oil Is Mastery”

    Well Amen brother and aint that the case.

    And our leftist cunts have got to stop denying us nuclear energy, nuclear-energy-enhanced-liquid-hydrocarbons………..

    ….And by God they must stop killing the Brumby horses….

    Lest we kill them in reataliation.

    Lest we kill them in disgust.

    Lest we kill them.

  26. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, I wouldn’t mention the word “manhood” while you’re busy dodging on the betting thread.

  27. graemebird Says:

    Look this is the real Graeme Bird here.

    There’s no point trying to talk seriously here because it’s all bum-sucking homosexualists and imposters.

  28. Richard Glover Says:

    Mr Z,

    As Mr Bird has explained that he will not be receiving his Rudd money unlike you faux-libertarians who are apparently crawling over each other to beg at the feet for whatever bone your chinese speaking socialist master will throw to you. Having myself grappled long and hard to navigate the mire of the socialist taxeater constructed buereacratic taxation system, this is quite understandable.

    For a change try to win an argument by logic, not by constructing sidebets on some economic quantity whos’s value is controlled by crony capitalists, short sellers and islamofacist governments.

  29. graemebird Says:

    I just listened to Michael Costa at that talk. He really brings home the absolute necessity for what I’m calling “industry policy” He was saying that he could not use a lot of theoretically pure talk as a practical politician. He was saying you need to engage with policy detail. Thats what an industry policy is. Its a set of specific plans to move the industry towards a properly functioning capitalist industry. It takes the real world for granted.

    This thread is another thread based purely on JohnZ lying. Industry policy is Industry policy. It is not subsidies and subsidies must always be opposed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: