Who won the carbon tax debate? Vote now!

http://poll.pollcode.com/5ElA

Advertisements

204 Responses to “Who won the carbon tax debate? Vote now!”

  1. Jason Soon Says:

    Great idea.

    I reckon there should be polls for other topics too

    1) Should Graeme apologise for his massive analytical incompetence on peak oil?

    2) Does Fyodor understand economics better than Graeme?

    3) Were Graeme and the Deltoid guy separated at birth?

  2. Tobias Ziegler Says:

    Let me be the first to start.

    1. Yes
    2. Yes
    3. Yes

  3. The anti-bird Says:

    Bird, was tko’ed in the first 10 seconds of the first round. He’s unconscious.

  4. graemebird Says:

    But it was only communists voting.

  5. DH Says:

    I’m going with the Space Lizards.

  6. Lyam Says:

    No one 🙂

    I am for a carbon tax if it is part of a coherent energy policy. In other words, the carbon tax is a tactic we need a strategy.

    IMHO our current energy policy has three basic flaws:
    – no incentives for energy conservation => “consumption spiral”
    – very dependent on fossil fuels => pollution & dependency on foreign oil
    – centralized production => systemic risk

    A policy directed at correcting those flaws would use the revenues of a carbon tax for tax breaks and/or subsidies for low interest loans for example for:
    – investments in building weathering (conservation)
    – investments in renewables (conservation & decentralization)
    – investment in mass transit in urban & sub-urban areas (dependency on oil)

    This list is of course non-exhaustive.

    Note for Birdy: that’s not communism, it’s using market forces for the common good 🙂

  7. graemebird Says:

    Humphreys never dealt with my arguments but rather he pretended that I never made them. Whereas I took on his argument and destroyed them. Clearly that makes me the winner.

    Humphreys is fundamentally ignorant of how the economy works. Like climate change alarmist his models mean more to him than the reality.

  8. graemebird Says:

    The idea of stupid people voting on this reveals failed epistemology.

  9. Lyam Says:

    Birdy birdy,

    “Humphreys is fundamentally ignorant of how the economy works.”

    Of all people posting on this blog, you are, by far, the most ignorant in these matters.

  10. graemebird Says:

    Lyam. What do you mean no incentives for energy conservation? You have lost your mind? The high energy prices have merely been interrupted by a collapse in global business spending. We face a long period of critically high energy prices should the world economy ever pick its ass off the ground. So incentives are just not necessary.

    And explain yourself as to why you think a carbon tax fits into your preferred industry policy?

    INDUSTRY POLICY. INDUSTRY POLICY. INDUSTRY POLICY.

    We’ve got to get the phrase out there and get everyone used to it. Since the mental midgits are out in force with their tiresome unlogic again. Claiming that if subsidies, tariffs and politicians thinking they are captains of industry is BAD (and it is) and you call it industry policy…….

    …. then according to these people, who have the mentality of savages or small children…… anything else you call industry policy is also bad.

    We have a real primitive superstition going here to do with phrases. An embarrassing level of arrested development. Like when Cambria fixated on a phrase “tightening budget” and then applied it to a thing and its opposite and came out with the wrong notion that you don’t cut spending in a recession. The clear trend in the upward mobility of stupid people is there for all to see.

  11. graemebird Says:

    No you are lying Lyam. In this country Jackson aside, I would have to be the ultimate authority on economics. Since everyone else is really so appalling.

    The fact is that Humphreys, Soon et al are really ignorant of economics. You’d swear that Humphreys just kept re-reading the one copy of Free-To-Choose over and over. He never has an original thought of his own.

    Now Sinclair, perhaps stung by my criticisms is exploring one cul de sac of economics after another over at Catallaxy. He might be able to do that every day for a year and never run out of dead ends. But he is also fundamentally ignorant of his subject.

  12. Jason Soon Says:

    No you are lying Lyam. In this country Jackson aside, I would have to be the ultimate authority on economics

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  13. graemebird Says:

    No its true. If I find anyone else I’ll let you know. And if you see anyone who you think might qualify don’t hold out on this matter.

  14. Lyam Says:

    Birdy birdy,

    “No you are lying Lyam. In this country Jackson aside, I would have to be the ultimate authority on economics”

    Thanks for confirming what I said, namely that you know so little that you don’t even realize the extent of your ignorance.

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

    Humphreys kicked Bird’s arse.

  16. Mark Hill Says:

    “No you are lying Lyam. In this country Jackson aside, I would have to be the ultimate authority on economics”

    How can anyone who thinks opportunity cost is a “myth” have ever studied economics at university let alone be “an authority” on anything?

    Lyam – while you be right about problems, your solutions might be flawed. Have a look at why we have those problems. We subsidise coal and ban cheaper alternatives like nuclear.

  17. Lyam Says:

    Mark

    “Lyam – while you be right about problems, your solutions might be flawed. Have a look at why we have those problems. We subsidise coal and ban cheaper alternatives like nuclear.”

    Yes, we are currently subsidizing the wrong energy source (coal) which artificially reduces production cost compared to other non subsidized sources. In other words, we have tilted the playing field in favor of coal and it is winning.

    What I was advocating is taxing the coal via carbon tax (instead of subsidizing it) and subsidizing renewables or nuclear. In other words, tilt the playing field in favor of renewables and nuclear … which should make them win in the long run.

    For the rest I freely admit I didn’t think a lot about this thing, my main point was that I want to see a strategy here. (Typically what I don’t want to see is a carbon tax and subsidies for coal at the same time!!!)

  18. graemebird Says:

    We aren’t subsidising coal. We are blocking coal, taxing coal, and blocking nuclear.

  19. Mark Hill Says:

    Ever heard of coal fired power electricity subsidies to alumina smelters?

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s65601.htm

  20. graemebird Says:

    Where is the subsidy? A tax exemption is not a subsidy Hill. Get it right.

    On another note you and Humphreys have been given an almost comprehensive explanation of the capital-destroying certainty of the carbon tax.

    I thought Gerry really understated his case. And he did. He didn’t talk about strategic concerns to do with hydrogen-dearth. But here he explains the capital-killer that is carbon tax. And even after its been pointed out to you guys you still cannot seem to comprehend it.

    Cambria is a bigtime traitor you know. He used to be onside with these hardcore liberty advocates like Gerry Jackson and Prodos. And now he’s turned his back on them. On US I would say. The prickly set who are really serious about freedom.

    http://brookesnews.com/082702carbontax.html

  21. graemebird Says:

    http://www.brookesnews.com/080303capital.html

    These are all brilliant explanations from Gerry. And they are simply the conclusions that anyone must come to who has a real-world approach to economics. He’s exactly right when he explains that the implication is that there is no capital theory taught in Australian universities.

    http://brookesnews.com/090202carbontax.html

    This one is a recent essay from Gerry. But the other two were from a year ago. So everything was explained very carefully to John. Very carefully. By Gerry and elsewhere by me.

    This gives the lie to Cambrias idiotic assertion that Humphreys is a promising economist. He learns painfully slowly. He never generates a single idea of his own.

  22. graemebird Says:

    http://www.brookesnews.com/080303capital.html

    These are all brilliant explanations from Gerry. And they are simply the conclusions that anyone must come to who has a real-world approach to economics. He’s exactly right when he explains that the implication is that there is no capital theory taught in Australian universities.

  23. graemebird Says:

    http://brookesnews.com/090202carbontax.html

    This one is a recent essay from Gerry. But the other two were from a year ago. So everything was explained very carefully to John. Very carefully. By Gerry and elsewhere by me.

    This gives the lie to Cambrias idiotic assertion that Humphreys is a promising economist. He learns painfully slowly. He never generates a single idea of his own.

  24. Mark Hill Says:

    Don’t go around slagging good libertarians off you prick. I like the work of Gerry and prodos generally, but there are many others, in and outside the LDP that have done more than you will ever do for increasing our economic freedom and civil liberties. I am one of them. You did FUCK ALL last election if I remember correctly.

    If you raise the same revenue with less deadweight loss, you have a less capital destroying tax.

    A revenue neutral carbon tax is an improvement over the current situation merely for supply side/tax base reasons.

    Newsflash Graeme, we already have taxes on energy – petrol excise and the stupid and unscientific bias against nuclear.

    Of course it is my preference on the theory and empirics not to mitigate. But a carbon tax is better than this complicated and useless ETS Rudd wants. The upside is like in Europe it might fail utterly.

    Here is another newsflash – whilst Gerry might agree with you on carbon taxes and be very angry with the rest of us, he disagrees with 99% of your borax. Gerry is a fine analyst who understands what opportunity costs are.

    Prodos is indeed prickly, but he is also a first rate sceptic and would not but up with your absurd theories about peak oil, exploding martian giant whales and the like.

    Now man up and take my bet – I bet all of my Ruddy money I am entitled to vis a vis my last year’s tax return – I will put it in escrow for the (slightly less than) five years and so can you in a good term account, winner takes all if you are not up for the $15k bet.

    Surely Andrew “Funny Money” Reynolds or John “Commie Banker ” Z can arrange this for us?

    If you do not take up this bet, you will be perceived as pants wetting, diamond collared Chihuahua who cannot back up his own bullshit.

    Man up Tinkerbell.

    Of course I cannot understand someone who believes in abiotic oil in thinking that we will run out of oil or 2005 will be the year we produced the most oil ever. What about when Iraq finally gets its shit together?

    Other than that, which bet are you taking? Or would like to admit you were taken in by a bizzare doomsday/environmental lunatic fantasy?

  25. graemebird Says:

    No thats bullshit. Any libertarian who goes in for a carbon tax in 2007 is not libertarian but a triangulating traitor. I don’t know why the CIS is putting Humphreys out in the firing line. But he must ruin his credibility as an economics guy if he keeps running this line because if THAT is considered economic understanding then this civilisation is done for.

    I suggested the carbon tax to friends in 1989 or 1990. It was an obvious suggestion and it follows from free-to-choose sycophancy.

    The thing we have to realise is that though Milton Friedman was a great man and extraordinarily observant in some areas, the sophistication of the economic vision of Jackson in 2009 far exceeds that of where Friedman was at.

    Friedman was the great warrior year in and year out in the hurly-burly of American public debate. But he never really did a systematic review of where economic science is at. Not like what Reisman did or what Jackson appears to have done less formally.

    Jackson ought to be your North Star if you are serious about the field you are moving into.

  26. Mark Hill Says:

    John and I have never “supported” a carbon tax. There is no case for mitigation. It is simply the lesser of two evils.

    Actually reading Gerry was very good for me when I first started studying. It is a shame that dolts like you selectively read. Gerry always refers back to first principles like opportunity cost, which you think you have “debunked”.

    Are you going to man up on either bet or shall I call you Tinkerbell from now on?

  27. graemebird Says:

    You have supported a carbon tax always. John has supported a carbon tax relentlessly with an unshaken and irrational zeal.

    We just has a petition released by Jennifer and coterie against the cap and kill. Dennis Jensen has promised to present it to parliament. Notice that they DID NOT FEEL THE FUCKING NEED TO SUPPORT A CARBON TAX.

    This is the irrational mentality that people from an Australian economics background seem to take. They think in an endless series of false dichotomies. And as I explained before it appears to be at least partly to do with the false doctrine of opportunity cost.

  28. Mark Hill Says:

    Tinkerbell starts with a doozie, as usual:

    “And as I explained before it appears to be at least partly to do with the false doctrine of opportunity cost.”

    You imbecile. You dullard. The idea that you can teach qualified people economics is nothing but a frigging gin show.

    I don’t support either a carbon tax or the ETS. A carbon tax is preferable if we get mitigation imposed on us.

    Are you going to man up on the bet Tinkerbell?

  29. graemebird Says:

    So you cannot understand why opportunity cost is a sloppy idea, you will not outright oppose a carbon tax, and you have absolutely no concept of why Gerry was against the carbon tax on grounds of capital theory!!!!

  30. graemebird Says:

    Its incredible the mental block here. Anyone will know that heroin addiction if preferable to malaria if only because you can readily cure heroin addiction. People will differ as to whether needles through the testicles is better than needles through the eyeballs.

    It is the stuff of small children who read free to choose when they are 14 to know that a CARBONATTAX is very fucking bad but not as bad as a cap and kill.

    These things are known and fine and why would one doubt it.

    But if a economist ever lends support to the carbon tax in all its forms then he is no economist but rather a hateful triangulater.

  31. Mark Hill Says:

    Please stop misrepresenting Gerry Jackson.

    Either you are illiterate or stupid. I oppose a carbon mitigation. Given a choice between mitigation and tax, I choose a tax.

    Opportunity cost would in no way invalidate the Austrian concepts of capital theory such as non homogeneity of capital or inputs or roundaboutness of production. A dynamic opportunity cost between outputs is explained to economics students in lecture two of their university education.

    You are completely misrepresenting Gerry. From this it is obvious you have never set foot in a university.

    Now, besides your handicaps of batshit insanity and debilitating stupidity, I suggest you man up and take either bet Tinkerbell.

  32. graemebird Says:

    You choose a tax. You support a tax. You promote a tax. And we know this because a cap and kill was never a something that any cunt had to accept

  33. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme.

    You are lying.

    Now are you illiterate or stupid, or both?

    I have repeatedly said, here, on catallaxy, ALS blog etc…

    “there has been no case made for mitigation”…

    Are you completely fucking bonkers? Rudd wants mitigation and he will shove the ETS down our throats if we don’t like it. He will not come around to my position. He has accepted some very sloppy work by Stern. The best we can do is convince him to change it to a tax which will be easier to remove when his one term Government gets the boot.

    With your reasoning, the alternative to minimising your tax bill in protest of excessive and wasteful taxation and spending is gaol.

    You sir, are an idiot.

    Now man up and take either bet, Tinkerbell.

  34. graemebird Says:

    You support a tax. I could not SHAME you into not supporting the carbon tax.

    You support it obsessively and will not be persuaded in this matter so powerful is your loyalty to unscience.

  35. Lyam Says:

    Birdy you are a jerk and don’t understand how democracy works whereas Mike does. (I still don’t understand how the LDP was foolish enough to let you run for office under their banner).

    In a democracy you have to convince people, not bark at them, and governing is the art of the compromise.

  36. graemebird Says:

    I understand how democracy works and it works like this. If traitors, allegedly on the right, support a carbon tax, that leads this science fraud to be locked in as bipartisan. And so therefore these monsters will have their cap and kill.

    This is how democracy works. If these traitors are promoting carbon tax they are ensuring cap and kill. Thats how democracy works.

  37. Mark Hill Says:

    Jesus Christ you are an imbecile Bird.

    We have subsidies to coal, taxes on petrol, a virtual ban on the expansion of uranium….

    A moderately priced carbon tax would actually be revenue negative. If we did this, petrol would not taxed so savagely and all other carbon power sources would have a small tax….compensated by income tax cuts.

    GDP would grow simply in that there would be less deadweight loss from tax and the distortions of the subsidies. If we allowed nuclear we would have cheaper energy and less carbon emissions…and perhaps no justification for the carbon tax.

    The reality is the current situation is more damaging than a revenue neutral carbon tax and certainly more than allowing nuclear – whereas my preference is to simply allow a free market in energy and abolish the taxes – as Stern etc have never justified mitigation.

    Graeme, you are the one who believes in a “tax, subsidise and kill” system. John’s tax is simply an improvement from the status quo and it would be great if the carbon tax were to be removed as well.

  38. Mark Hill Says:

    Do you feel guilty about your 2nd worst policy choice, our current “tax, subsidise and kill” that forces little Hamsi to sleep out in the cold?

    Why do you hate black kids Graeme?

  39. John Humphreys Says:

    Mark — I fear you over-estimate Gerry. He clearly didn’t understand the basics of the carbon tax argument. He repeatedly said that it was irrelevant whether the carbon tax was neutral or not. Irrelevant!! wtf?

    Neither Gerry nor Graeme have provided a reason why an unequal consumption tax is so much worse than any other tax — including other taxes that are directly targeted at capital.

    I think one part of the Gerry/Graeme confusion is that they think a moderate carbon tax would lead to the immediate non-competitiveness of coal-electricity and so we would immediately have to right off the existing coal-electricity infrastructure.

    As five seconds of thinking would make clear, that simply isn’t true. Coal will continue to be the dominant energy-source in the near term… and any transition will likely be slow.

  40. Mark Hill Says:

    Look at Graeme’s solutions on his blog. Not one mention of nuclear which I have repeatedly said is cheaper and uranium exports would allow major emitters like China, India and the US to rein in their emissions:

    The conclusion is Graeme doesn’t want cheap power, he wants an overheated environment and useless liquified coal as money – (this found in a bizzare and misinformed missive about how opportunity cost is “wrong”).

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/opportunity-cost-false-doctrine-leads-to-bad-mental-habits/

    “1. Cap and Kill.

    2. Carbon tax.

    3. Do Nothing.

    4. Spend billions on a publicity campaign reprising Nancy Reagans “Just Say No” campaign. Spend billions defaming environmentalists with this campaign so as to overide their bullshit momentum and get all the momentum going the other way. Solve the alleged problem directly that way.

    5. Suspend contributions to the UN until the IPCC cleans up its mess and educates the world about CO2 being helpful to the biosphere. Solve the alleged problem directly that way.

    6. Mass-sackings of CO2-bedwetters in the public service, decisively solving the alleged problem by this more direct route.

    7. A suite of guaranteed 50 year tax exemptions on certain matters to do with energy production. As well as other measures. These measures strategically designed to guarantee that our guys become the lowest cost producers of liquid fuel, and that this country becomes the per capita energy giants of history. Producing, consuming, and exporting more than any country prior had every dreamed about. The locked in tax exemptions, and other measures, meet the environmentalist movement head on as a massive fait accompli as to our future. And this solves the problem by demoralizing the scum.

    8. 6 & 7 together.

    9. 8 as well as a second wave of mass-sackings of taxeaters to further cut costs.

    Notice that the general trend of these alternatives is in the direction of each one being better than the one before. You are missing out on options as soon as you freeze matters into a two-way debate.”

  41. Mark Hill Says:

    John said:

    “He repeatedly said that it was irrelevant whether the carbon tax was neutral or not. Irrelevant!! wtf?”

    What matters more probably is that if it is GDP positive right? To be fair though I don’t think he mentioned it – but correct me if I am wrong.

  42. jc Says:

    John says:


    …….would lead to the immediate non-competitiveness of coal-electricity and so we would immediately have to right off the existing coal-electricity infrastructure…….

    As five seconds of thinking would make clear, that simply isn’t true. Coal will continue to be the dominant energy-source in the near term… and any transition will likely be slow.

    That’s true, however we can’t take away the fact that redundancy of the coal plant is not market determined in this case but being forced by legislative fiat. That is a direct attack on capital by the state.

    However , having said that I would agree that a carbon tax is a the lesser of the two evils: but they are evil!

    I see this as very similar to the rent control laws in operation in NYC. Rent controlled buildings have that unkempt look about them, where only the minimum is being done in terms of upkeep. That’s what will happen with coal fired plants.

    We should never lose sight of the damage taxes cause on an economic system.

    I think you and Gerry are talking past each other on this one. I agree with both of you 🙂

  43. jc Says:

    Bird just poisons the discussion about this by his abuse.

  44. graemebird Says:

    Gerry understood the basis of the carbon tax argument Humphreys you moron. But at no stage did you ever show that you had broken out of your static-equilibrium models. At no stage did you show evidence of learning capital theory. And you still show no such understanding.

    So the whole argument was between someone who understood the situation…. Gerry…. And someone who was and is belligerently ignorant…… Thats you Humphreys.

    Everyone understands the carbon tax argument. Anyone who has read free to choose understands the carbon tax argument. This is where your idiocy comes in Humphreys. You assume that other people don’t understand your economics baby-talk.

  45. graemebird Says:

    We are not just talking about lack of economic sophistication here with Humphreys. Its the belligerence of the ignorance that is so scary. Here is Humphreys, arguing with Gerry. Gerry lays it all out for Humphreys. A year on there is simply no evidence that Humphreys has learned anything. There must be a filtering system in economics in this country where only the most stupid make it through.

    To have a view of our economic system so crude as to allow someone to think of a carbon tax as akin to an excise is just incredible to me. Its like on this swimming camp where one fellow swum the 100 freestyle in 1minute and 50 seconds. I wondered how that could be done without swimming backwards part of the way.

    Likewise with this matter. I wonder how that lack of understanding of real world commerce could be maintained that would allow someone to equate a carbon tax with a consumer excise.

  46. graemebird Says:

    A serious problem is this. We don’t have sound property rights for energy generation IN THE FIRST PLACE. None of us can go buy a chunk of farmland and get on with it without obstructions. If you couple this with the long lead times before profits can be made………… well then the carbon tax is yet one more burden on a setup which is already hardwired to leave us with inadequate energy provision.

    So it must be opposed in all its forms. Yet the neoclassical anti-economists are betraying the rest of us with their ignorance and actively promoting this most destructive putupon along with the other hurdles already in place.

  47. graemebird Says:

    We’ve had a display of the typical Humphreys denseness and obliviousness up above.

    As explained. The carbon tax is about the FIRST THING that comes into anyones mind. Yet Humphreys treats it as if its his own genius idea that people everywhere are having a hard time grasping. But this is foolish. As I’ve explained, I myself came up with it in about 1989 when this controversy first came to my attention.

    So here is Humphreys so moronic as to assume that Jackson cannot grasp the rationale for the idea.

    Well once you get that idiotic you cannot be reached. Because Humphreys wrote Jackson off as not comprehending Humphreys, when it was the other way around, well to this day Humphreys has failed to learn any damn thing about business that is not some otherworldly neoclassical static-equilibrium model.

  48. graemebird Says:

    “Look at Graeme’s solutions on his blog. Not one mention of nuclear ”

    THIS IS A LUDICROUS LIE. MY BLOG IS SHOT THROUGH WITH NUCLEAR PROMOTION. MARK CONFIRMS HIS IDIOCY EVERY TIME HE TYPES.

    which I have repeatedly said is cheaper and uranium exports would allow major emitters like China, India and the US to rein in their emissions”

    Ok Mark you idiot. Will you now explain your irrational concern about emissions. Maybe you could get the other CO2-bedwetters to explain their concerns at the same time.

  49. John Humphreys Says:

    Of course any tax harms capital. That’s not the point. We’re talking about whether a discriminatory consumption tax harms capital more than other taxes. That simply isn’t the case… so I was trying to find out what slow cogs were turning in the heads of Gerry/Graeme.

    The best I could assume is that they were getting sad because they thought all coal plants were going to shut the next day.

    Of course a tax on one type of activity is going to bias economic activity towards the non-taxed versions… and that will reduce the present value of expected future revenue flows… and that will undermine the value of the capital that contribute to those revenue flows.

    But that line of thinking equally applies to all taxes.

    It is simply untrue that a carbon tax was going to have extra-super-bad effects. All tax is bad. Especially income tax (which Bird thinks is comparatively better than a discriminatory consumption tax).

    The issue of revenue neutrality is extremely important. In one scenario we have tax and spend. In another scenario we have tax and tax cut. The most likely situation is the former. I’m arguing for the latter. And Gerry can’t even tell the difference!! It’s just weird.

  50. graemebird Says:

    Its not a consumption tax you fucking moron.

    And thats really the end of the story.

    Its not a consumption tax. Its a tax especially designed to destroy capital accumulation. Its particularly a tax on capital accumulation in the adaptation away from reliance on oil.

    So its SIMPLY TRUE that it is a particularly harmful tax in terms of its destructive effects on wealth and capital. You cannot change reality by recourse to simple denial.

    I’ve explained this to you in great detail.

    Gerry Jackson has explained it to you in great detail.

    And you still cannot get it. And this is because you don’t understand economics. Ludicrously calling a carbon tax a consumer excise cannot change the basic nature of this tax. It will destroy capital accumulation and it will skew the capital formation thats left to malinvestment in irrational forms of energy production.

  51. graemebird Says:

    There is no reason to believe it will be revenue-neutral. Thats irrationality on your part. You have no way to guarantee this. And further it has already been explained to you that as the capital formation is skewed the revenue from the carbon tax will fall. Thus the carbon tax will be doing grave damage right from the start and yet raising less and less revenue as time goes on. This has been explained to you fully and clearly.

    It is exactly lie a tariff on one foreign countries consumer goods. At first you have the goods and you have the revenue. But as time goes on you will lose the revenue and the goods.

    But its worse then that since a tax on carbon is a specifically destructive tax on capital right from the start. You need capital goods to gather energy and energy to produce capital goods and to run capital goods. In a crisis you are pushing a tax particularly targeted to push us towards an energy capital vortex.

    And you are doing this out of a shocking ignorance of economics.

  52. graemebird Says:

    Specifically having a carbon tax will destroy our ability to have a free enterprise investment in nuclear power plants. Since they take some years to get profitable and while income taxes would not be paid during that time carbon tax would be accruing from the day the commissioning started.

    Specifically they will discourage more coal to electricity plants at a time when we are having trouble with power generation and may be headed in the direction that South Africa went down.

    Specifically they will rule out the possibility of us becoming the lowest cost producer in synthetic diesel.

    But in fact the carbon tax will impoverish and do damage to us more generally because your ignorance of economics can in no may magically turn this tax into a consumer excise when it is primarily a producer goods tax.

  53. graemebird Says:

    Well thats about the size of it hey. This is occult epistemology. The economically handicapped Humphreys thinks we can escape the clear effects that a carbon tax will have by simple recourse to calling it a consumer excise tax which it is not.

    This is fucking treason I tell you. And analytical incompetence.

    And Gerry Jackson set it out very clearly a year ago. Even in retrospect Humphreys is too primitive in his economic understanding to comprehend what Jackson was telling him.

    This is a fellow with flat learning curves.

  54. graemebird Says:

    The whole matter is far worse than explained by Jackson. Because we do not have a free market for energy in the first place. The market is extremely precarious. Being as how you and I cannot buy farmland and get on with it. This too has been explained to Humphreys. The idea that the market is already highly compromised and that the carbon tax will be another load to break the camels back.

  55. JohnZ Says:

    Specifically having a carbon tax will destroy our ability to have a free enterprise investment in nuclear power plants. Since they take some years to get profitable and while income taxes would not be paid during that time carbon tax would be accruing from the day the commissioning started.

    Wrong, turkey. A carbon tax with offsetting income tax cut would be a boon to nuclear industry as it raises the relative price of coal.

    Just what do they teach you at the university of Waii kii kii?

  56. Mark Hill Says:

    John,

    I have read some research reports lately that say nuclear is cheaper at present anyway.

    So I know this is fucking bullshit:

    “Specifically having a carbon tax will destroy our ability to have a free enterprise investment in nuclear power plants. Since they take some years to get profitable and while income taxes would not be paid during that time carbon tax would be accruing from the day the commissioning started.”

    Another gem:

    “There is no reason to believe it will be revenue-neutral.”

    Fucking idiot. We know demand, elasticity and the tax rate/pricing etc. We know the amount of income taxes we need to cut on previous estimates.

    Graeme Bird and actual, quantitative analysis real economists do every do do not mix.

    Yes dear readers, Bird is making angry with his constant stupidity and cognitive dissonance.

    “Specifically they will rule out the possibility of us becoming the lowest cost producer in synthetic diesel.”

    Oh God can you shut up you idiot? We have comparative advantage in coal and gas. We have a lot of arable land with good rainfall that produces hih biomass vegetation not necessarily suited for much other than low density grazing.

    Here is a tip:

    If you don’t know much and you want to look smart, keep your mouth shut.

    “Being as how you and I cannot buy farmland and get on with it. ”

    You being as poor as an Anfrican American show shiner pre ERA does not mean that we don’t have a free market. It is probably a demonstration of marginal product being returned to inputs and taste for discrimination.

    “But in fact the carbon tax will impoverish and do damage to us more generally because your ignorance of economics can in no may magically turn this tax into a consumer excise when it is primarily a producer goods tax.”

    Blah blah blah….blather from an incompetent and misinformed dope.

    REMEMBER THIS YOU DOLT…I AM AGAINST MITIGATION….however, John H’s tax plan is AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE STATUS QUO…

    NOW READ SLOWLY…AND HIT YOURSELF EVERY TIME YOU BEGIN A TIRADE OF YOUR OWN AND START AGAIN…

    Status quo:
    —————–
    GDP: Approx 1 trillion

    Excise tax: Approx 15 bln

    Income tax: At least $125 bln

    Carbon subsidies (no inflated for emissions) approx 10 bln

    Deadweight loss: large, more income tax and more distortions, overall higher taxes, more wasteful Government spending as a proportion of GDP, nuclear is stifled, exports and new mining limited.

    John’s Tax Plan:
    ——————-
    GDP > 1 bln AUD

    Excise: $0

    Carbon tax: approx 16 bln (correct me if I am wrong).

    Income tax: –> $109 bln

    Carbon subsidies: -16 bln

    Deadweight loss: less, lower income taxes, lower overall taxes and no distortions minus bais against carbon, nuclear allowed.

  57. Graeme Bird Says:

    No I’m right about all those things. Carbon tax will ruin nuclear. Because its a tax that hits everyone prior to any profits being made. As well its exalting the environmental movement and sucking up to them rather than running them down as criminals and lairs.

    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT CARBON TAX WILL BE REVENUE NEUTRAL.

    This is absolute idiocy on the part of YOU Mark Hill. This is you piling onto the Humphreys stupidity. This is you being wrong and me being right.

    Its a simple point and I am right and you are wrong.

    Further to that as the destructive effects of carbon tax continue the revenue from it will fall. So it can never replace other taxes, since it will obsolete itself, leading us to taking all the damage on the chin and getting no revenue substitution to speak of in the long run.

  58. Graeme Bird Says:

    As we have seen the economics profession in Australia have no case on this matter and have simply chosen to take a tribal position. We see this all the time with institutional dysfunction. The tribal position exalted over reason. Sinclair was supposed to be anti-Pigouvian. Yet he ended up supporting this tax on a positive externality IN ERROR because he’s basically a sellout to the tribe.

  59. Mark Hill Says:

    “No I’m right about all those things.”

    What eye popping stupidity.

    “Carbon tax will ruin nuclear.”

    Nuclear is already chepaer. Que?

    “Because its a tax that hits everyone prior to any profits being made. ”

    Aren’t you for Georgist taxation? Note the level of excise tax we already have…and that the new tax would have the burden fall more on consumers, given relative elasticities (something you would know about if you actually went to university you dropkick).

    “As well its exalting the environmental movement and sucking up to them rather than running them down as criminals and lairs.”

    It is hedging your bets actually. I don’t think it is necessary. We should simply cut/abolish all the taxes and end the subsidies.

    “THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT CARBON TAX WILL BE REVENUE NEUTRAL.”

    Except for the fact that John designed the tax to be revenue neutral, considering elasticities and supply side considerations etc.

    “This is absolute idiocy on the part of YOU Mark Hill. This is you piling onto the Humphreys stupidity. This is you being wrong and me being right.”

    What idiocy? Practiscing emprical, theory backed economics instead of your cargo cult of chest puffery? Saying “ought to” all of the time makes you intelligent as rolling in shit makes you a pig.

    “Further to that as the destructive effects of carbon tax continue the revenue from it will fall.”

    So – you’re actually arguing that in the long run it is revenue negative (which you praise) and that industries will adjust to non carbon sources.

    “So it can never replace other taxes, since it will obsolete itself, leading us to taking all the damage on the chin and getting no revenue substitution to speak of in the long run.”

    This is enough all ammunition in itself to prosecute you as the Keynesian bludger and crypto socialist you really are. We won’t fund your fish farms or liquified coal money Gra Gra.

    “As we have seen the economics profession in Australia have no case on this matter and have simply chosen to take a tribal position. ”

    Educated people broadly agreeing with each other and disagreeing over technicalities.

    The education system is fucked!

    “Sinclair was supposed to be anti-Pigouvian. Yet he ended up supporting this tax on a positive externality IN ERROR because he’s basically a sellout to the tribe.”

    Oh yeah, he’s a pinko. So are the CIS and IPA. Busted. Busted Sinclair.

    Note the slow third parties (and Graeme [nuff said]): Yes, I AM being sarcastic.

  60. Graeme Bird Says:

    Oh my god my arse hurts so bad. I sure copped a pounding last night.

    But I’m not complaining – I liked it!!

  61. Graeme Bird Says:

    There is an evil sodomite practicing identity theft. Just ignore him and he will be unable to pass his horrible blood diseases onto you through mosquito bites and him using your razor.

  62. John Humphreys Says:

    The review of nuclear suggested that it would be competitive with coal-fired electricity generation if there were a carbon tax of about $40 per tonne.

    Graeme thinks a revenue-neutral carbon tax is unlikely to be accepted in the Australian political climate. He is perhaps right. However… a revenue-neutral carbon tax is more likely than his policy of squawking like a stuffed chicken.

    So if he doesn’t want us talking about unlikely policies then he should shut up about he even-less-likely suggestions. And if he does want to talk about how we could pragmatically fight against the worst policy (ie carbon trading) then he should support me.

    Graeme thinks I haven’t factored in the price elasticity of demand (though he didn’t use those words because presumably he doesn’t know them). As it happens, my original paper directly addresses the price elasticity of demand and offers estimates that the long-run elasticity for both fuel and electricity is about 0.7… meaning a 10% increase in price would lead to a 7% decrease in use.

    As a moderate carbon tax would leave coal & oil as the most efficient sources of energy in the short to medium term the above elasticity is appropriate for determining the behavioural impacts of a moderate carbon tax.

    The consequence would be a moderate increase in fuel and electricity prices (offset by either fuel tax cuts or income tax cuts or company tax cuts).

    The long term impact would be to marginally bring forward the time at which alternative energy is competitive with coal/oil. For example, if we were going to shift to new technology in 30 years… a carbon tax might bring that foward to 20 or 25 years.

    People looking to invest in coal/oil already have to factor in the potential competition from alternative energy. They will factor in a moderate carbon tax as being the same (for their business perspective) as a marginal increase in the comparative position of alternative energy.

    Some people (such as Gerry) suggest that coal/oil are likely to be our only options in the future. If that is the case, then a carbon tax will have little to no effect on investment. A moderate carbon tax will not make alternative energy cheaper than coal/oil now… they still need technological break-throughs. If they don’t get those break-throughs then coal/oil have nothing to fear.

    So Gerry the technology pessimist (and his love children Graeme & Doug) is in conflict with Gerry the defender of capital formation.

    But it doesn’t really matter — because in neither case does the economy collapse. If technology is changing… then all we’re doing in bringing it forward by a few years. Yawn. If technology is not changing, then a carbon tax really is simply a slightly larger GST on electricity. Yawn.

    Of course… all of this is quite obvious to the thinking economist (neither Gerry, Graeme or Doug have been educated in economics) and has also been explained several times. I repeat it again for the sake of other readers, and to make Graeme look even more stupid.

    Two final points…

    Graeme suggests that a carbon tax will lead to misallocation of investment. True. All tax does that. I’ll repeat — all tax does that. And in case Graeme only understands words written in caps lock — ALL TAX DOES THAT. A carbon tax does it no more than an income tax or the fuel tax.

    And of course, the idea that taxing the competitor to nuclear is going to hurt nuclear is idiotic. A carbon tax may help nuclear (if it is ever allowed in this over-regulated country).

  63. Graeme Montgomery Bird Says:

    Ow! I feel like someone just put a flagpole up my arse …

    ooops, must be a flashback to Friday night.

  64. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    do your teachers at the University of Wakiki Muroroua Baa Baa Baa endorse your theory that there are no opportunity costs?

  65. graemebird Says:

    It doesn’t matter what the review says Humphreys. If we can swat the environmentalists then instead of taking 10-15 years to set up a nuclear power station we can take 3-4 years. The issue is letting environmentalists get in the way or not letting them get in the way.

    If we go with your way of doing it, sucking up to the environmentalists and paying a carbon tax….. well then no nuclear can go ahead. Since you are forcing some investor to pay carbon tax for 10 to 15 years while they are commissioning the nuclear plant. This is where carbon tax really stands out for its hatefulness because if its only company tax you don’t pay it until you turn a profit.

    If you can get the nuclear power commissioning down to 3-4 years by attacking the environmentalists rather then making their act bipartisan, then clearly thats going to make the nuclear power cheaper. And without the carbon tax you don’t pay company income tax until you make a profit.

    So in summary you CANNOT encourage nuclear by penalising capital accumulation or any production more generally. You encourage nuclear by slapping the environmentalists around and getting your industry policy going which allows a buyers market for real estate being bought for the purpose of energy production.

    It was always an absolute gyp to try and back up the environmentalists, persecute industry and to be telling people you are doing it for the sake of nuclear.

    As we can see when you get down to the reality of it that dog won’t hunt. Thats the Jason Soon lying approach to nuclear power promotion and it won’t work.

    Instead what will work is a lot of hard work with industry policy. Simply negotiating with one council after the next to state upfront what millions of acres might be pre-approved for nuclear or coal-electricity. So that in effect these areas are pure property rights areas in this regard.

    Then what you need is tax exemptions for 50 years for all energy production. Not just nuclear. Nor just coal. But for all energy-production and no taxes at all, royalities alone excepted.

  66. graemebird Says:

    “The review of nuclear suggested that it would be competitive with coal-fired electricity generation if there were a carbon tax of about $40 per tonne.”

    See you just accept this stupidity without thinking. What you are telling people here is that nuclear is more expensive then coal. Why would anyone build nuclear power if you are going to tell them its more expensive then coal.

    Its not. Its cheaper. Its only more expensive when idiots bow down to the environmentalists like complete traitor-bitches and allow them to extend commissioning times from 3-4 years to maybe 12 or 20 years.

    And of course while this nightmare of obstruction is going on you would be sucking up to the criminals and paying the CO2-sin tax every step of the way.

  67. graemebird Says:

    “Wrong, turkey. A carbon tax with offsetting income tax cut would be a boon to nuclear industry as it raises the relative price of coal.”

    No thats wrong. It will destroy nuclear as well. And furthermore these energy sources are not competitors they are complements. We want the nuclear power station with coal liquification next to it. And we want to later be able to turn trash into diesel as well.

    Carbon tax is getting in the way of all of this because its a direct tax on capital accumulation. Payable before any revenues are made.

  68. graemebird Says:

    “Some people (such as Gerry) suggest that coal/oil are likely to be our only options in the future. If that is the case, then a carbon tax will have little to no effect on investment. A moderate carbon tax will not make alternative energy cheaper than coal/oil now… they still need technological break-throughs. If they don’t get those break-throughs then coal/oil have nothing to fear.”

    See you are now out there saying that carbon tax won’t destroy capital and misallocate that capital investment that it doesn’t destroy…… And you are getting about saying that ON THE BASIS THAT THE CARBON TAX WON’T WORK.

    So in fact you are promoting cap and kill. To promote carbon tax is to promote cap and kill. The leftists are evil and lunatics. But they are not stupid and you cannot fool them like this when you confess that you think the carbon tax won’t work.

    But it will work. It will work by destroying capital accumulation and be skewing the rest of it that it doesn’t destroy. And in so doing it will become progressively more useless as a revenue raiser.

    Also it won’t cause a technological revolution in alternatives. Because new technology is imbedded in capital update. And so it will retard general technological development.

  69. graemebird Says:

    “…A carbon tax with offsetting income tax cut would be a boon to nuclear industry as it raises the relative price of coal.”

    It must be restated every other post that this is a really meanspirited lie or alternatively an idiots fantasy that you are going to get revenue-neutrality from these guys. You are dealing with thieves here and you expect them to give you revenue-neutrality. This has always been a most foolish aspect of Johns thinking. A most irresponsible aspect.

    Plus its promoting the very idea of revenue-neutrality. Itself a bad thing. When you promote revenue-neutrality you are making thieving sacrosanct. But the best thing we can do for capital accumulation is to demand mass-sackings. Yet our economists refuse to demand the closing of bureaucracies. Rather they promote revenue-neutrality and the promotion of evil new taxes based on lies.

  70. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, you do understand that cutting income/payroll tax will help those building nuclear plants, don’t you?

    Not to mention the additional customers gained as people switch away from the now more-expensive coal…

    (it’s amazing that I need to explain something this obvious to a Waii Kiii Kiii Baa Baa university graduate)

  71. jc Says:

    Birdie. What are you doing?

  72. graemebird Says:

    “Turkey, you do understand that cutting income/payroll tax will help those building nuclear plants, don’t you?”

    Whose going to cut payroll. John is promoting a new tax at the feet of lunatics. If he wants a payroll tax thats what he ought to have been promoting all this time. But he hasn’t been. He’s been promoting a new tax.

    So what the fuck are you talking about? John has been promoting this new tax in pdf form, in magazines, in newspapers, in press releases for the party, in a sort of rolling thunder of articles at thoughts on freedom. The last thing he has been interested in is promoting massive spending cuts that could lead to less payroll and a rise in the tax free threshold. He actively goes against this sort of thing by insisting on revenue-neutrality.

  73. graemebird Says:

    Do you nutters have some sort of historical basis for thinking that when a new tax is introduced the old taxes are cut?

    Well do you?

    You don’t. When a new tax comes in in most cases the old ones keep going up as well. The income tax only came down since it was convincingly shown that the high rates were inhibiting how much could be stolen.

    The carbon tax will be the death of nuclear. Not the least since its locking in the environmentalist criminals with alleged bipartisan credibility.

    You guys have such a crude understanding of things. What we need to do is take energy production right out of the tax system and guarantee absolute property rights. Or else we will only maintain our ability to generate power via government and cronyism. Both of which you people seem to have an affinity for.

  74. graemebird Says:

    I’ll tell you one way to destroy nuclear outright. The best way to destroy nuclear outright is to go passing off the lie that it needs a tax on its competitors in order to be profitable. Nuclear needs what the rest of industry needs to be profitable. And thats to defeat the environmentalist menace and to restore property rights. No new taxes need be considered.

  75. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, if income tax were cut by $20b / year and a carbon tax were introduced worth $20b / year, would you expect this to have a positive, neutral or negative impact on the economy?

    Pick one.

  76. Mark Hill Says:

    I partially agree.

    Nuclear is competitive, but the tax would make carbon based fuel less competitive.

  77. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    Mr Bird

    Sometimes one must accept lesser evils. As loath as I am to put myself on the side of these sodomites and foreigners, one compelling fact jumps up at me.

    We need a nuclear industry established in Australia Mr Bird. We need it post haste. We need it so we can launch our preemptive attack against United Nations headquarters, Beijing, Pyongyang, Teheran and Mecca. If what a carbon tax will do is speed up the adoption and acceptance of nuclear energy then our national security goals will also be met. Mr Cambria and Mr Z do have a point though they may be degenerate foreigners and homosexuals.

  78. graemebird Says:

    What are you talking about Z. Carbon tax will be the worst. But you have nothing to say that there will be these automatic tax cuts. You and Humphreys are just making fools of yourselves.

    To get nuclear, coal and liquified-coal up and running we want to get rid of payroll and income tax for the people involved in commissioning the plants. And the last thing we want is the carbon tax.

    The cost of nuclear is fundamentally the interest cost of the initial investment. Ziggy had no right to bullshit people and claim that $40 per tonne was needed. Since thats a lie for starters and the competitiveness is more or less entirely dependent on the commissioning time. But if you add the energy costs during commissioning and put up with the environmentalist delays thats going to kill nuclear outright.

    As if thats not enough to kill nuclear, telling people the lie that it needs a tax to competitors to be worthwhile is just one more nail in the coffin.

  79. graemebird Says:

    Even if you allow people to say “No we don’t want nuclear here” thats creating a sellers market for the real estate. So thats going to add to the cost. You need to pre-approve vastly more territory than is needed. 100 or 1000 times more territory than is needed for your industry policy. Same for wharves and other infrastructure by the way. Or else you will have a sellers market for the land needed.

  80. graemebird Says:

    Consider the real-world sophistication of my approach to these matters. As opposed to your static-equilibrium substitution baby-talk.

  81. graemebird Says:

    You get one vote every day. Change it from here on in for the good of your country.

  82. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    Mr Bird

    I suggest you listen more carefully to Mr Z’s arguments. Ride the Communist tiger like the great Lee Kuan Yew, and smuggle in our nuclear future via these useful idiots.

  83. graemebird Says:

    HA HA HA HA HA.

    Its not going to work Winchester. You don’t get to nuclear by kneeling at the feet of environmentalists, kissing their hand, and claiming that nuclear is so pathetic it needs a tax advantage.

    This has been the most disappointing business of it all. The idea that we are to appease rather than destroy and neutralise this movement. Nothing good can ever come of that.

    We are in such dire straits now that all of our energy needs a tax exemption. All the way down the line. Of course on an equal footing wind, solar and other crapola will not go anywhere. Tax exemption means no third party tax deduction. So they still have to expect to make an accounting profit. Hence wind and solar will only work in some very remote places. Mostly only wind at that.

    Look at the way these people build. The environmentalists come up with a spurious theory and right away there is Humphreys will to build on it. Then Ziggy comes up with some nonsense, to be ranked along with notions of the spiders from Mars, and they are ready to build on it also. Doesn’t matter the lack of transparency of the assumptions…. they will take the allegation and run with it. After all they are affecting to be economists. They are not scientists. They are not scientists.

  84. John Humphreys Says:

    Bird… you are correct that a carbon tax would apply to people irrespective of their income. But I can’t see how that is relevant. The GST and excises also apply to people irrespective of their income.

    And the example where the tax didn’t impact behaviour was not my prediction. It follows from the technology pessimism of Gerry (seemingly endorsed by his love-children Birdy & Mad-doug).

    I don’t agree with this position. I think we’ll likely see better technology some time in my life that is cost competitive with coal/oil. But if we pretend that the tech-pessimist case is true, then the logical conclusion is that a carbon tax is relatively efficient.

    The deadweight loss of a tax comes from the behavioural change. The more behavioural change… the worse the tax. If a tax doesn’t change behaviour by much, then it is relatively efficient and doesn’t harm the economy by as much (because it doesn’t take resources away from their best use as much as a more behaviour-changing tax).

    So under those anti-technology assumptions, you MUST admit that a carbon tax is better than an income tax. There is no other conclusion. This is simple follow-the-steps logic that cannot be denied.

  85. John Humphreys Says:

    Bird — putting aside whether we should like or hate environmentalists… you must admit that a tax on coal would provide a competitive benefit to nuclear.

    If you tax one business, but do not tax it’s competitor… then you are providing a relative benefit to the competitor.

    I’m not saying that we should introduce a tax to help the nuclear industry. In an ideal world the nuclear industry should live or die on their own competitiveness.

    But we’re not in an ideal world. We’re in a world that is currently running towards a trading system with no (or few, and bad) offsetting tax cuts.

    Given that world… it makes sense to note that there are relatively better alternatives available. Options that could (if done properly) cause little to no net cost to the economy.

  86. graemebird Says:

    No I’m saying that if you have a large capital project you have to pay carbon tax from day one. Which is even worse than company income tax because you have to make a profit prior to that being due.

    And I’m saying that capital goods are high energy goods. Capital investment has a high energy content to it. So a nuclear commissioning that is going to take 12 years sees you paying carbon tax all that way. It will destroy large capital investment outright.

  87. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    I am most disappointed in your flippancy regarding our urgency to go nuclear and launch our preemptive defence actions before we become the objects of genocide by the United Nations, Mr Bird.

    I am beginning to wonder about your bona fides. The need to go nuclear trumps a large part of everything elese Mr Bird. Indeed if I had the power I might even consider doing far more drastic things to speed the process along.

    I will have more to say on my blog when I find the time. Today is the anniversary of the death of my dear departed Mavis. But I am most disappointed and am considering rescinding the many commendations I have made of you to my dear friends at the League of Rights.

  88. graemebird Says:

    Reducing the rate of capital investment reduces the rate of technological progress more generally. Since technological progress is imbedded in capital update. You don’t tax technological update into existence. Rather you get rid of any tax on capital update. Carbon tax being one of these.

  89. graemebird Says:

    Winchester. Lets get this straight. We urgently need to go nuclear. We need to go nuclear right now. You don’t go nuclear by lying and telling people that nuclear needs a 40 dollar per tonne tax advantage. You tell them the truth. And the truth is that nuclear is the cheapest safest cleanest form of electricity that there is so long as you can get the environmentalists out of the way of the commissioning process and bring the time of setup to down under 4 years.

  90. John Humphreys Says:

    Winchester — I assume you haven’t met Graeme. Many of us have met him so allow me to update you on a few things.

    First, he’s mostly joking. I’m sorry, but he is making fun of you. He is actually a sensible guy with moderate views, and supports FR-banking, no restrictions on Chinese purchases in Australia, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. He only pretends to be a mad raving loon as a parody of your views.

    Second, it is well known to Graeme’s friends (and Graeme and I are close friends) that he is deeply skeptical of the nuclear industry and would not want to see them advantaged in any way. He will pretend that he has other reasons… but the simple truth is that Graeme is a nuclearaphobe.

    Unfortunately, given the above information, he is most likely not suitable for membership of the League of Rights.

  91. graemebird Says:

    “Bird — putting aside whether we should like or hate environmentalists… you must admit that a tax on coal would provide a competitive benefit to nuclear.”

    No a tax on carbon would not give a competitive benefit to nuclear. The commissioning times are longer for nuclear. So it would hurt nuclear. Nuclear doesn’t need a competitive advantage via tax. Its inherently the cheapest source of energy.

    We are not putting aside for one minute the real problem here. The real problem is commissioning times for nuclear due to environmentalism and violations of property rights.

    This is a constant flaw with your thinking. You always start every thought with GIVEN THAT….. or PUTTING ASIDE THAT…..

    But thats crap. Nothing is given and no reality ought to be tendentiously shoved aside.

    These are not competitors anyway. They are complementary energy sources as explained. Nuclear will bring down the cost of carbon-resources liquification.

    You are focused on static-equilibrium as if the investments have already been made. But thats not the proper focus. The proper focus is getting the investments up under capitalistic conditions rather than conditions of cronyism.

  92. graemebird Says:

    You would have to be an absolute bunny to invest in energy production with these hateful bastards waiting to destroy you at every step. Thats why the only investments, the way we are going, will be made in an appalling environment of political deal-making and cronyism.

  93. graemebird Says:

    Its like you cannot seem to break free from the economics baby-talk of these short-run theories of the firm.

  94. JohnZ Says:

    Ok turkey,

    What’s the price elasticity of income and the price elasticity of electricity consumption?

    If you don’t know the numbers, tell us which is the larger.

  95. graemebird Says:

    You cannot talk about price elasticity without regards to time periods. The price elasticity is greater the longer the time period is considered. And this is as much to do with wealth destruction and impoverishment as anything else.

  96. graemebird Says:

    Putting specific numbers on price elasticity is about as voodoo economics as you can get.

    We want to have abundant cheap energy and there is no reason why we cannot have it. It is thought that all that this will lead to is big gas guzzlers idling on blocked freeways. But you could have 20c per litre diesel and still not have a problem were the cost of the roads and the implied real estate cost recouped via profiteering on peak usage charges.

    Still one hesitates to even promote the latter. Since its just going to be abused by thieves. Which is something you and Humphreys do not appear to understand.

    We just had an example of this on the Harbour bridge. They slugged people for extra charges in such a way as to impose needless costs without getting anyone to alter their schedule.

    We had just been talking about it. And there the thieves went. They could have made it all free off-peak. Only slugging extra for about 4 hours in the day. But no. Because if you promote thieving its thieving that you get.

  97. Mark Hill Says:

    From elsewhere:

    ” 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.”

    Graeme,

    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.”

    Forgetting the hypothetical gradients I made up to make the partial equilibrium model easier to udnerstand –

    The price elasticity of demand for oil is about 0.05. For the burden of the carbon tax to be borne by consumers, supply merely needs to be more elastic than demand. Excess capacity is a reason to believe why this is true.

  98. Mark Hill Says:

    “Putting specific numbers on price elasticity is about as voodoo economics as you can get.”

    Really? You just need enough data to sketch a demand or supply curve. It doesn’t require any calculus either.

    Economics is pretty well fucked if it is impossible to gather enough data to estimate supply and demand curves.

  99. graemebird Says:

    YES REALLY. You dope.

    Just because people fake up some numbers that hardly makes it all legitimate. You got caught out there on this point with the multiplier also. Someone fakes up some numbers and you are totally taken in.

  100. graemebird Says:

    “Economics is pretty well fucked if it is impossible to gather enough data to estimate supply and demand curves.”

    Well you cannot do it. So your economics is fucked. The supply and demand curves aren’t quantitative realities. They are imaginary constructs that ought only have been used to help in the thinking process. They are or ought to be only a way of expressing in diagrammatic form general truths to do with human action.

  101. Jason Soon Says:

    Fucking hell Graeme, you are a pseudo-scientist. your vision of economics is akin to astrology. non falsifiable, non testable verbiage.

  102. graemebird Says:

    Any change in price implies that at least one of the curves has altered in some way. So clearly we cannot hope to ever put numbers on two curves that are always a moving target.

    We can simply make generalisations about certain curves being relatively inelastic. Like real estate. Like oil from traditional wells. Later this century perhaps coal will tend to be a very inelastic supply curve. Trying to put numbers on such a thing is pure voodoo.

  103. graemebird Says:

    Jason I’m right about this. Faking up some numbers does not change anything. Thats why Mises never had a lot of these diagrams about the place. They are next to useless and in a sane economics were only meant to be didactic tools.

    Go through it again in your mind. Each time there is a price change one or other of the curves has altered in some way. Ergo to try and put a price elasticity on either is pure voodoo.

    To top it off, to talk about specific elasticities without reference to time periods is just the epitome of pseudo-science.

    It ought not be lost on people that Jason shot off the leftist-reversal as soon as he got the chance.

    Don’t tell me you pretend to calculate elasticities as part of your job?

  104. Mark Hill Says:

    “Any change in price implies that at least one of the curves has altered in some way.”

    Not on the immediate imposition of a tax. Elasticities may change (and demand and supply may shift or pivot in or out) but that doesn’t happen immediately.

    Furthermore, a tax on a commodity where supply and demand are highly inelastic and there is no close substitute may never see the price changes due to changing elasticities and changing tastes or industry adjustments.

    Your statement is not true.

  105. graemebird Says:

    Lets break this right down.

    A price change implies an alteration of the entirety of either the supply or the demand curve….. Hence the attribution of numbers for elasticities, and worse still elasticities free from time specifications…… is the ultimate in pseudo-science.

    This follows directly.

  106. Mark Hill Says:

    You are incorrect Graeme.

    Mises did not consider the quantifiaction economics.

    Quantifying money was finance. Quantifying labour demand would be HR studies to him. Economics to him was praxeology which was the progenitor of these other dicisplines.

    Under today’s division of labour, these divisions he saw are no longer real. It doesn’t mean quantifiaction is bogus.

  107. Mark Hill Says:

    “A price change implies an alteration of the entirety of either the supply or the demand curve….. Hence the attribution of numbers for elasticities, and worse still elasticities free from time specifications…… is the ultimate in pseudo-science”

    No, draw a graph of a tax levied on a commodity where the supply and demand are highly inelastic and there are no close subsititutes.

    No numbers have been attributed. What you are saying is logically crap.

  108. graemebird Says:

    No my statement is true. Your talk about inelastic supply curves only relates in the rarest of cases. Perhaps it has some truth with regards to oil from old sources. But that would just be outright theft. And also to real estate. An imposition of a tax might not lead to increases in cost of buying this gear. It would be a direct attack on the capital value of the owners.

    But these cases are of the rarest of nature and are a different subject and in no way contradict what I said.

    Lets go over it again:

    “A price change implies an alteration of the entirety of either the supply or the demand curve….. Hence the attribution of numbers for elasticities, and worse still elasticities free from time specifications…… is the ultimate in pseudo-science.”

    Nothing you can come up with can contradict this basic fact of reality. This is a general fault with neoclassicals building a model and then falling for it. Replacing reality with their model.

  109. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    Larry Sechrest at Mises.org has tried to quantify the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

    Is he an “epitome of voodoo pseudo-science”?

    Actually I think he is a bloody champ. In the same way I don’t agree much with Steve Keen, but he was trying to quantify Minsky lately with differential equations. Full credit to him. Quantifying Schumpeter and comparing it to Kondratieff would be very interesting.

  110. Mark Hill Says:

    “You’re right, but I consider this theft”…

    um yeah sure.

  111. graemebird Says:

    “No, draw a graph of a tax levied on a commodity where the supply and demand are highly inelastic and there are no close subsititutes.”

    No thas got nothing to do with what I said. I remember lecturing you about this very point with regards to land tax when you went under the name just another bloody libertarian or whatever it was.

    This is what I said

    “A price change implies an alteration of the entirety of either the supply or the demand curve….. Hence the attribution of numbers for elasticities, and worse still elasticities free from time specifications…… is the ultimate in pseudo-science.”

    And your special rare case does not contradict this. Furthermore if you want to change the subject our commodities are not in the least bit inelastic in supply with the exception of oil from traditional sources.

  112. Mark Hill Says:

    Err Graeme, why can’t economists use dynamic estimation? You know, what time series econometrics and differential calculus is for?

    We do every day. You just can’t easily draw an example of it.

    Here is a site that can help you with the maths:

    http://khanacademy.org

  113. graemebird Says:

    Well they cannot estimate elasticity since the supply and demand curve are always changing and since elasticity is not time independent.

    Rather elasticity is dependent on the time it takes for capital update. Since we know empirically that prices move around a lot we know also that the supply and/or the demand curve are always changing. Hence its fanciful to fake up some numbers and talk about elasticity.

    Rather when we see something like a consumer good that takes very little time to and capital-alteration to expand its output we would say that this is a good whose supply is generally elastic.

    Whereas with the primary energy source and the secondary one expanding to substitute for it, the supply is going to be very inelastic because of the extensiveness of the capital update needed.

    Its better to know not to bother with numbers rather than to fake them up and mislead people. How many people have been stooged by the multiplier due to the faking up of numbers? You for example. And many others too.

    Less is more with numbers. A small amount of honest numbers beats a shitrain of fakery and numbers cut loose from human reason.

  114. graemebird Says:

    Elasticity IS time dependent and obviously so. So anyone who gives you elasticity numbers is revealing himself as an economics know-nothing.

  115. graemebird Says:

    “Err Graeme, why can’t economists use dynamic estimation? You know, what time series econometrics and differential calculus is for?”

    Well why do you think DUMMY. The demand and supply curves are imaginary constructs in the first place. And every time the price changes one or other has changed. So it would be like holding water in your hands.

  116. graemebird Says:

    I thought it was only the Club Troppo dummies that didn’t understand this. They would show up at Catallaxy telling us that the jury was out on the minimum wage and employment and it all depended on the elasticity of demand for labour. And of course I’d abuse them mercilessly for having fallen for an imaginary contruct. And for having forgotten that any general curves that they could ever draw were really an amalgamation of thousands of curves to do with individual firms.

    You guys never really do learn anything new do you.

  117. graemebird Says:

    “Larry Sechrest at Mises.org has tried to quantify the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.”

    Once again more idiocy of hiding behind someone else. No doubt misrepresenting them. Make your case all on your own. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory has got nothing to do with price elasticities of curves that change with every move in prices.

  118. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    if demand and supply are imaginary constructs then what do you base the conclusion that the minimum wage reduces unemployment on?

    you doofus

  119. graemebird Says:

    Supply and demand aren’t imaginary constructs you dishonest fucking moron.

    But supply and demand curves are.

  120. graemebird Says:

    General truthz of human action are that more will be supplied at a higher price and more will be demanded at a lower price.

    The curves are drawn on the basis of these general truthz. They add nothing at all to these general truthz except for didactic purposes.

  121. graemebird Says:

    Thanks to Mark for reminding me of Sechrest. The wonderful man died very recently and I haven’t watched him for a very long time.

  122. JohnZ Says:

    As I said in my original question, if you can’t estimate the magnitude, let us know which of income and electricity has the greater price elasticity.

  123. graemebird Says:

    What is this relevant for? Where are you coming from here?

    I don’t think it could be determined outright. Good policy would swing things in favour of electricity being abundant and labour being relatively scarce.

    This is the result and ought to be the goal of good policy. To have every last thing relatively abundant so that the labour supply is about the only pretty scarce thing. So its still not possible to make your estimate regardless of the time factor.

    Time and good policy would leave energy elastic and abundant. Whether an explosion of population and skills would wind up resulting in the same time period is pretty much unknowable.

  124. graemebird Says:

    Remembering here that elasticity is often or mostly to do with how quickly the capital update can be made in order to expand production.

  125. Lyam Says:

    “I don’t think it could be determined outright. Good policy would swing things in favour of electricity being abundant and labour being relatively scarce.”

    For cost efficiency we could also reintroduce slavery :-).

  126. JohnZ Says:

    If it can’t be determined, how the hell do you know the carbon tax is more damaging than the income tax?

    Surely you understand what dead weight loss is?

    Or is that not taught at Wai Kii Kii Baa Baa university?

  127. graemebird Says:

    No that would lead to more costs and reduced capital accumulation.

  128. graemebird Says:

    Well thats easy Z you dope. Because elasticity isn’t the determining factor for the damage done.

    I don’t know how you managed to equate the two. But clearly you were building up to this latest piece of idiocy for a very long time.

  129. JohnZ Says:

    Ok turkey, how do we compare the relative costs of taxes if dead-weight loss is no good?

  130. graemebird Says:

    Who said that dead weight loss isn’t any good?

  131. graemebird Says:

    Dead weight loss is fine. You just cannot hope to draw it on a cartesian graph or estimate it.

    The entire problem falls into about 3 or 4 categories…..

    1. The impossibility of promoting spending and tax cuts by promoting tax increases.

    2. The impossibility of getting environmentalism out of the way by trying to appease them.

    3. The impossibility of getting rid of all taxes on energy production by promoting another tax on energy promotion.

    4. The fact that capital accumulation requires massive energy use.

    5. The need to eliminate those taxes that fall most directly on capital accumulation.

    6. The inherent horror of a tax that gets in the way of long-term commissioning where projects take many years to get up and running.

  132. Lyam Says:

    “Dead weight loss is fine. You just cannot hope to draw it on a cartesian graph or estimate it.”

    So how is dead weight loss fine for a quantitative comparison if you can’t estimate it?

  133. graemebird Says:

    See what I’m trying to say is we need to eliminate payroll and income tax on energy production because of the last 30 years of obstruction.

    What you are claiming here is that by adding a carbon tax the other taxes will miraculously disappear. Well clearly my idea is a good thing to promote and your notion is just plainly idiotic.

  134. graemebird Says:

    “So how is dead weight loss fine for a quantitative comparison if you can’t estimate it?”

    You can sometimes make the argument that deadweight loss is likely to be higher in some cases than in others. But this is not a big part of any serious economics. It may come into play if one is considering various infrastructural projects. But this is where you are having socialist or crony-capitalist investments. So its not really part of any good policy estimates.

  135. Lyam Says:

    “You can sometimes make the argument that deadweight loss is likely to be higher in some cases than in others. But this is not a big part of any serious economics.”

    I agree, and so how is dead weight loss fine for a serious economics comparison if you can’t estimate it?

  136. graemebird Says:

    I’ll give you an example of where it seemed that this usually useless model could be taken off the shelf.

    When appraising that canal that DeWitt Clinton put up as opposed to the grants to the railroads. This seems to lend itself to the normally useless analysis of consumer surplus and deadweight loss. Once would probably ascertain that there was much consumer surplus in the Clinton investment and a great deal of deadweight loss in the railroad grants.

    Another case I could think of would be when the Arabs stole all those oilwells. It was probably the case that the non-opec countries could have siezed back a lot of consumer surplus “as it were” unto themselves by agreeing on a general tariff on these Arabs.

    But you see this analysis usually requires some socialist intervention to make it fly. Another example might have been the privatisation of New Zealands railway. Since New Zealand was a long thin country with all the land locked up it might have been predictable that the consumer would not likely have gained much value from this particular privatisation.

    This is not generally very useful analysis. But its good to learn it anyway. Most of the neoclassical models are useless most of the time. But they can suddenly have some fleeting usefulness in some niche example. And mostly its to do with when we haven’t had good property rights in some area.

  137. Lyam Says:

    Birdy! You said

    “You can sometimes make the argument that deadweight loss is likely to be higher in some cases than in others. But this is not a big part of any serious economics.”

    In other words, you said that making arguments on some cases is not serious economics.

    And now you do exactly that.

    You previously said that dead weight loss is fine to do a comparison on the consequences of carbon tax. But you also say it isn’t serious because it can’t be estimated.

    You are going nowhere birdy.

  138. Mark Hill Says:

    “graemebird Says:
    March 2, 2009 at 10:40 am

    Who said that dead weight loss isn’t any good?”

    WTF?!

  139. graemebird Says:

    The better analysis is not to do with some static business after the capital goods are already in existence. The better analysis is to do with the flow of capital investment into some area or other over time leading to a subsequent fall in prices which leads to a normalisation of the return on capital investment for that activity or industry.

    So you are leaving behind the static model and thinking in terms of an involving market.

    We want to be the lowest cost producer in a lot of these areas. And that means having the capital keep flowing. We need to catch up after 30 years of obstruction. That means not taxing in any way revenues that can be reinvested into the capital in these key and formerly obstructed areas.

    Also areas where an ACTUAL environmental problem exists. I mean when there are serious environmental problems like overfishing, we want to take them seriously. Here the neoclassical school gets in the way.

  140. Mark Hill Says:

    re, my comment at “11:08” am – I think Bird has finally lost the plot.

  141. graemebird Says:

    “In other words, you said that making arguments on some cases is not serious economics.

    And now you do exactly that.”

    No no you fuckwit. I just gave you special examples where this analysis makes some fleeting sense. It pretty hard to think of any more.

    The key analytical tool in these cases is to think about the flow of capital spending in the context of invariant total spending.

    That way you are thinking about capital spending which will make prices fall and normalize profits.

    Thats your better analytical framework.

  142. Jason Soon Says:

    why am I not surprised that Graeme opposed privatisation in New Zealand – and on irrational grounds too …

  143. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme you damned fool

    Are you saying taxes can sometimes not incur deadweight losses?

  144. graemebird Says:

    No Mark you just don’t understand economics.

    Lets apply that framework to the NZ rail privatisation. In that case the results overlap. The new owners do not need to respond to their higher than normal margins by massive capital investment to reduce recurring costs in order to stay in business. Because the obstructions to a direct competitor are pretty enourmous. So their margins will stay high without capital investment that would keep prices falling with invariant total spending.

    Now we see thats one example that might appear to contradict the general benefits of privatisation and where the analysis via my framework would overlap with the deadweight loss and consumer surplus analysis.

    But you see this other business we have entered into here. The sort of analysis that Gerry or I would bring comes out with totally different results to what these neoclassicals are coming up with.

    And I would say that my analysis is totally superior and there’s is crude beyond belief.

  145. Lyam Says:

    In other words you say that dead weight loss isn’t any good for comparisons on the impact of carbon tax.

  146. Mark Hill Says:

    “No no you fuckwit. I just gave you special examples where this analysis makes some fleeting sense. It pretty hard to think of any more.”

    Does not compute with:

    “No my statement is true. Your talk about inelastic supply curves only relates in the rarest of cases. Perhaps it has some truth with regards to oil from old sources. But that would just be outright theft. And also to real estate. An imposition of a tax might not lead to increases in cost of buying this gear. It would be a direct attack on the capital value of the owners.”

    and…

    “And for having forgotten that any general curves that they could ever draw were really an amalgamation of thousands of curves to do with individual firms.

    You guys never really do learn anything new do you.”

    …shows you’re a real dummy. Those curves are based on individual preferences for work, leisure and goods and services which in turn create all individual and market/firm demand, derived demand and supply curves.

    Individual preferences for work/leisure and consumer preferences, as they relate to scarcity drive the whole thing. Not institutions like firms. They describe organisation.

    The “gold” continues:

    “”# Jason Soon Says:
    March 2, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Graeme
    if demand and supply are imaginary constructs then what do you base the conclusion that the minimum wage reduces unemployment on?

    you doofus”

    Answer the question you dishonest twerp Graeme. Tell me why Gerry Jackson would otherwise talk about marginal revenue productivity and marginal costs?

    “# graemebird Says:
    March 2, 2009 at 9:50 am

    Supply and demand aren’t imaginary constructs you dishonest fucking moron.

    But supply and demand curves are.”

    Really? Que? What is the law of demand, Alex?

  147. graemebird Says:

    “Graeme you damned fool

    Are you saying taxes can sometimes not incur deadweight losses?”

    No but Mark was talking about some areas where taxes might incur less deadweight loss. That is to say where the supply curve is genuiinely inelastic.

    The special case I came up with is just after the Arabs nationalised all the oil and established opec.

    Then a tariff by a non-opec league wouldn’t have been strictly a violation of property rights and it wouldn’t have caused much deadweight loss and it would likely have been a rare opportunity to drag back economic rent in retaliation.

    But this is a rare case.

  148. Mark Hill Says:

    “Now we see thats one example that might appear to contradict the general benefits of privatisation and where the analysis via my framework would overlap with the deadweight loss and consumer surplus analysis.”

    Christ you’re a washed up old idiot. You think monopolies have deadweight losses that ought to be regulated or avoided.

    I am pretty sure the other day on your blog you were bemoaning Marshallian perfect competition.

    You’ve cracked. You’ve got MPD.

  149. graemebird Says:

    Another case would be with land tax if the damage is already done.

    Meaning that I consider land tax as probably the worst tax in the short term and the least bad tax in the longer term.

    Hence if the land tax was in place already and the damage was already done one could make the argument that there would be less deadweight loss from deep-sixing the tax on rental incomes and the stamp duty then from lifting the land tax which might probably be the last to rightly go.

    So to me the damage is done when the land tax is initially applied.

  150. Mark Hill Says:

    “No but Mark was talking about some areas where taxes might incur less deadweight loss. That is to say where the supply curve is genuiinely inelastic.”

    Was I now? That also depends on the tax rate and the elasticity of supply as well.

    “Then a tariff by a non-opec league wouldn’t have been strictly a violation of property rights and it wouldn’t have caused much deadweight loss and it would likely have been a rare opportunity to drag back economic rent in retaliation.”

    Besides the facts:

    America imports 10% of its oil from the Mid East, only 50% in toto with a mass of untapped reserves

    Australia has usurious resource rent taxes and produces 85% of oil consumed

    and that trade wars end so well!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act#Economic_effects

  151. graemebird Says:

    “Christ you’re a washed up old idiot. You think monopolies have deadweight losses that ought to be regulated or avoided.”

    No I don’t think that. You are lying. I was trying to gather together special cases which might fleetingly conform to your stupid fucking neoclassical models.

    So no. Lying doesn’t count. And everything I said was pretty right. You would not expect to get great gains from this privatisation unless you went the next step to help transport infrastructure along. Like making it easier for capital to flow into small wharves all along the coast that can accept containers. Then you would have a viable competitor to the railroad which would then be forced into massive capital investment to cut their own costs.

  152. graemebird Says:

    Lyam check out these morons. Here comes the shitrain of misrepresentation where they do the leftist reversal and put on the capitalistic hat when they are quite clearly centrists.

    I was talking about technical matters and they will try and say that they are the free enterprisers when clearly they are a coterie of sellouts.

    I only said what I said. And these things hold up on a technical level. Whereas Soon and Hill will try and make a leftist reversal out of it.

  153. graemebird Says:

    Well thats all fine Mark but upon close inspection you will find it doesn’t contradict a fucking thing what I am saying.

  154. graemebird Says:

    “In other words you say that dead weight loss isn’t any good for comparisons on the impact of carbon tax.”

    Yes very good Lyam. Its got not fucking relevance at all that I can see. Its good to see that at least one of you is on the ball and not trying to use a technical discussion to drag matters down the argument cul de sac like these Quislings in the economics profession.

  155. Mark Hill Says:

    “I was trying to gather together special cases which might fleetingly conform to your stupid fucking neoclassical models.”

    ???

    http://brookesnews.com/082702carbontax.html

    A note on Humphreys as a historian of economic thought:

    *There is no clear cut-off point between the Austrian school and neo-classical economics. Not only that, there was no neo-classical school before WWII in the sense of a body of comprehensive economic theories to which the vast majority of the world’s economists adhered. (This, however, is not to suggest that there was no uniformity of thought on a geat range of economic matters). The theory of capital and time in production is a case in point as are the great economic debates of the 1920s and 1930s.*

    Just what are you blathering on about, dummy?

  156. graemebird Says:

    Yes well your quote is just fine Mark. But under close inspection you will find that it doesn’t contradict a thing I’ve said.

  157. Jason Soon Says:

    You would not expect to get great gains from this privatisation unless you went the next step to help transport infrastructure along.

    The great gains from privatisation come from having less resource based decisions subject to political interference and from capital market discipline and fear of takeover.

    Read up on some public choice theory and financial economics before calling yourself a libertarian for chrissakes.

  158. Mark Hill Says:

    So then you are against Austrian economics. Which you have praised as well as Jackson for his use of it in his analysis.

    Cognitive dissonance, MPD, exploding planets, please tell me you’re in a warm, padded cell.

  159. graemebird Says:

    Notice that because you don’t understand economics Mark you are forced to drag these others into it rather than argue the matter straight.

  160. graemebird Says:

    No no I’m not against Austrian economics. And a close inspection will find that your quotes do not contradict mine and that your argument is spurious.

    I wasn’t advocating anything much. I was explaining some technical matters to Lyam without advocacy.

  161. graemebird Says:

    “The great gains from privatisation come from having less resource based decisions subject to political interference and from capital market discipline and fear of takeover.”

    Not in the case I was talking about. The great gains ought to come from establishing a market that conforms to the realities of a properly functioning market.

    And these realities are that:

    If any player fails to innovate and update his capital structure to reduce recurring costs then he will find himself out of business.

    What you are talking about is but a small part of that story.

  162. Mark Hill Says:

    Jesus Christ.

    1. Assail Graeme’s eye-poppingly-rampant until he hides behind Mummy’s apron strings.

    2. Show Graeme Mummy doesn’t love him.

    3. Graeme accuses you of hiding behind Mummy’s apron strings.

    Is it possible to win an argument against such a low rent, dishonest, mentally impaired, unstable, unhinged and incoherent degenerate?

  163. Jason Soon Says:

    The new owners do not need to respond to their higher than normal margins by massive capital investment to reduce recurring costs in order to stay in business. Because the obstructions to a direct competitor are pretty enourmous.

    FFS you really do believe that a government owned business has the same incentives as a publicly listed company don’t you? In that case why not just nationalise everything and take advantage of the government’s borrowing power, you wizened old Stalinist?

  164. graemebird Says:

    Are you drinking Mark?

    Not that this is a bad thing but you are being more silly then usual.

    Now Lyam. I hope that you are able to prise apart the technical matters I was telling you about and the idiotic accusations of advocacy that these neoclassical dummies are putting in my mouth.

  165. Mark Hill Says:

    “Are you drinking Mark?”

    No but you certainly shouldn’t.

    That’s fantastic Graeme. You are the great libertarian planner. You know a market should function.

    As a self described “Austrian”, you would recognise that markets are a process, not a mechanism.

    Idiot.

  166. Mark Hill Says:

    “The new owners do not need to respond to their higher than normal margins by massive capital investment to reduce recurring costs in order to stay in business. Because the obstructions to a direct competitor are pretty enourmous.”

    How does one quantify this without engaging in “fucking stupid neoclassical economic analysis”, as you would say Graeme?

  167. graemebird Says:

    Just as a matter of record 15 years ago I WOULD HAVE thought that such a non-opec coterie would have been appropriate. But now that I know more about energy production I would go for instead just undercutting the Arabs in the production of synthetics… I’m far more loath now to build any international institutions. But still if this were a shortrun way of draining the Arabs during wartime it might not be ruled out in its entirety.

    The idea was to have massively abundant energy of ones own. I brought it up simply as a technical example for Lyam. Because such examples where these neoclassical theories have some fleeting applicability are few and far between.

  168. Jason Soon Says:

    But now that I know more about energy production I would go for instead just undercutting the Arabs in the production of synthetics… I’m far more loath now to build any international institutions. But still if this were a shortrun way of draining the Arabs during wartime it might not be ruled out in its entirety.

    More ‘industry policy’ eh Kim Ill-Bird?

  169. graemebird Says:

    ‘How does one quantify this without engaging in “fucking stupid neoclassical economic analysis”, as you would say Graeme?”

    Simply by noting the commercial reality they face!!! Do they need to invest to innovate and cut costs or see their margins whittle away? If not then the privatisation on its own is an incomplete industry policy. And a wider view must be taken.

  170. Mark Hill Says:

    I thought you said marginal cost curves were basically an abstraction.

    Now they are a commercial reality.

    Which Graeme am I talking to?

    GMB

    Graeme

    Gra-Gra

    Graeme-Sybil

    ???

  171. Mark Hill Says:

    I suppose demand curves and willingness to pay are crap too. That’s why the head of the ITLS at Syd U. owns a consultancy that specialises in choice modelling to determine road pricing.

    Those who follow his advice profit (M7), those who don’t have failed (cross city kerfuffle).

    It must be bullshit. It seems the consulting business is what we in the sane world might call a “commercial reality”.

  172. Tailgunner Joe Says:

    As a self described “Austrian”, you would recognise that markets are a process, not a mechanism

    Forget Austrian, he isn’t even Australian.

    Deport the Commie foreigner!

  173. Lyam Says:

    Birdy,

    “Now Lyam. I hope that you are able to prise apart the technical matters I was telling you about and the idiotic accusations of advocacy that these neoclassical dummies are putting in my mouth.”

    Nobody’s putting anything in your mouth, and nobody ever managed to put something in you head. And that is your problem.

    You are so confused on all matters, and in particular the use of the English language, that there is no way you can communicate intelligently or that anyone can explain anything to you.

    In order to get out of this psychotic spiral, you must first accept that you are illiterate. Illiterate in the sense that, although you can read a text out loud you don’t understand it’s meaning.

  174. GMB Says:

    Alright. I can see the whole lot of you are determined to be dishonest. In brief I’m right and you are wrong and my analysis is superior. And on top of that if I’m advocating something as opposed to talking about some technical matter I would be sure to let you all know.

    So there is just no point in Mark and Jason lying about all these things.

  175. GMB Says:

    “I thought you said marginal cost curves were basically an abstraction.”

    Actually you are lying about that. I never once mentioned marginal cost curves.

    You are lying but whether its true or not is another matter.

  176. jc Says:

    Yep Bird, everyone fronts up here and lies except you of course.

  177. graemebird Says:

    Precisely and there is no need to be ironic about it.

  178. Mark Hill Says:

    “You are lying but whether its true or not is another matter.”

    That is a great Bill Clinton impersonation you have there Graeme. But that is a matter of opinion. I guess that depends on what your definition of is is.

  179. graemebird Says:

    You ought not have lied in the first place you dumb cunt. Its a constant problem with you lying all the time. It doesn’t help with your flat learning curves.

  180. Mark Hill Says:

    Where have I “lied”?

    How on earth can I lie if the subject “may or may not be” true?

    This is just sloppy thinking and over defensiveness in your part Graeme.

    I mean just re-read what you wrote:

    “You are lying but whether its true or not is another matter.”

    What the hell does that actually mean?

  181. graemebird Says:

    Don’t fucking be dishonest you cunt. You put words in my mouth about marginal cost curves. That was a flat out lie. I hadn’t mentioned marginal cost curves.

    You are always lying like this. Always. Retract you fucking idiot.

  182. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme,

    When you “diss” supply curves, you in turn “diss” marginal costs, which are the key drivers of supply curves.

    That is totally honest.

    Please also write more clearly;

    “You are lying but whether its true or not is another matter.”

    …is simply babble.

  183. Elton John Says:

    “Retract you fucking idiot”

    That’s what he says to me every night after his arse is filled up

  184. Liberace Says:

    This thread is simply divine!

  185. graemebird Says:

    This is tiresome. I don’t know which is worse. The avalanche of gay-homosexual interlopers or Mark filibusting his way out when he’s been caught lying.

  186. Bird from hell. Says:

    No bird, Mark isn’t lying, you are.

    the gay stuff is by Steve Munn.

  187. Adrien Says:

    No no I’m not against Austrian economics.

    You would be if they showed up here tho’ ‘ey?

  188. Adrien Says:

    Christ Humphreys beats Graeme 2:1 on the poll. What I want to know is, what I want to know is WHO THE FUCK VOTED FOR GRAEME?

    You guys’ll do anything to get out of tax won’t cha?

    Here’s the new poll viz the 21st century energy source.

  189. Adrien Says:

    Graeme every time I read a thread of yours I’m reminded of what Brad Pitt asks Kevin Spacey in Se7en:

    – When you’re insane do you know you’re insane?

    Do you?

    Humphreys never dealt with my arguments but rather he pretended that I never made them. Whereas I took on his argument and destroyed them. Clearly that makes me the winner.

    Absolute. Fucking. Bullshit.

    ‘No you are lying cunt’ is not a successful rebuttal. And the ultimate economic authority?

    What Jason did.

    Fuckn’ Hell. You really need to be in a rubber room mate.

  190. JohnZ Says:

    I think it’s very clear who voted for Graeme…

    Even after everyone else has forgotton about the thread he’ll be sitting there voting until he’s ahead…

  191. Mark Hill Says:

    Filibustering?

    You idiot.

    1. Marginal costs are the key drivers of supply curves.

    2. “You are lying but whether its true or not is another matter.” – is incomprehensible gibberish.

  192. graemebird Says:

    Thats not gibberish at all. You were busted flat lying. And you won’t be able to get out of the bad habit of compulsive lying if you cannot come clean about it in your own mind.

  193. graemebird Says:

    I SEZ:

    “The new owners do not need to respond to their higher than normal margins by massive capital investment to reduce recurring costs in order to stay in business. Because the obstructions to a direct competitor are pretty enourmous.”

    SO MARK SEZ;

    How does one quantify this without engaging in “fucking stupid neoclassical economic analysis”, as you would say Graeme?

    SO I SEZ:

    I don’t think you can quantify it. Its a real curse in every area to think that you have to come up with a dishonest exactitude of calculation rather than an honest judgement.

    There may be some quant. work in this matter. But its more going to be about judgement.

    In the case of the New Zealand rail a more comprehensive program ought to have been required rather than just merely selling off the rail. Since it ought to have been predicted you would not have had a functioning market after the sale.

  194. Mark Hill Says:

    You’re insane Graeme.

    You want privatisation but there is no acceptable method in privatising the assets themselves, be it auctioning off the assets, gifting or remutualisation (as you’ve demonstrated before with foam-frothing zealousness).

    You’ve gone totally bonkers.

  195. Graeme Bird Says:

    No you are an idiot. You always choose unfair and anti-economics ways to do things.

    On a more general note. SHAME ON ANY OF YOU CUNTS THAT VOTED FOR HUMPHREYS. He lost. Don’t come here to vote for the wrong person just because you are a parasite. Fucking show a bit of responsibility all of you.

    Humphreys just did what he always does. What all of you always do. What Z is other thread. He just filibusted and ignored any points he didn’t feel like answering.

    Now this is clearly an Australian parasites cultural idiom.

  196. Graeme Bird Says:

    “I SEZ:

    “The new owners do not need to respond to their higher than normal margins by massive capital investment to reduce recurring costs in order to stay in business. Because the obstructions to a direct competitor are pretty enourmous.”

    SO MARK SEZ;

    How does one quantify this without engaging in “fucking stupid neoclassical economic analysis”, as you would say Graeme?

    SO I SEZ:

    I don’t think you can quantify it. Its a real curse in every area to think that you have to come up with a dishonest exactitude of calculation rather than an honest judgement………”

    So this is where we were. I’m absolutely and unassailably right. And instead of just getting real about it the budding parasite fails to acknowledge the point and filibusters by changing the subject.

    Now Humphreys is the same. He just ignored anything I said, or answered in foolish ways.

    So who was the silly lying irresponsible cunt that voted for him?

  197. Mark Hill Says:

    “I’m absolutely and unassailably right.”

    Only because you believe in a religious version of economics without data, testing, financial markets and probably money.

    Children who believe in faeries also think they are “unassailably right”.

  198. graemebird Says:

    No I”m right. And you and Humphreys have been shown up as the economics know-nothings that you are.

  199. Mark Hill Says:

    Sure Pal, that’s why we have jobs in the field and you don’t.

  200. John Humphreys Says:

    Looks like I won the debate. Yay for me.

    Having said that, I just want to make it clear that I don’t support a carbon tax. 🙂

  201. Jason Soon Says:

    Congratulations John. But then this was an unfair contest from the start, a bit like putting Mike Tyson up against Woody Allen.

  202. Mark Hill Says:

    John won but Graeme will keep on voting.

  203. jc Says:

    Yes, congratulations John. Although i must say it doesn’t seem as though it was too hard.

  204. graemebird Says:

    Right so who won the carbon tax debate? The reality is I won the carbon tax debate. And two years on I hope you quisling lame-brains are proud of yourselves. You people really are stupid cunts.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: