Bird flies left

It finally happened – Bird has embraced the corporate state:

I’M ON THEIR SIDE. I’m not on your side anymore. Reindustrialisation, by any means necessary, short of subsidy.

We can be sure the subsidies will follow. After all, what’s a struggling fish farmer to do if some seagulls eat his livelihood?

Bird is now openly to the left of Rudd and Obama on trade protection:

I say the reindustrialisation is more important than ideological purity when it comes to tariffs.

[…] 

We can stop the bleed now and lock in tariff reductions for later when certain reindustrialisation metrics have been met.

 Hayek is rejected:

Reindustrialisation and sound money are the goals of liberty.

Wrong. Liberty is about leaving individuals free to pursue their own ends.

Graeme, your craven submission to the economic left is a disgrace. Renounce your LDP membership immediately before you discredit tireless champions of liberty like Hill, Soon and Humphreys.

I hear Kim Ill Carr is looking for some heavies – you’d more than fill the position.

Advertisements

117 Responses to “Bird flies left”

  1. jc Says:

    Good Post Z. Very honest and to the point.

    I think Birdie needs to consider membership to the socialist left. Kim Ill Carr is always looking for support and Birdie would be a very, very good ideological supporter and ‘ enforcer” to Kim.

  2. Mark Hill Says:

    “I’M ON THEIR SIDE. I’m not on your side anymore. Reindustrialisation, by any means necessary, short of subsidy.”

    Stalin’s five year plans were of much the same substance.

  3. Graeme Bird Says:

    I didn’t embrace any corporate state. You are lying. Its very clear I was talking about individuals who are concerned about losing industry. And its very clear also how I would go about reindustrialising. That would be by REDUCING THE CORPORATE STATE.

    So you are just a liar.

  4. Graeme Bird Says:

    So the entire sum total of your argument is just you lying.

    Do I like tarrifs…. NO.

    So what is the point in lying about it? What I like is mass-sackings of taxeaters to get rid of any taxes on retained earnings. Taxes on profit are a sin.

    What we want is a country with highly capitalised subcontractors working under growth deflation. Thats how you get this lattice-work of highly productive interactions that would allow us to compete internationally.

    And as well you if you increase the reserve asset ratio our banks won’t be lining up in spectacularly futile fashion, to borrow off foreign banks, for simple liquidity problems.

  5. Graeme Bird Says:

    So thats another argument lost by the idiots side of the debate. Whereas the claim was made that I favoured the corporate state it turned out to be the stolen-money crowd. That was their argument right there. A straight, pathological leftist reversal.

  6. Graeme Bird Says:

    “Good Post Z. Very honest and to the point.”

    You stupid stupid bootnigger Cambria. You pathetic, compulsive-lying welfare queen.

  7. Graeme Bird Says:

    Now that Australian economists have cocked this matter up its simply a matter of proving to the skeptical that we can reindustrialise with or without tariffs. And that it would be better to do so without them.

    I have talked to people and they do not believe this. I’m saying smart people. Logical people. And the reason they don’t believe this is that our economists in treasury, crony-defense, subsidised-banking, and in other the universities are telling them implicitly THAT THE LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE POWER IS THE GOAL OF THE EXERCISE.

    People are not stupid. And if you thief-economists and sundry parasites are going to promoting these anti-economics ideas then that leaves a situation impossible for sane people to unravel.

    “We can stop the bleed now and lock in tariff reductions for later when certain reindustrialisation metrics have been met.”

    Well thats the point. The tariff reductions MUST BE LOCKED IN IN ADVANCE. What I’m advocating is mass-sackings, allowing tax exemptions, allowing the immediate abolition of tariffs. Thats what I’m after. But the water has been muddied on this score. And the important thing is to get the spending cuts and lock the tariff reductions in when certain conditions are met.

  8. THR Says:

    I think this post is a little unfair on the ‘economic left’, and a little too kind to the Birdman.

    Not all of the left’s solutions to the economic meltdown are statist. There’s a long tradition of anarchism (among other, non-statist strains) on the left, from which libertarians could learn a lot, if they could swallow their pride.

    Secondly, to the extent that lefties are putting out statist solutions, they are generally not in the form of tariffs, which are useless and counter-productive in a global economy.

    The main political groups who are pushing for protectionism are the fringe would-be fascist groups, like the BNP, or the Australian Protectionist Party. This is where Birdy’s views seem to fit in.

  9. Fyodor Says:

    You stupid stupid bootnigger Cambria. You pathetic, compulsive-lying welfare queen.

    Judging by that response on the blust-o-metre, JZ and JC just nailed you, Turkey.

    I always knew you were a crypto-socialist, and now you’ve been stupid enough – no surprise there – to damn yourself with the proof of it.

  10. DH Says:

    “What we want is a country with highly capitalised subcontractors …”

    This is Bird’s version of BA Santamaria’s nation of rural peasants.

  11. Mark Hill Says:

    Jeez Bird, even the left don’t want to be associated with you.

  12. JohnZ Says:

    It’s a good point THR. The social democracy lite as espoused by the likes of Quiggin is preferable to the heavy industry Stalinism of Bird.

    As I see it, the foundation of turkean thinking are as follows:

    – Undermining property rights. e.g. by allowing crazed loons to quite literally mine underneath people’s property. See “homesteading”.

    – Banning the free exchange of banking services.

    – Banning ponzi loans for everyone except Bird. Then blaming his hypocrisy on the missus.

    – Government establishment of fish-farms.

    – Forcing people into the Australian desert.

    – Leaving the current tariff regime in place.

    – Rigging the market so small business cronies get ahead of their more efficient corporate competitors.

    – Banning foreign capital.

    – Racially abusing those of non-anglo descent.

    Turkey, why not skip the socialist left and move straight to One Nation?

  13. the anti-bird Says:

    thanks Z. you’ve put that in a very reasonable perspective. Also, THR has done a good job of presenting new light on things too.

    So, we’re agreed then, birdie’s new home is one nation or the party that racist idiot runs from the Shire. (What’s his name?)

  14. the anti-bird Says:

    Actually, giving it a little more thought in trying to figure where Biardie really lives.. politically speaking of course.

    I think he and we would all agree that Birdie is an out spoken nationalist. Birdie also has some very strong brown smoke socialist tendencies.

    Birdie has also displayed himself to be a shocking racist at times blurting out loud incoherent rants against the race of some poor victim.

    Should we start a new party for Birdie… calling it the nationalist Socialist Party, or has that name been taken by some other dude back in history?

  15. the anti-bird Says:

    sorry

    Should read….. National Socialist Party.

  16. Lyam Says:

    anti-bird

    “Should we start a new party for Birdie… calling it the National Socialist Party, or has that name been taken by some other dude back in history?”

    All that has to be done is to add “Neo” in front to form the “Neo National Solcialist Party”. The new element being it’s official language is English rather German 🙂

    It would be perfectly fitting to the Bird’s fascist MO.

  17. the anti-bird Says:

    z

    I think you forgot one point in that soiled list of beliefs.

    Birdie is against privatizations seeing he opposed the power privatization in NSW.

  18. Lyam Says:

    I also agree with THR that it is unfair to the left to characterize the Bird’s stance as going that way.

    The Bird has an ill-placed obsession about money that is more common on the right than on the left.

    His approach of central planning by favoring particular private interests is by definition akin to fascism.

  19. JM Says:

    Sorry OT: wtf is homesteading?

  20. Lyam Says:

    Broadly defined, homesteading is a lifestyle of simple, agrarian self-sufficiency.

  21. Jason Soon Says:

    Our resident crank’s latest political endorsements

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/netanyahustop-mucking-about-you-little-bitch-and-give-him-everything-he-wants/

    In Australias case Costello, Jensen, and Oldfield ought to be thought of as our natural Prime Ministers in-waiting, in my view. There simply isn’t a natural leader on the labour side at the moment, unless Martin Ferguson were to emerge unbeaten, from a latte-leftist slashing-rampage. Hang on there. What am I saying? Of course there is Costa if he had some solid people around him. People who knew him and carried no knives.

    But I’m saying that Costello, Jensen and Oldfield are natural Australian leaders… With me as a sort of shadowy John-Of-Gaunt figure in the background of course.

  22. Lyam Says:

    Birdy, birdy

    “… Costello, Jensen and Oldfield are natural Australian leaders… With me as a sort of shadowy John-Of-Gaunt figure in the background of course”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    You really believes you can have some influence just blogging along do you? The simple fact you wish to stay in the background proves you instinctively feel no-one would take you seriously if they met you in person.

  23. Lyam Says:

    Oye Oye Oye people. Here is the Birdy’s response to the above post (and I kid you not)

    “NO THATS NOT TRUE. A TENDENCY TO HYPER-MODESTY IS ONE OF MY FAULTS. OF COURSE I’M AUSTRALIAS NATURAL LEADER. THERE REALLY IS NO DOUBTING THAT. BUT I WANTED TO MENTION PEOPLE THAT OTHER FOLKS HAD SOME FAMILIARITY WITH.”

    Yes read correctly: he believes he’s Australia’s natural leader 🙂

    I need a drink.

  24. Lyam Says:

    “…OF COURSE I’M AUSTRALIAS NATURAL LEADER…”

    You are completely nuts

  25. Lyam Says:

    discard the previous post, wrong thread. Sorry.

  26. graemebird Says:

    THR.

    You weren’t taken in by that idiot JohnZ were you?

    Yes indeed you were. Go to the actual post to get the real deal rather than Z’s compulsive-lying, though admittedly skillful, cribbing.

  27. graemebird Says:

    Can anyone else other than THR admit to being totally taken in by the compulsive liar JohnZ?

    Anyone at all?

    Bootniggers and fascists aside which of you dummies were actually convinced I was a protectionist?

    Anybody?

  28. graemebird Says:

    Was anyone taken in by Z’s lie that I was embracing the corporate state, rather than pushing for mass-sackings of taxeaters?

    Anybody at all?

    So what can we say about the validity of the completely fucked-up crony-loving opinions of morons like Z, Cambria and Hill who have to lie constantly about what the other fellow is saying?

    Pretty fucking useless I would have thought.

  29. graemebird Says:

    So what was your argument? You. Bootnigger. Speak up.

    Since I am not in favour of protection WHAT WAS YOUR POINT?

    How about you Jason?

    What was YOUR point?

    Given that I am not now nor ever was in favour of protection?

  30. graemebird Says:

    No-one here ever wins debates against me. You always just start lying and making complete cunts of yourselves.

  31. graemebird Says:

    So Z says I’m protectionist.

    Whereas the reality is I’m not.

    So what was your argument?

  32. graemebird Says:

    Well thats what we expected when we come up against morons, know-nothings, house-niggers and quislings.

  33. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, are you in favour of abolishing the minimum wage and all tariffs immediately and without conditions?

  34. Lyam Says:

    The following exert of Birdy’s last prose

    “Where the ACTUAL standing leader out of these three (yes, wait a minute …….. FIVE!) worthies ……………… was not indebted to me so much by pledges of honour and by the felt-need to return favours… But rather instead there was some sort of mysterious pull of the moon that did not allow, the leader of the moment, to move policy forward, without consultation and advisement, not with those legions of lunatic taxeating consultants, but rather …………. with myself.”

    suggests we change the title of the thread.

    BIRD FLIES TO THE MOON would be more appropriate,

  35. graemebird Says:

    Turkey-John-Z. You know what my demands are. You cannot disaggregate any of them. I am not in favour of anything without conditions because one would put oneself at the mercy of Quislings.

    Supposing I said I was in favour of mass-sackings of taxeaters without conditions. Supposing you asked me that question and I said yes. Your very next thread would be claiming that I wanted to immediately dismantle our armed forces. Conditions always apply.

    You are just a liar Turkey-John-Z. And you’ve just gone ahead like an incredible liar and mislead everyone. Was this what this forum was all about from the start? To simply lie outright about what I said.

    Here are my demands. This is what I said:

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 1.

    Immediate sackings of any civilian defense department members who can be identified as having opposed the purchase of the Raptor Stealth Fighter. The steady replacement also of anyone who was working beneath them at the time and anyone closely associated with these miscreants.

    Likewise with the recent warship purchases. Any civilian in the defense department who pushed for the choice of the Spanish over the superior American warship must be sacked immediately. And anyone thought to be closely associated with such lunatics should be sacked over time.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 2.

    For the Australian parliament to declare the current hysteria about Industrial-CO2-Release, to be an obvious scientific hoax. And for any measures taken on the basis of this obvious hoax to be immediately abandoned and reversed.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 3.

    For all (non-banking and finance) corporate welfare to be ended at once, and replaced with sunsetted tax exemptions. By sunsetted tax exemptions I mean that the corporation formerly receiving the corporate welfare…. be exempted from paying the corporate income tax AND AS WELL THEIR EMPLOYEES be exempted from paying the personal income tax from wages and salaries paid to them by this corporation, and as well any subcontractors, be exempted from any taxes relating to income paid to them by this corporation.

    By “CORPORATE WELFARE” I mean any subsidies and tax rebates that the company now gets for any reason. But I do not include tax deductions under “Corporate Welfare.”

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 4.

    For the banks to be taken out of the welfare system through the immediate adoption and implementation of a planned phase-out of any such welfare. Bank welfarism includes the ability to borrow from the Reserve Bank, the ability to practice fractional reserve banking, the taking on of debt by government authorities (State, Federal or Local) and most of the current banking regulation.

    Wresting banks from out of their state of chronic welfarism must be done via a phase-out rather then a straight abandonment of such welfare. This is due to complicated matters relating to the esoteric subject of monetary economics.

    As in the case of ending other corporate-welfare, the banks ought to be given a tax exemption taking them and their employees totally out of the income tax system, for a sunsetted period, as described in my 3rd non-negotiable demand.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 5.

    (a)Rental income on living and working space(b) taxes on interest earnings (c)stamp duties on the buying and selling of realestate and (d) payroll taxes …………

    These four taxes are to be abandoned immediately. The first is a federal tax. That ought to be abandoned in order to encourage high-rise building. Only land value tax has a plausible enough excuse to be retained in this regard. All other taxes getting in the way of vertical development must be abandoned. The other three taxes are State taxes. But they are taxes that the State governments had undertaken to cut when they were given the GST.

    They have reneged on this sacred understanding. This is a most grievous offense, and the Feds have wiped their hands of this matter.

    But in considering the situation it must be understood that all these entities are rampant thieves, and they ought to be considered part of the same unbelievable racket.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 6.

    It must be recognised by the Australian parliament that height restrictions on buildings are always and everywhere an anti-social and unacceptable act and that steps ought to be taken, where possible, to make such loathsome restrictions illegal.

    Whilst restrictions to horizontal development can sometimes be plausibly argued for, we should look to getting rid of most of them as well. Out of some sort of regard for our fellow man and for a concern for the health of our economy and society.

    But its the height restrictions that are an anti-social abomination. Clearly wicked and against the interests of man and nature.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 7.

    That the CSIRO must be disbanded immediately, both to reduce the robbery that government spending represents, and as well as punishment in their role of spreading the industrial-CO2-release science-hoax.

    Independent scientific research companies and institutes may properly be taken out of the tax system for a sunsetted period in order that scientific research within Australia be maintained and enhanced after the CSIRO is abolished.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 8.

    That all aquaculture be taken out of the tax system in the way described above. This measure is mandatory from a commercial and environmental-sustainability point of view, as a way of relieving the stress placed on the worlds fisheries. It is also a good way of helping bring down the basic costs of food for our fellow man. Out of my non-negotiable demands so far this one relates most directly to the electorate of Dobell.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 9.

    That Diesel excise duties be immediately abolished and that the abolishment of any tax on diesel be guaranteed for at least 50 years. That this guarantee also apply to liquified-coal.

    This is also mandatory from the view of ecnomic sustainability since as the known oil-wells become more depleted we find that the oil left is of a heavier sort more condusive to the seperation of diesel then petrol.

    On top of that whereas the daily production of oil from traditional sources has peaked, we have very large supplies of coal to hand and liquified-coal can readily be used as fuel for diesel engines.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 10.

    That property rights rules be so clarified as to make it a practical fact that no community, protestors, or branch of government, have any say whatsoever as to the placement of energy-generation facilities INCLUDING NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 11.

    That all energy production activities be taken out of the tax system entirely in the way described in the above demands….. the taking of extraction-royalties alone excepted.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 12.

    That all taxation be recognised as robbery, thievery and stealing, regardless of any belief or feeling that some small fraction of the current unacceptable level of stealing be necessary, in either in the long run, or more plausibly the short run.

    ITS STEALING EVEN IF WE CANNOT DO WITHOUT SOME OF IT IN THE MEANTIME.

    Its always stealing justified or not. To say otherwise is quite obviously to lie.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 13.

    That as a consequence of the fact that taxation is blatant robbery, that those citizens, neither in the Police or armed forces, nor themselves directly elected, whose incomes are gained as a result of this stealing…….. that none of these citizens (old age pensioners alone excepted) should be allowed to vote.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 14.

    That we move quickly to a situation of unilateral free trade AND AT THE SAME TIME that we chart a course to be typically running strong trade surpluses in peacetime.

    NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 15.

    That the Reserve Bank stops this irrational targeting of interest rates, consumer-price-inflation and GDP growth… and instead concentrate on the metrics of “Gross Domestic Revenue” and “Productive Expenditure.” Its mighty silly if you cannot even get the metrics you are supposed to be targeting right.

  36. graemebird Says:

    “NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER 3.

    For all (non-banking and finance) corporate welfare to be ended at once, and replaced with sunsetted tax exemptions.”

    This would include tariffs of course. There is no point letting communists like JohnZ and Quislings like Jason Soon strategically chose the order of implimentation since they will use it to descredit what you are doing and strategically destory your movement or your country.

    John Howards workchoices got dumped and it ought never have been attempted without spending cuts, mass-sackings, and the raising of the tax free threshold. You just annoy people if you don’t implement matters correctly. Conditions are always important since they include the order of implementation.

    Ask JohnZ the same question he asked me. The communist will not stay for an answer.

  37. Lyam Says:

    Birdy, birdy,

    “NON-NEGOTIABLE DEMAND NUMBER”

    Whatever the number, demand refused 🙂

    Australia is a DEMOCRACY, you have to convince people if you want to be elected.

  38. graemebird Says:

    Right. And by saying that I will refuse to vote in support of anything that contradicts these non-negotiable demands, I hope to get a bunch of votes.

  39. Lyam Says:

    “Right. And by saying that I will refuse to vote in support of anything that contradicts these non-negotiable demands”

    Nobody gives a fuck 🙂

  40. Jason Soon Says:

    Bird has truly gone bonkers with his incoherent post about black ducks and white ducks

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/sado-pigouvianism-land-tax-technical-matters-and-not-advocacy-take-some-pride-in-your-profession/

  41. graemebird Says:

    Can you indict me over the theology of this post?

    Is there a gotcha moment that you can lie about, supposing I’m a theologian?

    What were all of you doing lying flalt out on this thread for? And what was the gotcha moment when each and every lying cunt amongst you know that I’m not in favour of tariffs.

    For that matter why is special distaste held out for tariffs and the reserve asset ratio?

    Neither makes any sense from a libertarian point of view.

    So we can see that you guys are just compulsive liars and Sinclair never did understand his subject.

  42. Jason Soon Says:

    Bird now wants us to carry coins crafted as ‘pieces of art’ to do all our transactions. He also thinks that native Australians are so dumb they can only be encouraged to save if we put pretty pictures on our coins

    The private coins were made of unsurpassed beauty. This was the solution to counterfeiting.

    Imagine what coins of copper, silver, platinum and gold, coming in all engravings of the highest order of artistry would do?

    [audio src="http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/ASC2009/ASC09_Selgin.mp3" /]

    This Selgin. I don’t think of him as any authority on monetary policy. But what a spirited historian.

    Imagine that little aborigine boy getting these coins in his hands and wanting to hoard them.

    It would change the whole equation of saving, poverty and progress

  43. graemebird Says:

    You are lying again you fucking cunt. I wouldn’t you to do anything at all except STOP FUCKING LYING.

    Its just incredible. You just lie all the time. And you can never learn you subject like this. You are supposed to be an economist and you have no fucking idea about it.

    Selgin reveals that once private coinage started in England the artistry of the coins became astonishing on the grounds that this was a way to avoid counterfeiting.

    Now this is what I said. And you just fucking lied you complete cunt.

    You carry coins around don’t you? Yes you do. And you carry notes. And you use a swipe card.

    You’d do all of those things, except perhaps with the notes, if you were deprived of your socialist money.

    It appears that you demand socialist money. Thats the story hear. I’m not proposing to impose great beauty on anyone who doesn’t want it. But you are determined to impose socialist money on the rest of us.

    Now are you finished fucking lying yet you cunt?

    Because I want to get along with a contrasting look at this bizzare sado-Pigouvianism that you appear to ascribe to and I’d like to know whether or not you are sick of lying all the time first.

  44. Jason Soon Says:

    we find paper money convenient Graeme.

    don’t take away our paper money you stalinist antiquarian

  45. Jason Soon Says:

    graeme
    if you’re so unhappy with the convenience of paper money why don’t you just ask to be paid in one cent coins?

  46. graemebird Says:

    It doesn’t matter how convenient you find socialist money. Its an IMPOSITION.

    Socialist production of goods is an imposition. Free enterprise production of goods is not. Now obviously if cash money WAS convenient, which it is not…… but supposing you were right? Well the private money people would provide this paper for you and charge you accordingly. Rather than sheeting the massive cost of it off to people who did not want to pay that cost.

    Can someone take Jason aside and teach him which way is up and down. Left and right. What represents an imposition and what is voluntary behaviour?

  47. graemebird Says:

    So Jason Soon is clearly a leftist cunt who doesn’t know anything about economics.

    Is that not clear now? He calls SOCIALIST PRODUCTION OF GOODS STALINIST.

    A total blatant leftist reversal.

    Well why not food Jason? If you think cash should be produced under socialism why not food?

    How about education? Oh thats right you are for socialist education already.

    Is that your argument then? Just flipping everything on its head and claiming that black is white?

    The fact is that cash money is probably too expensive for the private sector to bother providing.

  48. Lyam Says:

    Birdy

    “How about education? Oh thats right you are for socialist education already.”

    Anybody with half a brain is for free public education, it’s the great equalizer. Give everyone, regardless of birth, the same chance. That is true meritocracy.

  49. graemebird Says:

    PUblic education is totally unacceptable. Thats whats turning out all you idiots. People on minimum wage, with children, are currently paying any number of taxes, the worst being the inflation tax. So that we are asking low-paid workers to pay for the brainwashing of their children and the enforced retardation of their learning process.

  50. Lyam Says:

    It’s the other way around Birdy. Wealthy people pay more taxes than the poor, which means children of low income families get access to education which would be inaccessible to them otherwise.

    Just because you were to stupid and/or to lazy to learn anything doesn’t mean others can’t 🙂

  51. graemebird Says:

    No thats not right at all. While it is true that the rich pay more than the poor, part of that is the opportunities being denied people every way they turn. And that money that these rich guys are paying isn’t going to warehouse poor kids. Rather its going to the hundreds of bureaucracies that we don’t need. These bureaucracies range from the barely useful, through to the actively harmful in effect.

    In fact this money doesn’t just come from the poor, or the rich, in their capacity as individuals. It comes from REAL business-to-business spending, and so is the CAUSE of this poverty that you are speaking of.

  52. graemebird Says:

    A less clumsy way of looking at matters is this: Assuming a program in favour of proper money and reform to reduce living costs……

    …. Well then if the money for education and those bureaucracies were cut off, then the savings went to increase the tax-free-threshold, as well as were funnelled into business-to-business spending (via no tax to retained earnings, no carbon tax, no tax to to interest earnings….) then these people would be in a much better position to help their kids have a better life.

    There is no doubt about this at all and so we can say without any reasonable controversy that public education or indeed the public funding of it is unacceptable.

  53. Lyam Says:

    All that chatter doesn’t invalidate what I said. Education is one of, if not the most, valuable investment we can make.

  54. graemebird Says:

    No its not. As explained you are wrong. Yes the parents investing time and effort in their kids education is indeed valuable. But wrecking an industry through communist production is unacceptable.

  55. Lyam Says:

    “But wrecking an industry through communist production is unacceptable.”

    As usual, bringing up completely unrelated stuff to murk an argument that you are loosing.

    You are pathetic.

  56. graemebird Says:

    Its not unrelated. Communist production is never a good thing. Sometimes its the only way. Or sometimes its an alternative to cronyism. Like with roads for the time being. With defense for the time being.

    But its never a good thing and so it is unacceptable to destroy an industry, brainwash kids, and the pathetic excuse being that its to help poor people when thats not the case at all. The same people who want to brainwash kids are the same ones that wish to steal off poor people.

  57. graemebird Says:

    And the relentless lying is not appreciated. You cannot justify communist education without justifying communist production more generally. Hence I’ve won this argument and obviously so.

  58. Peter Jensen Says:

    “I’ve won this argument and obviously so.”

    On the contrary Turkey, Lyam is perfectly correct when he states that anyone with half a brain supports free public education as an equalizer of opportunity across social classes.

    Your inability to make a distinction between production and education is revelatory of your narrow world view.

  59. graemebird Says:

    It doesn’t equalize opportunity at all. It holds poor people back. They are taxed to pay for it. Their kids don’t get educated properly. And the stealing from business-to-business spending keeps them in poverty.

    You are being an idiot and obviously so. Since you have not shown any advantages whatsoever in communist production.

    Obviously if communist production is no good its not going to be a fantastic success in education.

    You have no argument. You are a fuckwit mate.

  60. John Humphreys Says:

    Free public education? wtf?

    Has this forum been taken over by simple minded socialists who prefer to go on about their simplistic populism rather than understand the consequences of their failed preferences?

    Public education is low quality. If you want to subsidise education, then provide the money, but for the love of god don’t nationalise the schools. They will be badly run, high cost and low quality.

    But there is no good reason for huge education subsidies either, other than simplistic “I-want-to-look-progressive”, “wont-anybody-think-of-the-children” nonscense.

    You do not help poor people by increasing taxes, reducing wages, taking away jobs and decreasing the size of the economy.

  61. Lyam Says:

    John,

    I grew up in Europe (Austria & Switzerland) and their public education is top notch. (

    I disagree on many things about state driven stuff, but your knee jerk and ueber-simplistic “I-want-to-look-responsible”, “-don’t-give-a-fuck-about-anybody-but-myself” mantra is exactly why the LDP is a joke and will always stay that way.

  62. graemebird Says:

    Yes all true Humphreys. Good stuff. But we cannot be going in for vouchers either. Thats enough to ruin the industry.

    A better subsidy would be taking education out of the tax system.

  63. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    The perfect is the enemy of the good.
    Vouchers first then we go from there.

  64. Mark Hill Says:

    Sure it is an equaliser, but that in itself isn’t utilitarian.

    Vouchers are better from the outset.

    Like Graeme’s idea – increasing manufacturing – isn’t necessarily utilitarian.

    Australian manufacturing has gone offshore for various reasons. The “pull” factors really can not be changed and such a change in terms of trade etc benefits the world and us individually.

    The “push” factors on the other hand are generally poor taxation and regulatory practice that force Australian forms offshore due to mandated uncompetitiveness – such as high payroll taxes, high corporate taxes and inflexible labour laws.

    Graeme (and public education advocates) need/s a bigger picture perspective.

  65. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    All of the B. Hussein Obama-Soetoro lackies who say it’s impossible to forge a birth certificate should explain then the horrible defamation of Ms Hanson in Queensland.

  66. Mark Hill Says:

    So you’re telling me since the Hanson photos are suspect, this means that Barry Sotero is a usurper?

    It is any wonder that Pauline and Sotero didn’t murder whoever released the photos, if they are dead at all.

  67. graemebird Says:

    Vouchers are anti-economics from the start. They cannot even be contemplated. What would really work is no taxes for education or for people working in stand-alone education providers. This coupled with massive spending cuts and massive lifting of the tax free threshold.

    You’ve got to learn to think in terms of REINVESTMENT Jason. Or you’ll never understand economics. Vouchers is not a small mistake its a big one. Its not a question of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Its about economics versus anti-economics.

  68. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    No Mark Hill you imbecile.

    It just means that there are a lot of liars out there and a lot of very gullible people aka sheeple. You are one of them.

  69. Ron Pauline Hanson Says:

    I know Ms Hanson and she isn’t a slut!

  70. the anti-bird Says:

    Bird,

    so out of a choice, you would rather go with no vouchers and a command and control system. Is that right?

    Stealing defeat from the jaws of victory … as usual.

  71. DH Says:

    Who said she was a slut, Ron? Are you projecting again?

  72. Jason Soon Says:

    Those of you who can’t get enough of Graeme should revisit this
    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=13

  73. graemebird Says:

    But thats not the choice and thats not what I said. You would never use up all your political capital and time pushing for vouchers when they are no good. Rather you’d push for tax exemptions and spending cuts which will do the job.

    You see if you weren’t so dim you would have figured out that your argument runs both ways. That you yourself could be accused of stealing defeat from victory by going for the stupid choice.

  74. graemebird Says:

    The thread is more interesting from the point of view of reading Cambria before he went over to the side of relentless idiocy.

  75. Adrien Says:

    Had to happen.

    Te only reason Graeme hasn’t come out a as a full endorser of National Socialism is that he could get anyone from the Aryan Thrust Club and Turkish Baths to accept him.

    But finally he’s found love with something that isn;t made of plastic – http://www.scaryideas.com/watermark.php?src=1633.jpg

  76. graemebird Says:

    What are you talking about Adrien?

    JohnZ was just lying as usual. You are a national socialist. And I’ve never once come out in favour of tariffs. Rather I’ve come out in favour of reindustrialisatin since the neoclassicals are determined to impoverish us be working to make us lose our industry.

    People are now about to react to neoclassical insistence that for us to lose our ability to make things is good for the economy. This anti-economics is something that Soon, Humphreys and the others are deeply committed to. It comes out all the time. So thats where the backlash is coming from. After being taught incorrectly, that this is the goal of free enterprise, a lot of people don’t want a bar of this.

    But as to the thrust of this thread that was simply JohnZ lying. I am stalled as to starting a new topic since I’m waiting for these guys to use up some of their lying.

  77. Mass Debater Says:

    Graeme Bird Translation Services Doc No F23749-56

    The thread is more interesting from the point of view of reading Cambria before he went over to the side of relentless idiocy
    should read

    Joey I still wuv you, why has thou forsaken me?

  78. graemebird Says:

    An interesting interpretation. How about try a non-sodomite paradigm. Or you might just go with what I actually said. I’m happy to get the dummies, triangulators, and unworthy allies away from their pretense of being on our side.

  79. Mass Debater Says:

    why are you always dissing the gays, Graeme?

    embrace your true nature.

    there were lots of pillow biters on the right too, even a few talkback hosts …

  80. the anti-bird Says:

    Bird:

    I’m sorry but martian highways systems, mass sackings (meaning mass executions if you had your way), reverse speech, Obama’s mother is alive, Obama killed the gran, Obama’s gran is alive and seen in a mall, voodoo economics, “Gofering” under people’s homes, Fractional is fraud, people that lend money should be jailed, banning capital inflow, abuse to people of non British descent, government supported fish farms, stupid physics, changing the banking system into a mass safety deposit box……. all these things and you actually think i would support you. That would make me a lunatic like you.

  81. Jason Soon Says:

    You left out
    1) there is no such thing as time
    2) there is no opportunity cost
    3) the sun is powered externally
    4) the centre of the earth is growing
    5) we should build upside down pyramids in antarctica
    6) people should relocate to the middle of Australia and practice military drills in the desert
    7) Aboriginal children need to be encouraged to save by enforcing pretty pictures on coins
    8) we should all drag around wheelbarrows to carry around our liquified coal to trade and irradiate our balls by carrying around uranium rods in our pockets
    9) Douglas Macarthur was assassinated
    10) Joe McCarthy was assassinated

  82. Graeme Bird Says:

    “why are you always dissing the gays, Graeme?”

    Its just to do with the leftist habit of falling back on a sort of homo sexual harrassment when they begin losing the argument. In this country it started with Nabakov and Fyodor. But I’d already seen it before. With Cambria he’s fallen in with the kids tribal zietgeist. So he’s taken to lying, ignoring evidence, and refusing ever to talk about the reasoning behind the subjects that he’s obliquely criticising.

    The evidence behind some sort of ancient Mars outpost is there for all to see. What would even be odd about that I don’t know. I don’t expect interstellar visitors to show up but once in many millions of years because of the distances involved. The evidence is there and it is still evidence for the moment even though it may later turn out to be a function of heretofore unknown geological processes. We’ve just got to face it Cambria’s an idiot. I’m not going to lie and say that the evidence is not there. On one level its a matter of principle. On another level its purely a technical matter of always going where the evidence is.

    Douglas MacCarthur wasn’t assassinated he just faded away. But it rather appears that both Patton and McCarthy were murdered yes thats true. Of course I cannot KNOW that. I lack the gift of leftist second site. But thats how it appears.

  83. Graeme Bird Says:

    You would not expect any interstellar visitors to make an out and back trip. To send machine probes perhaps. But not to spend decades getting here and then just go back without machine maintenance.

    For this reason you would not expect visitors except one every many millions of years one would think. But if they did show up they would need to set up a base and make a home of it.

    So what is the big deal?

    If we find evidence of this why not accept it as the leading paradigm, with the idea that some other explanation may arrive from left field.

    Can someone tell me what ideological, religious, scientific or other objections they would have to such an idea? There has got to be some reason why people go willfully blind at the site of what looks like leftover industrial structures.

    Perhaps it is thought that people so advanced wouldn’t need manufacturing and mining. It may be a bad economics thing.

  84. Graeme Bird Says:

    Notice that Cambria and Soon have made lists of lies too many to clean up after them. When it comes down to having to rely on that sort of thing, and they don’t face some sort of election tomorrow, well we are really seeing evidence that they cannot justify their own view on any of the topics that the lie refers to.

  85. Graeme Bird Says:

    Lets take just this one lie

    “government supported fish farms…”

    I didn’t want government supported fish farms ever. Except for the governments to do the right thing and establish protocols for the homesteading of very small, but intensively used, areas of sea territory. Unlike Sinclair I can see an argument for one day taxing any surface or sea floor usage to some small token degree. And I think this is the day we ought to have distributed titles on land as well but there is no use crying over spilt milk.

    Now the fact is we have fallen into overfishing. The hunter-gather side of things has topped out and we must go to animal husbandry in a great hurry before we do severe damage. We already did damage to some species of whale and to the Cod many decades ago. And we don’t want to continue with this damage for other species.

    So I’m advocating capitalism as the solution.

    But so far everyone has opposed what I’ve advocated on the grounds of very bad economics. Bad static-equilibrium economics.

    What say you Adrien. Perhaps you might look at this one with fresh eyes even prior to Cambria admitting that he was lying.

  86. the anti-bird Says:

    sorry Jason, the list is so damned long I forgot the other 300 absurdities.

  87. Jason Soon Says:

    you are right Birdy

    Cambria and I are compulsive liars. we lie with every breath we take, we lie in sleep. I am lying as I type this.

  88. the anti-bird Says:

    Yea, we’re all lying bird,

    Let’s see who is lying.

    Jason

    me

    Humphreys.

    Hill

    Fyodor

    Z

    Sinc

    Adrien

    Tillman

    Every single one of us are lying while you’re always telling the truth.

  89. John Humphreys Says:

    Not me! I believe all of Bird’s theories, about martians & expanding earths & assassinations & corporate welfare & the banking fraud & global cooling and all that. It’s all true.

  90. Graeme Bird Says:

    Well it is all true. Or rather thats where all the evidence points. So all the evidence can be pointing in that direction, and something unknown can come right out of left field and prove the evidence wrong. Or invalidate the evidence AS evidence.

    And its true that all you guys lie. Humphreys a little bit less than the others its true. But ok lets except Humphreys from this line-up of mugs. Humphreys is evasive and annoying. But the others are compulsive liars and its a real big problem. Its a barrier to enlightenment. I have a new topic and I don’t want all you guys confusing third parties with your bullshit.

    Humphreys, this is what you have to work on. You have to work on getting away from static-equilibrium pricing and production decisions….. and you have to bring in TIME AND THE FLOW OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT into your thinking.

    The thing is this.

    In a functioning market each firm must keep investing to reduce recurring costs. If an industry is more profitable it has greater return on the capital invested. If the industry is a functioning industry, that will lead to a greater flow of capital investment to that industry, which will make prices fall faster in that industry until such time as the return on capital is normalised with the rest of the economy.

    Now you no doubt already new this. But it is this TIME AND CAPITAL FLOW way of looking at things that must replace the Frank Knight static-equilibrium models.

    It is this failure to put time and capital flow front and centre in the neoclassicals thinking that makes them wrong on my tax exemption business. They think it would be a distortion and I cannot count on my fingers the number of people that seem to think that government persecution must be equalized regardless of context.

    Nothing bad will happen if nationwide fish-farming, farming itself, the production of body armour, education and training businesses, the medical industry, energy production, ……..

    ….Nothing bad is going to happen if these activities are taken right out of the tax system, with none of the firms paying taxes and none of the people working in those firms paying taxes. This is no distortion. Nor will it be some fundamental crony rippof. All that will happen is that the capital investment will flow to these areas until they are overcapitalised and therefore their output is cheap and they are the lowest cost producers.

    This business about a distortion is a neoclassical myth. As heroic a character as Milton was the fact is he shared this myth. He didn’t understand this side of things all that well.

    So vouchers are OUT!!!!!!! We cannot go in for vouchers. Its not even a close substitute for taking education, child-minding and training right out of the tax system and cut off all the funds right at the same time.

    Vouchers are simply no substitute and will make the industry a NON-FUNCTIONING industry in that with vouchers there will be no reason to believe that the capital flow will keep moving to these areas until the prices came down. Just because Milton was a good guy, doesn’t mean he was right about everything.

  91. Graeme Bird Says:

    I want some feedback on this point. This point of alleged distortion, static-equilibrium, more capital investment leading to falling prices, why vouchers would utterly cripple the potential for innovation. Why strategically placed free trade areas would be a marvellous thing and would not lead to distortion as alleged. All this sort of stuff.

    This is important. And the neoclassical blinkers are getting in the way here.

  92. Fyodor Says:

    I want some feedback on this point.

    You’re lying.

  93. DH Says:

    Yeah. How about some EVIDENCE, Bird?

  94. graemebird Says:

    No I’m not lying. But I certainly don’t want feedback from you idiot. If I wanted your opinion I’d pummel it of you.

  95. DH Says:

    No. You’re lying.

  96. graemebird Says:

    Get a skipping rope fatty. And do maybe 1 million skips. And then get on the internet and see if you don’t look like you are going to have a heart attack by 40.

  97. Fyodor Says:

    If I wanted your opinion I’d pummel it of you.

    You’re lying.

    And then get on the internet and see if you don’t look like you are going to have a heart attack by 40.

    Impervious to irony, too.

  98. DH Says:

    Well Fyodor, what do you expect from a lying communist tax-eater?

  99. Fyodor Says:

    Not surprised; just notin’ the nuthin’.

  100. Mark Hill Says:

    “uglas MacCarthur wasn’t assassinated he just faded away. But it rather appears that both Patton and McCarthy were murdered yes thats true. Of course I cannot KNOW that. I lack the gift of leftist second site. But thats how it appears.”

    Now PATTON was assassinated – Graeme can’t prove it, but he thinks so, therefore it must be true.

    Discuss.

  101. DH Says:

    I don’t know, Mark. Is the above statement any saner than this:

    “The evidence behind some sort of ancient Mars outpost is there for all to see. What would even be odd about that I don’t know. I don’t expect interstellar visitors to show up but once in many millions of years because of the distances involved. The evidence is there and it is still evidence for the moment even though it may later turn out to be a function of heretofore unknown geological processes.”

  102. the anti-bird Says:

    I’m afraid the say that you seem to be telling less than the truth, bird. In other words you are lying.

  103. Jason Soon Says:

    this fellow looks like he’s in heart attack territory

  104. Fyodor Says:

    You’re a cruel man, Jase.

  105. graemebird Says:

    Well I aint always that puffy. Sometimes yes. But not always. It rather looks like I’d swallowed some sort of compression grenade. I didn’t look like that when I saw you people at the Clock that time.

  106. DH Says:

    I’m sure in real life you’re much less photogenic.

  107. Jason Soon Says:

    yeah Graeme
    In real life you have James Cagney like looks … NOT

  108. the anti-bird Says:

    Birdie, you do look like Shiny’s twin.

    1554.

  109. graemebird Says:

    Any of you dupes know of any old Barry Obama girlfriends? A tall fellow. A basketballer. Clean. Not such a bad looking bloke I would have thought.

    But then I knew schoolfriends who were short, personally unhygenic, and couldn’t shoot hoops to save themselves. And one thing they all had in common is girlfriends.

    Its thought that if you feed the zombies salty food they may stir from their torpor. But how do I shake you dumb leftists out of it? Try dwelling on the absence of Obama girlfriends.

  110. the anti-bird Says:

    So the kids aren’t really his.. You’re of course right Bird, they’re Jesse Jackson’s kids or Al Sharpton’s.

  111. graemebird Says:

    Well I guess you expect this sort of naievete from a bootnigger. Like homos never have kids in your playschool view of reality.

    Can you think of any Obama girlfriends? Does anyone know of any Obama girlfriends? Michelle alone excepted.

    You cannot think of any can you?

  112. 1554 Says:

    Okay, Bird>

    Who were McCain’s fomrer girlfriends, Mitt Romney’s. Who were Bush’s former girlfriends, Dick Cheney’s. How about Jimmy Carter’s and Gerry Ford. How about Nixon’s?

    What a moronic discussion. For that matter so fucking what if he had say gay relationships.

  113. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme — I agree it would be better to have no government involvement in health and education. But I still think that vouchers would be an improvement over the status quo and a worthy step in the right direction. With vouchers it is possible to separate the issue of government funding from government ownership… and keep the former while removing the later.

    I think that Milton also would have preferred the radical option. I had always suspected that he was more radical than he let on in public… and his grandson confirmed that to me when I met him in NYC recently.

    But sometimes it is worth dealing with the political realities of the day and consider which half-way measures are worth pursuing.

  114. graemebird Says:

    You are not here to advocate the second worst measure Humphreys. We can do the whole thing with tax exemptions alone and not waste decades going down some blind alley. Lets go with the radical option that Milton would have preferred. It is like you are hard-wired never to pick the best option. But it is your duty to pick the best option.

  115. graemebird Says:

    With former girlfriends thats a different matter for people that were born in decades prior to the sixties or fifties. But in most of those cases you could find them if the President didn’t marry very early.

  116. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence that I’ve ever once, in the last three years, ever advocated subsidies. I’m advocating getting with policy detail to quickly move each industry to being a functioning capitalist industry. No subidies need be considered in this. The whole thing can be handled on tax exemptions alone.

    What will not work, and Michael Costa made it clear in his talk now available in audio…….. is passive libertarianism. Or Libertarian Piety. My words not his. But he’s reinforcing a lot of what I’ve been telling you guys last couple of years.

  117. Mark Hill Says:

    “Lets have that evidence that I’ve ever once, in the last three years, ever advocated subsidies. ”

    Various rants about forcing people to use barrels of toxic waste as money, for one.

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: