catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Kevin Rudd: Back to the future

with 68 comments

This just gets worse and worse. An excerpt from a recent interview with Kevin Rudd:

    CHRIS UHLMANN: You talked yesterday about protecting manufacturing, or having some sort of manufacturing industry in Australia. Of course, we have one. But how would you about protecting, say, an industry in Australia like the car industry we’re trying to do, when Chinese workers get $100 a week compared to the thousands that Australians get?
    KEVIN RUDD: The word I used yesterday was not “protecting” Australian manufacturing. What I talked about was the need for Australia to have a manufacturing future. That means a new direction industry policy.If you listen to the sort of things which have been said by the Australian Industry Group in recent times, they’re talking about the same thing. If you look at what the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union are talking about in recent times, they’re on about the same objective.
    CHRIS UHLMANN: Do you have one concrete idea that you’d like to give us there?
    KEVIN RUDD: You will have a… this week is not the week to be putting out detailed policies, I’m not going to go down that road when it comes to the economy or manufacturing.
    But let me tell you, you will have a detailed manufacturing blueprint out from us in the months ahead. And I will be confident that there again will be an alternative, not an echo of John Howard.

Kevin Rudd from his maiden speech to Parliament in 1998 as reported by Alan Wood:

Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth .. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy, but markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

December 8, 2006 at 9:59 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

68 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Here we go here we go…AMWU oppose tariff cuts and are for rollback..of GST and are for..social tariffs…hoots mon.

    rog

    December 8, 2006 at 11:42 pm

  2. Alan Jones and Brian Wiltshire will be ecstatic!

    Rafe Champion

    December 8, 2006 at 11:48 pm

  3. So will Homer and Pauline Hanson.

    whyisitso

    December 8, 2006 at 11:50 pm

  4. If he’s not talking about protection or quotas of some sort, what is he talking about?

    Government sponsored monopoly, anyone?

    skepticlawyer

    December 9, 2006 at 12:01 am

  5. He just hasn’t thought any of this through. He’s flying blind.

    They are all saying he’s just so intelligent. That he’s oh so smart. Are the public going to be able to understand him for yea he is so brainy. Its all nonsense.

    He doesn’t think things through to any deep level.

    And his no 2 isn’t a great deal better.

    At least Latham was bubbling over with lots of ideas. It got to be a bit silly after awhile. But he’d put some thought into things. He ought to have been in the inner circle but not the boss.

    But Kevvy lacks even this sparkle.

    I just wish Kim was younger and on his best form.

    He was alright.

    Or another big fat man like Robert Ray.

    Whatever happened to Robert Ray.

    I want a big guy like Robert running things.

    So that if anyone were contemplating invading they’d look at Robert and say to themselves…… ” Nup… I think we ought to have a cup of tea instead”

    With Kevvy running things why not invade?

    You’ll at least get some tribute for sure?

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 12:16 am

  6. Oh no. Ot is back to the future isn’t. one “good” industry policy deserves another.

    You know, itjust thought about. This dudes is starting to buid some risk into the stock market next year if he gets advice from the AMWU

    JC.

    December 9, 2006 at 12:28 am

  7. Sorry fogot to edit.

    Oh no. It’s back to the future isn’t it? one “good” industry policy deserves another.

    You know, I just thought about it. This dude is starting to build some risk into the stock market next year if he gets advice from the AMWU

    JC.

    December 9, 2006 at 12:30 am

  8. “Or another big fat man like Robert Ray”

    Maybe you should be PM, cuz? You lose that weight yet?

    Kiwi Bird II

    December 9, 2006 at 12:32 am

  9. Not yet.

    But I like your suggestion.

    And you know.

    I’ve never really thought about it before.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 12:53 am

  10. “They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy, but markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy.”

    Public gods such as defence and policing is a far, far cry from gifting Mitsubishi with $400 mil to build a piece of shit that no one wants!

    The charlatan.

    Mark Hill

    December 9, 2006 at 10:02 am

  11. “Public gods”

    There’s a Freudian slip of my criticism of the standard (circular and ignorant) arguments for taxation based funding and the widespread misuse of the term “public goods”.

    Mark Hill

    December 9, 2006 at 10:04 am

  12. that is a strange comment whyisitso given that I am probably the purest free trader around here.

    The best and only industry policy is to eliminate all tariffs.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 12:10 pm

  13. “that is a strange comment whyisitso given that I am probably the purest free trader around here.”

    Bollocks.

    But you are absolutely right:

    “The best and only industry policy is to eliminate all tariffs.”

    Mark Hill

    December 9, 2006 at 12:48 pm

  14. ‘that is a strange comment whyisitso given that I am probably the purest free trader around here.’

    Yeah Homer, and Bill Clinton is the world’s greatest statesman. Oh wait, you do believe that too …

    Jason Soon

    December 9, 2006 at 1:25 pm

  15. Its only a matter of time before unreconstructed commies insert themselves in our movement.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 1:45 pm

  16. Err Jase your young intellectual mind seems to have forgotten the Oz/US ‘free trade ‘agreement and the reasons why freetraders would reject it but those contaminated by other ideas like yourself supported it .

    Statement is completely true.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 2:13 pm

  17. None of us are going to fall for this line of argument commie.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 4:24 pm

  18. Instead of speculating according to our individual prejudices I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what Rudd comes up with in the way of a manufacturing policy. The rest is mere conjecture.

    Better to discuss more important issue such as Gillard’s new hairdo. Is it successful or not?

    slim

    December 9, 2006 at 4:31 pm

  19. You speak for yourself.

    I’m not speculating about anything according to predjudices.

    I’m saying he doesn’t have a policy, because he doesn’t think things through.

    I’m not speculating on some deep policy that Kevvy might have.

    I’m saying that he doesn’t have one.

    This is a situation where the taxeater decides IT CANNOT BE THE MARKET.

    Anything but leaving it alone. It doesn’t matter what the plan is to bugger with the market as long as there is some sort of plan to bugger with the market.

    To the mentality of a Kevin Rudd type it doesn’t matter whether or not he has a plan in mind.

    The market itself is the only real heresy.

    Its a knee-jerk anti-market bigotry that we are seeing here.

    If we want more manufacturing here we want more capital accumulation. And if we want that we want more savings.

    And if we want a greater proportion of GDR going to capital goods rather then consumer goods then we need to eliminate some taxes (taxes on interest earnings for example) reduce others and get used to slower monetary growth.

    But Kevvy looks at things and sees that there isn’t enough manufacturing to his liking.

    And then he mutters something about an industry plan.

    And the reason is that he is NOT SMART. He is not the super-intelligent fellow that the leftists are pretending he is.

    He’s a very shallow individual.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 4:57 pm

  20. “Instead of speculating according to our individual prejudices I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what Rudd comes up with in the way of a manufacturing policy.”

    There is no bias at all. Any “manufacturing policy” is bad for our welfare.

    Mark Hill

    December 9, 2006 at 5:28 pm

  21. Who is to say a country needs a manufactuaring industry?

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 5:50 pm

  22. You trying to bait us commie?

    If we have tons of capital accumulation we’ll retain and increase our manufacturing industry.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 6:05 pm

  23. Stalin, I am merely pointing out there is nothing special about having a manufacturing industry however it is no coincidence it thrived when Hawke and Keating reduced tariffs.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 6:08 pm

  24. No Graeme, Homer’s point is the sound one. We don’t necessarily need a manufacturing industry. Let the market decide where to put its resources into. There’s no guarantee that we’ll have a larger manufacturing industry with freer markets.

    Jason Soon

    December 9, 2006 at 6:10 pm

  25. Only commies want to decide which industries we have

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 6:51 pm

  26. Yeah right.

    Its a valid point.

    But nonetheless something has gone pretty wrong if our manufacturing industry dissapears.

    You see you have dropped the context.

    The context is that we are not a perfectly run capitalist economy at all.

    If a perfectly-run capitalist economy lost its manufacturing industry following the introduction of free trade you might have an argument.

    But we are not.

    And because the loss of our manufacturing is not due just to competition but is instead due to currency debauch, low savings, regulations, environmental interference, height restrictions on buildings and on and on…

    Well you cannot atomise these things, kiss our manufacturing goodbye and then LUDICROUSLY shrug and say……. “Well thats Capitalism for you”.

    We’ve all got to try and be a bit more holistic about this.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  27. the only way you lose a manufacturing industry is by protecting it from competition.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 9, 2006 at 8:48 pm

  28. Graeme
    Just FYI Homer isn’t a commie. He’s an evangelical, though granted the two groups do have something in common in their millenarian thinking 🙂

    Jason Soon

    December 9, 2006 at 9:00 pm

  29. “the only way you lose a manufacturing industry is by protecting it from competition.”

    No thats not the only way. Thats one way but its not the only way.

    You could lose a lot of it from a combination of high taxes, regulations, damage done to our ability to produce energy, low savings rates and so forth.

    I’ll just assume he’s a commie trying to bait us Jason.

    Trying to say: “Hey look here. If you are for free enterprise it means losing our manufacturing. Look I got it out of these libertarians”.

    If there are any bad trends out there we don’t need to sit still for them. But the solution to them is never or seldom an increase in government depredation.

    Since our starting point is never a libertarian society there will in fact be priorities and things we need to expedite. Trends we need to halt.

    This passive pious libertarianism is not for me. Its a basic intellectual fault. Its a fault because it doesn’t recognise that we are not now in a free society. And things can go wrong indirectly.

    Once again I must ask you to attempt to take a more holistic approach to this.

    Free trade or not free trade is not the main thing impinging on the health of our manufacturing.

    I would be concerned if we were losing our manufacturing. And I would want to take severe steps to building up our manufacturing.

    Severe steps all of which are in the nature of reducing government depredation.

    GMB

    December 9, 2006 at 9:41 pm

  30. I notice that homer didn’ miss a chance in bringing in keating to the argument.

    Bird’s right, we don’t know what it would be like for manufacturing in a free market.

    But we do know that the current currency regime distorts the capital structure. We also know that manufacturing offers very high paid jobs, which means we want to be creating as many of those jobs as possible. Not by government direction but by letting the market decide.

    Manufacturing doesn’t just mean making widgets, it also includes such things as pharma etc.

    I agree with GB, we want to be attracting lots of manufacturing jobs through effective currency managment and free very low taxed markets.

    This country’s per cap GDP should be $us 60,000 if we had done the right thing in the past.

    J.C.

    December 9, 2006 at 9:49 pm

  31. We can reindustrialise.

    We can reindustrialise and I think we should.

    Its not the reindustrialising or the goal of reindustrialising that ought to worry a libertarian.

    Its HOW the goal might be pursued.

    Do you do it with trade barriers or industry plans?

    Or do you do it with a powerful regulation streamlining, accelerated depreciation, tax cuts and especially tax cuts to interest earnings.

    Paying down debt to zero on a state, federal and local level ought to lead to more loanable funds being lent overseas then gained FROM overseas which ought to reduce the trade deficits or lead to actual trade surpluses.

    Getting rid of height restrictions to building ought to eventually lead to lower costs for both working and living space.

    Going from fast monetary growth to slower monetary growth means that relatively speaking profits will be understated and so businesses will need to retain more resources for reinvestment in their businesses.

    Meaning that currently profits are artificially overstated and so decapitalisation can occur even with the business running a profit.

    In the switch to much harder money…. with the goal of growth deflation… It may be necessary to compensate asset-holders and debtors more generally by registering all post-changeover debts.

    Registering all prior debts right down to your credit-card.

    And using half of your tax liability to pay off those old debts.

    And this in itself could send the country into trade surplus so long as money was tight enough not to let the extra loanable funds around spark off an investment bubble.

    Now none of these things violate libertarian principles or lead to a greater level of governmental depredation.

    Perhaps the debt registering might be construed that way but its a one-off.

    But though none of these things violate libertarian principles they are far much likely to lead to a local manufacturing rejuvination then any plan that Kevvy is likely to come up with.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:21 am

  32. Thats registering all pre-changeover debts not post-changeover debts.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:23 am

  33. Homer! The most free-market person here! Cute.

    The Aus-US FTA was not anti-free-market and it’s simply untrue that all free-traders rejected it.

    But I’m pleased to hear that Homer now supports the abolition of tax, spending, regulation & prohibition.

    John Humphreys

    December 10, 2006 at 8:40 pm

  34. name another person who supports free flow of labour JH,

    Support of free trade does not mean one wishes all of that.
    the market cannot work without regulation ironicaly enough.
    Without the ACCC the market would be distorted and producing a misallocation of resources just like back in the 50s and 60s.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 10, 2006 at 8:59 pm

  35. “Without the ACCC the market would be distorted and producing a misallocation of resources just like back in the 50s and 60s.”

    What a load of horseshit. The Government needs to get rid of anti-competitive regulations and prohibitions. Anti-trust law is truly misguided and passe.

    The ACCC has no productive value.

    At all.

    “Support of free trade does not mean one wishes all of that.
    the market cannot work without regulation ironicaly enough.”

    Homer rewrites the first and second laws of welfare economics?

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 9:03 pm

  36. No Mark it merely shows you do not know the difference between outcomes of a monopoly which misallocates resources.

    If you wish for a distorted market then by all means get rid of the ACCC but unfortunately it will be to the consumers detriment

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 10, 2006 at 9:07 pm

  37. FMD Homer, have you read any microeconomics that was published since the 1920s?

    Monopolies in a free market DO NOT misallocate resources. They internalise costs and the internalisation outweighs the deadweight loss of monopoly pricing and output.

    No wait, I was wrong. BHP should be split up for “efficiency” reasons.

    BTW Homer, try to name an actual monopoly not supported by Government franchise.

    The literature shows that market power does not exist when there are no legally enforced barriers to entry.

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 9:11 pm

  38. Economics for today.
    Authors are Allan Layton, Tim robinson, Irvin tucker.

    That is just one of many that any University use.

    Write your own and show how the robber barons were great for society. Consumers rules the roost then.
    What a golden age. Damned good bencjmark to measure our society against

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 10, 2006 at 9:16 pm

  39. “Support of free trade does not mean one wishes all of that.
    the market cannot work without regulation ironicaly enough.
    Without the ACCC the market would be distorted and producing a misallocation of resources just like back in the 50s and 60s.”

    No thats complete bullshit. Leastways under growth-deflation and low tax rates thats complete bullshit anyway.

    Not irony.

    Just bullshit.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 9:18 pm

  40. Now you’re just quoting luddite mythology and yellow journalism.

    Quite frankly it was a golden age. The birth of the auto mobile and Mr Ford got chided for his arrogant “any colour as long as it’s black” marketing policy.

    So what if textbooks use the lighthouse as an example of a public good?

    If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Since when does a textbook trump specialist literature?

    Despite the quality of that textbook and many others, it is a shame they still perpetuate myths or pay homage to long disproven theories.

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 9:23 pm

  41. “name another person who supports free flow of labour JH”

    John Humphreys

    And you’re confusing competitive markets with free markets. The definition of free market is one where all interactions are voluntary. ACCC may promote competitive markets, but they violate free markets. It is possible to have monopoly in a free market.

    Tax, spending & regulation all use coercion and therefore are inconsistent with free markets. Prohibition makes the market illegal, which is obviously inconsistent with free markets.

    The question about whether you should use regulation to make a market more competitive is a big debate. I think the interventionist (anti-free market) position is flawed because it rests on a static understanding of market processes (perfect competition equilibrium). Those who concentrate on dynamic market forces appreciate the value of the constant struggle between innovation and immitation & that monopoly is not necessarily an evil element of the economic evolution. Monopoly encourages immitation of good ideas and innovation to steal market share. Of course, if you’re just looking at a static graph, you can’t see that.

    John Humphreys

    December 10, 2006 at 9:36 pm

  42. The rest of you guys don’t ever miss the chance to ridicule Humphreys statistical approach to matters of war and peace.

    Its so mind-blowing in its idiocy its unbelievable that a grown-up can be so stupid…… but he’ll never snap out of it if you don’t slap him around a bit about it.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 9:49 pm

  43. “Its so mind-blowing in its idiocy its unbelievable that a grown-up can be so stupid…… but he’ll never snap out of it if you don’t slap him around a bit about it.”

    Please outline the problem/s with it one paragraph.

    Naval strategy is based on statistical/mathematical analysis. The optimal Naval size for the Great Powers was the smallest size Navy that would deter foreign aggression and arms development.

    What is so bad if analysts undertake such research in order to further our security?

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 10:03 pm

  44. Let me explain my approach so you can see what Graeme disagrees with.

    I believe in rational analysis of the consequences of government action.

    I believe that people should be free unless there is a good reason for government intervention. Unless you can show (through rational analysis of consequences) that govenrment action will create a benefit — then the government should not intervene.

    Graeme disagrees.

    He disagrees because there is some intervention he likes. He objects to rational analysis because he knows his pet government project would fail. Just like every other government-loving tax-eater.

    John Humphreys

    December 10, 2006 at 10:09 pm

  45. No no.

    Don’t bullshit us.

    You analysis is TOTAL in its irrationality.

    Because it treats terrorism as if it was a random variable.

    Total irrationality.

    I’ve not seen anything quite this fucking irrational in a long time.

    So lets get this clear.

    Your approach is IRRATIONAL.

    Not rational.

    IRRATIONAL.

    So from here on in just admit your stupidity and try and take a rational approach.

    And that starts with having some sort of understanding UNDERSTANDING about terrorism.

    Terrorism. Its history. The way it changes through time. The role of regimes.

    Not only is your random variable thesis TOTALLY IRRATIONAL.

    Not only is it cowardly.

    Its goddamned lazy.

    You couldn’t have come up with it without any understanding of terrorism at all.

    In fact I think its what you did do.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:16 pm

  46. John: Like my obsession with establishing a blue water fleet and buying F-22s?

    I know I should only support it if it does pass a CBA.

    Giving up this fetish for an excess of superb military hardware is like not looking at Victoria’s Secret models. We know Graeme, they are very, very alluring and not looking raises questions about one’s proclivities. They are so hot and give people wet dreams. The supermodels are pretty hot as well.

    I’m not opposed to using the F-22, Carlo Koop thinks they are cost effective in terms of delivering precision guided munitions, but we probably don’t need 400 of them.

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 10:17 pm

  47. Lets clarify that. Your random variable approach could have been invented by someone so lazy as to not have taken into account any understanding of terrorism and war and peace at all.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:18 pm

  48. Graeme, why isn’t terrorism random?

    If it wasn’t random, we’d always know when it was going to happen. There is something in the minds of terrorists we cannot predict that will turn them into misanthropic utopians. There is interdependence between Western policy and terrorism, but it cannot be quantified. Some Governments are openly terrorist enablers, but we cannot guess what their motives are or what they actually plan to do without perfect information.

    So please explain why it is utterly predictable.

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 10:20 pm

  49. As for being lazy, in advanced microeconomic modelling, using a random catch-all variable can still yield useful results. The problem with a specific model such as yours Graeme is you can never test its validity.

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 10:21 pm

  50. Well you get what you can Mark. What you can reasonably afford.

    But this terrorism is very dangerous. These regimes own us already if they can kill any of us and we are just going to pretend it AL QUAEDA (they’re everywhere, they’re everywhere) that did it.

    So we are aiming at being able to export surgical violence and death to regime leadership while being unassailable on our own territory.

    Now we might not practically be able to afford that.

    But you do what you can.

    And our efforts in that direction may not be ignored by these people.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:22 pm

  51. Now what the hell do you mean by that last comment?

    Look we knew these terrorists right?

    We knew a lot of them by name and we know all the terrorist regimes.

    It used to be we knew the headquarters of a lot of the terrorist outfits.

    We know a lot about the history of this movement and its development and the various philosophies behind it.

    So with all that we know Mark why on earth would we be so stupid as to treat it as a random variable.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:29 pm

  52. Under some circumstances. The US nearly got the 9/11 attackers, institutional failure and personal issues got in the way. That is a tragedy.

    The Brits got the ricin plotters. They didn’t get the terrorists at Aldgate. The Americans did not suspect the 1993 WTC bombings. If you have a mix of certainty and randomness, the net effect is random.

    If the US did a proper self assessment, they would see their intelligence organ for what it is, bloated and inefficient, and change to something more like our and the British model.

    Mark Hill

    December 10, 2006 at 10:36 pm

  53. Don’t mean shit until you make the regimes sweat with fear at each new terrorist attack.

    Or make them dead.

    But yeah American spooktown is just a bloated ridiculous disgrace as you suggest.

    I don’t wish to malign anyone in the field. But the pre-emptive positions they take back in pencil-pusherland are just ridiculous.

    GMB

    December 10, 2006 at 10:47 pm

  54. My analysis doesn’t treat terrorism as a random variable. That can be easily checked and I’ve told you several times. That means you are simply lying. And this is the only point of substance you raise, therefore everything you say is worthless (which is fairly close to the truth every time you contribute).

    Everybody & their friends are free to check.

    http://www.cis.org.au/policy/autumn04/autumn04-5.htm

    or

    http://www.libertarian.org.au/blog/readArticle.jsp?articleID=489789

    My analysis of the Iraq war assumed that the costs from terrorism are determined by the number of successful attacks and the technology held by the terrorists. I assumed that Iraq had WMDs and would definitely pass them to terrorists. I assumed that the terrorists would be able to commit more strikes and kill more people with better technology. I then assumed that invading Iraq would effectively abolish all terrorism for ever. Cough cough.

    As any reasonable person (obviously excluding Graeme) can see — I did not consider terrorism a random variable but something that could be influenced. I discounted all anti-war arguments (violence leads to violence) and took entirely pro-war assumptions.

    But Graeme doesn’t have a problem with my assumptions. Why? Because he hasn’t even read them.

    Then how does he know they’re wrong? Because they come to the wrong answer. Graeme knows what answer he wants (lots of government spending and fewer freedoms) and so he rejects rational analysis.

    We should feel sorry for him. And those pro-war people out there should feel very embarassed to have Graeme on your side.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 1:48 am

  55. Mark — I disagree that terrorism is random. Even if we can’t perfectly predict or prevent it, it does happen for a reason and you can influence it. But (contrary to Graeme’s lie) I have never treated it as random. As a general rule you can tell Graeme has lied because he’s written something. It’s sad.

    The scared boy says: “But this terrorism is very dangerous”

    Just like pesticide poisoning? Just like shark attacks? Just like lightening strikes? Just like passive smoking? Simple question boys & girls… how many Australians have died from terrorism? How many have died driving? How many have been murdered? How many drown? How many die from drugs?

    What do you mean by “very dangerous”? By any reasonable measure — it’s just not true. It’s definetly not scary enough to wet your pants and start wasting tax money and reducing freedoms. That’s irrational statist thinking.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 1:56 am

  56. John
    ]
    We tried policing in the 90’s afte the the first WTC bombing. We ended up with 911 as a result of that strategy.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:12 am

  57. Policing didn’t cause 911. We don’t know the counter-factual JC and we can’t make policy with 20/20 hindsight. I find it hard to believe that invading Iraq would have prevented 911, given that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

    If a 1/100 event happens once in a hundred years it’s not that strange. It’s cause for sadness, but if we let drastic events justify the growth of government then we’re only heading one way — and it’s the wrong way.

    Do you really think invading Iraq has decreased the chance of another 911 at all, let alone enough to justify the cost & loss of freedoms? What do you think has happened to the amount of terrorism since Dubya has “saved the world” (sic).

    And what is the rationale behind speculative positioning behind a contrarian indicator. I’ve noticed the correlation but the only rationale I can think of is that it’s actually the value change that dictates whether people go long/short and not the other way around.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 2:50 am

  58. And JC — do you think I’ve said terrorism is random or do you think Graeme lied?

    And do you think terrorism is “very dangerous”?

    If you personally could ensure yourself against various types of risk, how much would you pay to ensure yourself against car crashes, terrorism, lightening strikes, shark attacks, alcohol poisoning, etc etc? Would you base your decision on the liklihood of the event or the degree of fear-mongering in the media?

    Also — how much do you trust government? If they said “hey, give us billions and we’ll fix a problem” what is your instinctive response? How much skepticism?

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 2:56 am

  59. You idiot Humphreys.

    There is no insurance against regimes that want us all dead other then defeating them or leaving them in great fear.

    You’ve got to get this idiotic notion out of your head that terrorism is a random variable.

    Now you’ve just got to click your heels three times and get back to the real world.

    “Policing didn’t cause 911. We don’t know the counter-factual JC and we can’t make policy with 20/20 hindsight.”

    Well stop doing that you fucking idiot. You are pretending to estimate costs and benefits when you are moronically imagining that the costs would be just the same had the Americans not retaliated.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 5:38 am

  60. “Policing didn’t cause 911. ”

    No no Humphreys. You are wrong. Treating it as a POLICE matter rather then an act of war by foreign regimes did in fact cause 9/11.

    You have to get that right for starters.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 5:41 am

  61. I have read your essay and the assumptions are stupid.

    Because they pretend there are no regimes behind the terrorism.

    Since there are in fact regimes behind the terrorism the price of not fighting terrorism is defeat and the living of our lives according to their rules.

    People can see this in parts of Europe already.

    The other stupid assumption is the assumption that the current cost of the war is the standard to relate things to.

    They are screwing things up precisely because they are taking the John Humphreys head-in-the-sand approach.

    They have operated under the pretense that the killing in Iraq had nothing to do with outside regimes.

    They have operated on the basis that going to war is too costly.

    That you can pretend that regimes that are at war with you are not at war with you.

    This is where the expense of this war comes from.

    It comes from precisely your head-in-the-sand approach.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 5:54 am

  62. Back to the subject of this thread:

    I can’t believe Rudd has appointed Kim Carr as industry spokesman. You can’t have an Industry spokesman who doesn’t support or understand capitalism. Kim Carr should be fitted with one of those electronic anklets that prevents him going more than 5km from Lygon St or anywhere in the Melboure CBD. Early next year the wide boys from the ALP machine will find their corporate donations drying up, and when they ask why the answer will be (through gritted teeth) Kim bloody Carr.

    Andrew Elder

    December 11, 2006 at 9:39 am

  63. Seriously, the fact that the State Labor government had to watch its back in those inner-city seats is because Carr took his eyes off the game.

    Andrew Elder

    December 11, 2006 at 9:40 am

  64. Andy

    Great thoughtful posts as always. The sort of posts I’ll stop drinking coffee to read..

    By the way Mr. Goldman Sachs Investment banker, you were droning on about takeover deals making as much sense as a fly in water. Want to have another go.?

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 9:47 am

  65. The most important thing that happened to you over the past three days was that I made a couple of posts to a website. What a loser!

    First John Key passes you by, now me. The universe is trying to tell you something JC. If only you were smart enough to pick up on it you might have something to offer this site.

    Andrew Elder

    December 11, 2006 at 10:12 am

  66. Graeme — if you read my article then you knew you were lying. And you lied again by saying I treat it as a random variable. I didn’t assume costs would be the same if america did nothing. What’s wrong with you?

    I never said there was insurance. I simply asked a hypothetical. That was fairly obvious. What’s wrong with you?

    Are you truly as retarded as you seem? All you contribute is lies.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 10:27 am

  67. This reminds me a little of Howard winning and then putting the cut in tariffs for cars and textiles on the back burner for a while.

    People forget protectionism is popular however the appointment of Emmo as small business etc who is easily the driest economist in parliament now that David Cox isn’t there and Chris Bowen means dry economics should rule the roost in most areas.

    Perhaps Kin iI Car is there to ameliorate the AMWU

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 12, 2006 at 9:51 am


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: