catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

IPA Review

with 79 comments

Some of the December edition of IPA Review can be read on line. Sinc and Chris Berg have a piece on “Climategate: What we have learned so far.”

But the most concerning revelations aren’t contained in the emails. They’re in the files detailing the complexity and uncertainty of climate modelling. The contortions which CRU programmers have had to make to force their data into what appears to be a predetermined conclusion underlines just how little we actually know about past and present global climate.

Some of the comments made by programmers contained within the released files (see accompanying box) reveal how unstable the CRU model actually is. It is clear that the data underpinning the CRU’s model has been manipulated, manually altered and patched together. The data is incomplete, inconsistent, and-too often-contradicts observed temperatures.

This is not a trivial problem. It goes to the heart of the international debate about climate change. The CRU model is one of the foundations of the IPCC’s entire climate framework. If the IPCC is no longer able to rely on the CRU, it will be substantially less assured.

Henry Ergas has become a leading commentator with a string of op eds in The Australian. The Review has a longer version of his recent article on the popular authoritarianism in the Kevin Rudd agenda and the “method in the madness”. The PM insists that the climate debate is over, when in fact it only just starting in earnest. He has imposed discipline to the point where skeptics in the ALP have not yet contributed to the debate that we have to have.

But his is a government of doctrinaires without doctrine [an echo of Metin’s “socialism without doctine?] . Their rhetoric educes a politics of moral certainty…Their practice is handouts and questionable deals.

The result is a curious cocktail…extravagant spending initiative (National Broadband) and an almost complete lack of progress in the key areas – health, education, federalism – where so much was promised.

By the way, checking out the Metin quote, it turned up in a truly hair-raising speech on National Innovation delivered by Senator Kim Carr at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy in August 2009.

Advertisements

Written by Rafe

December 30, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

79 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. By the way, checking out the Metin quote, it turned up in a truly hair-raising speech on National Innovation delivered by Senator Kim Carr at the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy in August 2009.

    I know that Kim Carr is a much-maligned figure around these parts, but I’m curious as to what is so ‘hair-raising’ about his speech. It advocates Blairite third-wayism and the like – in other words, a rather conservative form of ALP governance, as exemplified by Lenin’s quip that is included in the speech.

    THR

    December 30, 2009 at 2:27 pm

  2. It contains a list of no-brainer ideas, like postwar prosperity is attributed to Keynesianism plus the welfare state, the role of the labour movement to civilise capitalism, uncritical acceptance of Rudd’s nonsense on Hayek etc.

    Rafe

    December 30, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  3. I cannot remember our Enry being so critical of Howard imposing so much ‘discipline on the previous government.

    Perhaps after being so wrong about the stimulus like so many here his consciousness is now only being raised.

    His memory also goes missing on the NBN where the people who are saying the benefits will be larger than what anyone suggests are merely echoing exactly what our Enry said about mobile telephones.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 30, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  4. Ths stimulus in fact achieved nothing and wasn’t necessary – as we knew from mid 2008 onwards.

    C.L.

    December 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  5. Do you have any evidence the stimulus achieved nothing CL?

    sdfc

    December 30, 2009 at 5:15 pm

  6. OK CL

    lets have your plan for the next 12 months

    with figures and data to support it.

    rog

    December 30, 2009 at 5:32 pm

  7. The more CL says the more he will believe the deluded nonsense

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 30, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  8. Let’s see
    courtesy of the CBA

    Australian GDP 2009
    (% ch)
    2010
    (% ch)
    OECD: June
    Nov
    -0.4
    0.8
    1.2
    2.4
    IMF: April
    June
    October
    -1.4
    -0.5
    0.7
    0.6
    1.5
    2.0
    Consensus: May
    Nov
    -0.7
    0.9
    1.5
    2.7
    RBAcalendar year
    forecasts (CBA (e))
    May
    November
    -1.0
    0.9
    1.0
    2.7
    Treasury calendar year
    forecasts (CBA (e))
    May
    November
    -1.1
    0.7
    1.0
    2.5

    Golly gosh CL wrong AGAIN

    imagine that

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 30, 2009 at 5:50 pm

  9. My plan for what, Rog? Humiliating you? And what would somebody who predicted that the Australian ETS would influence the world in Copenhagen know about plans? I think you made more sense when you were a fanatical John Howard groupie at Tim Blair’s blog years ago.

    The more CL says the more he will believe the deluded nonsense.

    Coming from the Australian blogosphere’s most famous promoter of Nazi economics, you can imagine how seriously I take that remark, Homer.

    But the forecasts for the Australian economy in 2008 were that it would sail through the “crisis” relatively unscathed. It did. Rudd’s techical recession avoidance program (the “stimulus”) was a waste of money. On the upside, Australia now has some very impressive Julia Memorial Toilet blocks.

    C.L.

    December 30, 2009 at 6:02 pm

  10. I knew he wouldn’t step up to the plate

    or wouldn’t

    Lets have your economic plan for the economy for the next 12 months motor mouth.

    Tell us how it should happen

    rog

    December 30, 2009 at 6:06 pm

  11. or couldn’t

    rog

    December 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm

  12. CL in mid 2008 the financial markets were pricing in an interest rate tightening in the US by the end of that year. It is safe to say mid-2008 forecasts were badly out of date by the end of the year.

    sdfc

    December 30, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  13. SDFC:

    no one can predict a black swan event and in July last year the ECB w=raised rates totally obvious to the financial environment.

    What exactly is your point? That toilet blocks saved our bacon? Lol.

    Jc

    December 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  14. The forecasts for the Australian economy in 2008 – and the utterances of Rudd and Swan in late 2008 – indicated that Australia would sail through the “crisis” relatively unscathed. It did. The 40+ billions spent was a waste of money.

    C.L.

    December 30, 2009 at 6:31 pm

  15. The term black swan event just makes my skin crawl. Anyone who thought the financial crisis was just going to go away wasn’t paying attention.

    We’ve been through the impact of stimulus spending ad nauseam. Are you really saying a 6.2% quarterly increase in government GFCF, direct cash handouts to householders and business investment tax allowances are not stimulatory?

    If you want to argue that much of the spending was wasted then that is another matter, saying it has not stimulated growth is simply not credible.

    sdfc

    December 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  16. The stimulus hasn’t “stimulated” growth. It’s simply brought future consumption forward, by definition the opposite of growth. The cost of the “stimulus” will be lower GDP growth in the long run, as the increased debt will have to be paid back with higher taxes. And the problem of private debt still remains.

    Michael Fisk

    December 30, 2009 at 6:44 pm

  17. sorry CL is in denialist mode as I have shown most forecasts were for the Australian economy to go backwards.

    That is CL speak for sailing through unscathed.

    what was noticeable during the GFC was how many times forecasts were downgraded.
    Gee Cl wrong AGAIN who would have thunked it

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm

  18. “If you want to argue that much of the spending was wasted then that is another matter, saying it has not stimulated growth is simply not credible.”

    Well it has certainly ‘stimulated’ government debt and the loins of sundry social democrats.

    dover_beach

    December 30, 2009 at 6:46 pm

  19. oops master economist Fisk has spoken

    Actually the stimulus has made the debt LOWER.

    It is clowns like you that advocated policies that would have a much larger debt.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 30, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  20. The term black swan event just makes my skin crawl.

    Have you tried skin softener?

    Anyone who thought the financial crisis was just going to go away wasn’t paying attention.

    ummm okay so show proof where you predicted the s&P finally heading to the devil’s number 666? In fact show us your 100% prediction accuracy?

    We’ve been through the impact of stimulus spending ad nauseam. Are you really saying a 6.2% quarterly increase in government GFCF, direct cash handouts to householders and business investment tax allowances are not stimulatory?

    No, i’m not. I ma saying like I have told you countless times (and which you’ve also agreed) that there are much better ways to stimulate the economy rather than lowering our long term GDP trajectory. You rally have difficulty with this don’t you?

    How on earth can you freaking justify the US budget deficit at 13%?

    If you want to argue that much of the spending was wasted then that is another matter, saying it has not stimulated growth is simply not credible.

    It’s done worse. It’s fucked up our capital structure and we will be paying for it with lower growth. it will be there, but just hidden in miserable growth.

    You really don’t want to understand this do you?

    Jc

    December 30, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  21. Just for idiots who think the ARRA created the present US budget deficit.

    Economic downturn contributes about $427b, Tarp, Freddie % Fannie $247b, ARRA $184 Bush tax cuts $364b and war costs $178b.

    how can a person be so ignorant and maintain a straight face

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 30, 2009 at 7:02 pm

  22. Michael, it actually hasn’t brought forward consumption, the increase in consumption is the result of direct government handouts and a lower than expected drop in household wage income. It has however brought forward some investment, but then again that is what it was designed to do. In any case higher levels of activity are likely to increase future investment needs. That is unless of course you think there has been an element of over-investment in the economy. I don’t see much evidence of that however, unless of course you are talking about the churn in the housing stock.

    While I think the stimulus to housing construction as a positive I am concerned about the pull forward in dwelling investment as a result of the first homebuyer grant which may have encouraged imprudent borrowing by people least able to afford higher interest rates.

    I’m also concerned about the high level of household debt, however that burden is largely the result of past lax monetary policy rather than government stimulus spending.

    As for the higher level of debt, that will be paid for by higher GDP. Why do so many of the naysayers get so worked up about what is a very manageable level of government debt?

    sdfc

    December 30, 2009 at 7:16 pm

  23. Jc

    Accurately predicting the low point of the S&P500 is not a prerequisite for being uneasy about the financial system, anyone working in the financial markets would be aware of this. You’ve also got to get away from your obsession with the equity market, the main game is in the debt markets.

    As for the 13% budget deficit in the US, you obviously have forgotten the shit budget position Obama inherited from the warmonger’s hero George Bush, who ran a series of deficits despite relatively robust growth from 2003 – 2007. Something he had in common with big Ronnie in the 80’s. You’ve also forgotten the severe recession the US government has been dealing with. Their 10% unemployment rate is not nearly high enough for you obviously. The US problems run well beyond the government’s budget position.

    Back to Australia “Lowering our long-term GDP trajectory” Unsubstantiated rhetoric as usual.

    “Fucked up the capital structure” Hysterical hyperbole.

    sdfc

    December 30, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  24. Accurately predicting the low point of the S&P500 is not a prerequisite for being uneasy about the financial system, anyone working in the financial markets would be aware of this.

    Good point. I suppose then you can point to where you predicted what happened and can also show your criticism towards the ECB for raising rates. Harry Hindsight is on holidays?

    You’ve also got to get away from your obsession with the equity market, the main game is in the debt markets.

    Oh so correlation wasn’t close to one last year and part of this year? Lol

    As for the 13% budget deficit in the US, you obviously have forgotten the shit budget position Obama inherited from the warmonger’s hero George Bush, who ran a series of deficits despite relatively robust growth from 2003 – 2007.

    No I’m not forgetting it, however warmonger obama made things worse on that front and is trying to make it even more.

    Something he had in common with big Ronnie in the 80’s.

    No not really. Obama is turning out to be one of the worst presidents ever while Reagan has a decent rating. I would also add that Reagan had to contend with the second worse president – Carter and the deficit was nowhere near as bad during that 80-82 recession.

    You’ve also forgotten the severe recession the US government has been dealing with. Their 10% unemployment rate is not nearly high enough for you obviously. The US problems run well beyond the government’s budget position.

    That’s right, unemployment would be higher if Boatman didn’t spend it’s stimulus money on tennis courts.

    Back to Australia “Lowering our long-term GDP trajectory” Unsubstantiated rhetoric as usual.

    Honestly, did you do economics? Did you pass? Government borrowing is foregoing future consumption and capital-spending potential, is it not? In fact any form of borrowing is bringing consumption forward at the expense of future consumption. You didn’t know this? Poor you.

    “Fucked up the capital structure” Hysterical hyperbole.

    Sure it does. We have an overvalued exchange rate for a start and private sector spending is dropping. Meanwhile government borrowing is going through the roof and the building sector is on fire. That’s called fucking up the capital structure, you dolt.

    Jc

    December 30, 2009 at 9:03 pm

  25. Homer:

    Stop plagiarizing leftie sites and then changing a few words and posting here.

    The Bush tax cuts were much earlier in the decade and there were years when the deficit was basically around 1% of GDP- a rounding error.

    Obama’s stimulus was $800 billion.

    You’re such a dishonest turd. it was only a few years ago when you complaining about a deficit of 1% of GDP, yet 13% doesn’t seem to scare now. You really have no business talking about economics.

    Jc

    December 30, 2009 at 9:09 pm

  26. Jc no need to get upset, just because don’t seem to understand basic financial relationships doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. I suggest a reading of the General Theory or Minsky may alert you to the dangers of financial market instability.

    Ronnie ran deficits throughout the 80s, in fact the damage he did to the budget balance continued long after he left office.

    That Oz government borrowing is foregoing future consumption is hilarious. The debt is very manageable and will likely see Australia end the next decade with higher GDP than what it would have been without it.

    “private sector spending is dropping” This is the best time for the government to engage in infrastructure spending.

    The exchange rate is a function of improved global confidence and interest rate differentials. You’re not one of the crackpots who thinks a 3% cash rate was a sign of economic health are you?

    “Government borrowing is going through the roof”. More hysteria.

    You obviously would be far happier with an unemployment rate much higher than what it is. Any idea how that would have played out with household debt to income of ~160%?

    sdfc

    December 30, 2009 at 10:41 pm

  27. Jc no need to get upset, just because don’t seem to understand basic financial relationships doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t.

    On the contrary, I do actually. I ran a series of different trading groups that produced decent trading profits over the 20 year period and have now done it successfully for myself trading my own capital and a few other clients. Don’t talk to me about basic financial relationships, as I know it better than you

    I suggest a reading of the General Theory or Minsky may alert you to the dangers of financial market instability.

    I read the general theory. It’s shit economics written by a trader who doesn’t understand economics. Keynes was a wonderful trader and would have been a great hedge fund manager in the present day as he understood trading. He wrote the general theory, as a trader would understand economics not as an economist. That’s why it’s bunk.

    Ronnie ran deficits throughout the 80s, in fact the damage he did to the budget balance continued long after he left office.

    Reagan made a decision to win the cold war. He made us all safer and forever thankful to the great man. He didn’t sign on to a dificit to build school dunnies or tennis courts in Nebraska.

    That Oz government borrowing is foregoing future consumption is hilarious. The debt is very manageable and will likely see Australia end the next decade with higher GDP than what it would have been without it.

    Having a 30% debt to GDP is hilarious is it?

    So you still don’t think borrowing is bringing forward future consumption? If you really think that there’s no point speaking to you about it any more as you don’t seem to understand economics.

    “private sector spending is dropping” This is the best time for the government to engage in infrastructure spending.

    It’s the best time why? To force useless spending sprees and lower our long-term growth potential. What a stupid comment.

    The exchange rate is a function of improved global confidence and interest rate differentials. You’re not one of the crackpots who thinks a 3% cash rate was a sign of economic health are you?

    I’ve explained to you before that the absolute rate of interest is not important when other factors are taken into account. Our interest rates are the highest in the western world primarily brought by government overspending causing a misallocation of resources. And yes, an overvalued exchange rate is important.

    “Government borrowing is going through the roof”. More hysteria.

    I’m speaking in comparative terms. We had a surplus 18 months ago so government borrowing this way is surprisingly large considering there wasn’t much in most of this decade.

    You obviously would be far happier with an unemployment rate much higher than what it is. Any idea how that would have played out with household debt to income of ~160%?

    I’ve told you before that there was other ways of stimulating the economy and you still focus on school toilets as the optimum. Add 30% of the GDP ratio you mentioned because we all owe government debt and it will become 190% of GDP. You really are a numbnut.

    SDFC’s answer to high levels of consumer debt? Add more debt. good one.

    Jc

    December 30, 2009 at 11:09 pm

  28. Financial relationships? The equity market? It didn’t happen in the equity market you dolt, it was all about debt. Fuelled by over-confidence in what was obviously an unstable system and loose money. This is the situation you’ve happily seen begin to return.

    Regardless of your ideological view (and yes Jc you do have one) if you had read the GT you would realise that Keynes gave an accurate description of how the GFC unfolded. You may disagree with what he said but crap economics it certainly is not. I disagreed with things Hayek said in the Constitution of Liberty but I don’t think its a crap read. Why do you think he wrote the book as a trader? Is it because he presented an alternative to the frictionless, assumption riddled classical model of a barter economy?

    Lower long-term growth? Why would the stimulus drag down long-term growth? Lower consumption? I don’t think so, most consumption is immediate. What is more likely to lower consumption is higher unemployment and high debt levels. Maybe you mean investment. Will there be a dip in housing investment in the second half of next year because of the effects of the first homebuyer grant? Yes I think there will be. That does not equate to lower long term growth potential however. As for business investment, let’s face it higher activity is likely to lead to increased investment, so no damage to long-term growth potential there either.

    You are aware of GDP growth aren’t you Jc? GDP growth will see the debt paid off over time. It is simply not a huge burden on the economy. Gross debt is forecast to reach around 30% of GDP, net debt however is expected to reach around 15%. What is all the panic about?

    Of course the nominal rate of interest is important in the exchange rate. Borrow cheap $US or Yen, invest in $A, this pushes the Aussie higher increasing the productivity of the trade. This is has been a major factor in driving $A higher over the last nine months. Rates are higher because conditions here are so much better. I can’t believe you don’t get this.

    You’ve really got to get over your fixation with school toilets, people are beginning to talk. Did Obama really spend the first $200 odd billion of the package on tennis courts in Nebraska?

    As for your last comment what a ripper. For starters household debt is about 100% of GDP. Its 160% of household income. In any case the two are hardly compatible. The Commonwealth is AAA rate sovereign, The Australian households sector is full of unrated individuals at risk of default if they become unemployed or another setback befalls them.

    Add more government as opposed to you a cheerleader of ultra-low interest rates, which only serve to distort private sector decision making.

    sdfc

    December 31, 2009 at 12:19 am

  29. Financial relationships? The equity market? It didn’t happen in the equity market you dolt, it was all about debt. Fuelled by over-confidence in what was obviously an unstable system and loose money.

    And you actually think I have an issue with this: that I suggested something that was contrary to this view. Are you serious or just delusional? People use the indices as a reference point. It was never meant to suggest the problems started in equities. If you want to debate this then try and be honest.

    This is the situation you’ve happily seen begin to return.

    No, however it’s the situation you would like to see return as we’re piling on more government debt which we’re all are responsible for: this time around financing school dunnies with Julia’s nameplate outside.

    Regardless of your ideological view (and yes Jc you do have one) if you had read the GT you would realise that Keynes gave an accurate description of how the GFC unfolded.

    No he doesn’t. He basically rejects the classical view then suggests the solution is an inflationist policy that further acerbates the business cycle acting like a heroin shot with the consequences being the aftermath of the trip.

    You may disagree with what he said but crap economics it certainly is not.

    Yes it is. Digging a hole and filling it up again is crap economics.

    I disagreed with things Hayek said in the Constitution of Liberty but I don’t think its a crap read. Why do you think he wrote the book as a trader? Is it because he presented an alternative to the frictionless, assumption riddled classical model of a barter economy?

    Because Keynes was a much better trader than he was an economist and in my view he treated economics as traders sometimes see it.

    Of course you would disagree with Hayek. That isn’t a shock and the suggestion is pretty redundant.

    Lower long-term growth? Why would the stimulus drag down long-term growth? Lower consumption? I don’t think so, most consumption is immediate.

    oh FFS don’t you understand what the consequences are of borrowing to finance immediate consumption vs forgone future consumption and crowding out?

    As for business investment, let’s face it higher activity is likely to lead to increased investment, so no damage to long-term growth potential there either.

    What higher activity? If you think in aggregates of course you would think that, however the building trade is not the entire economy and construction is where the money is being focused. Where the fuck do you think the money comes from to finance this splurge. You think the money just appears and isn’t a scarce resource with no consequences to the rest of the economy. Are savings infinite? You dolt.

    You are aware of GDP growth aren’t you Jc? GDP growth will see the debt paid off over time. It is simply not a huge burden on the economy.

    How the fuck can you say it is not a huge burden on the economy when you argued earlier that debt has no consequence to future growth levels. You really don’t even see your own contradictions.

    Of course the nominal rate of interest is important in the exchange rate. Borrow cheap $US or Yen, invest in $A, this pushes the Aussie higher increasing the productivity of the trade. This is has been a major factor in driving $A higher over the last nine months. Rates are higher because conditions here are so much better. I can’t believe you don’t get this.

    Rates are higher here because The RBA is pushing them higher on account of the misallocation of scarce resources. It’s the stimulus that is causing this misallocation and forcing an over valuation of the exchange rate. But of course an overvaluation has no consequences does it? Or does it?

    You’ve really got to get over your fixation with school toilets, people are beginning to talk.

    Take that up with Rudd as he seems to have that fixation not me.

    Did Obama really spend the first $200 odd billion of the package on tennis courts in Nebraska?

    Did I say he did? Where? It was an example of the deplorable state of the stimulus where the public was being sold the idea that the big spending commitments would go to increase (ours and their) productive capacity when in fact this wasn’t really the case at all for the most part.

    As for your last comment what a ripper. For starters household debt is about 100% of GDP. Its 160% of household income. In any case the two are hardly compatible. The Commonwealth is AAA rate sovereign, The Australian households sector is full of unrated individuals at risk of default if they become unemployed or another setback befalls them.

    Bullshit. Consumer debt was 150% of GDP last time read and I thought you were updating the figure. After it’s all said and done total debt will be closer to 200% of GDP.

    Add more government as opposed to you a cheerleader of ultra-low interest rates, which only serve to distort private sector decision making.

    Are you wilfully stupid? Nominal and real interest rates are what is important not the absolute level. You seem to have this peculiar hang up with low interest rates not knowing what that means and spending money on school toilets pretending it goes to our productive capacity. You really have no idea. None at all.

    Jc

    December 31, 2009 at 1:26 am

  30. “…unstable system and loose money…”

    sdfc rolls out the technical terms he picked up in New Idea.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 2:37 am

  31. Obama running a budget deficit of 13% of GDP…. SDFC blames Reagan.

    He’s like Homer who was excitably critical of a Bush deficit of 1% of GDP only a few years ago. Homer now doesn’t raise a paw over a 13% deficit. We don’t understand economics, says Homer.

    These people are cult members, CL.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 2:44 am

  32. Speaking of Obama, Maureen Dowd (of all people) has now thrown him under the bus.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 3:07 am

  33. GDP/person over the last five quarters:

    -0.4
    -1.4
    0.0
    0.0
    -0.4

    The stimulus likely made those early numbers slightly better… but also made the latter numbers slightly worse. The net impact was very small… and certainly the benefit was much smaller than the total cost. The stimulus was bad public policy, supported only by people who don’t understand open-economy macro-economics (and that includes Rudd).

    John Humphreys

    December 31, 2009 at 9:35 am

  34. John I would suggest you read the articles on open economies and fiscal policy a bit more closely as Ken Henry did which is why it was successful.

    Without the stimulus we would still be in negative growth. wow great policy.

    Economic illiterates will frequently cite no difference between the Reagan/Bush deficits and the deficit ( Mainly Bush)now in the US

    Back in Reagan and Bush early period there was NO liquidity trap. There was no need for fiscal stimulus.
    There was/is now.

    End of story

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 11:36 am

  35. Homer of Arabia thinks a deficit of 13% of GDP is perfectly fine and it was all Bush’s fault.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 11:53 am

  36. Homenomics is quite straightforward on this point, JC.

    Republican/Liberal deficits are bad. Democrat/Labor deficits are good.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  37. Jc

    Okay – So we agree you haven’t actually read the GT, but you have read edited excerpts. Keynes introduced uncertainty, human action, capital assets and financial markets into his theory, a big improvement in anyone’s language.

    Happy to see you are moving past your equity obsession.

    Still shitting yourself about government debt I see, relax its not a big issue. Net debt to peak at 15% of GDP, no need to panic.

    Crowding out? Only in a full employment economy. You should have moved beyond basic first year economics by now if you are the financial guru you say you are.

    Are savings infinite? You obviously think we live in a closed financial system. The government borrows from global capital markets just like the private sector does.

    You are aware of GDP growth aren’t you Jc? GDP growth will see the debt paid off over time. It is simply not a huge burden on the economy.

    “How the fuck can you say it is not a huge burden on the economy when you argued earlier that debt has no consequence to future growth levels. You really don’t even see your own contradictions.”

    Where is the contradiction in the above?

    Rates are higher in Australia because growth is stronger and the banking sector is in good shape.

    You were the one going on about tennis courts, all I did was ask hte question. By the way only about a quarter of the $787 billion stimulus has been allocated.

    Jc consumer debt has only just risen past 100% GDP. Check the financial accounts if you don’t believe me.

    Are you wilfully stupid? Nominal and real interest rates are what is important not the absolute level. You seem to have this peculiar hang up with low interest rates not knowing what that means and spending money on school toilets pretending it goes to our productive capacity. You really have no idea. None at all.

    There are real and nominal interest rates, you are going to have to explain what you mean by the absolute level. By low interest rates I do mean nominal just to clear it up for you. It’s no surprise that you don’t think historically low interest rates distort decision making considering you make no allowance for human behaviour in your analysis. Where not dealing with a heavy deflation here, the CPI is still increasing at 1.2%. At 3% the cash rate was too low.

    I don’t have any time to address the rest of your comment Jc, I’ve been ordered to clean up the garden for a new years eve bash. Happy New Year.

    sdfc

    December 31, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  38. see we do have perfect examples of economic illiterates.

    CL gets his lines wrong. Since the second World War this has been the ONLY time any economic stimulus has been justified however being an economic illiterate he doesn’t know that

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  39. Being an historical illiterate (and a left-wing dope), Homer has also claimed the “GFC” was comparable to the Great Depression. You may have passed some Hoovervilles on your way to the soup kitchen this morning, as some of the 34 percent of people who are unemployed milled about waiting for their susso.

    Oh, that’s right. No, you probably didn’t.

    Obama has tripled the defecit in a year, thus becoming the most fiscally plofligate bum in American history.

    Homer’s OK with it, though, because he’s a Democrat.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  40. Okay – So we agree you haven’t actually read the GT, but you have read edited excerpts. Keynes introduced uncertainty, human action, capital assets and financial markets into his theory, a big improvement in anyone’s language.

    Oh, so actually you think it took Keynes to explain all those factors whereas before him there was no understanding from the classical school. Lol. SDFC thinks economics began with the publishing of the GT.Year zero. Lol

    Happy to see you are moving past your equity obsession.

    No obsession here. It was your inability to understand that I was using the equity market as a marker seeing nearly everything was correlated to 1 for the good past of the financial crisis.

    Still shitting yourself about government debt I see, relax its not a big issue. Net debt to peak at 15% of GDP, no need to panic.

    Not panicked at all. It’s basically sub-par spending, something you initially suggested yourself and now remain quiet about it.

    Crowding out? Only in a full employment economy. You should have moved beyond basic first year economics by now if you are the financial guru you say you are.

    Perhaps you ought to tell the Philly and Dallas Fed governors that and see how far that gets you. They were warning that we have seen previous examples of high inflation when the economy wasn’t fully employed. They mentioned the 70’s as a good example of the wheels coming off the economy despite higher unemployment. Perhaps you ought to write to them and tell them they need to go back to school.

    Are savings infinite? You obviously think we live in a closed financial system. The government borrows from global capital markets just like the private sector does.

    Interesting. So you finally admit there is an impact on the exchange rate?

    You are aware of GDP growth aren’t you Jc? GDP growth will see the debt paid off over time. It is simply not a huge burden on the economy.

    It’s really interesting viewing the mindset of Keynesians like yourself excusing shitty spending that will eventually have to be financed with higher tax rates (note Swandive’s comment about the higher earners having to be more patriotic and pay more tax) and don’t think this impacts long term growth. You guys really do belong to a religious cult.

    Rates are higher in Australia because growth is stronger and the banking sector is in good shape.
    How can you be so certain? The RBA has been raising rates because of the activity they are seeing in the real estate sector.

    You were the one going on about tennis courts, all I did was ask hte question. By the way only about a quarter of the $787 billion stimulus has been allocated.

    So they should stop the stimulus now, or not?

    We really can’t tell for the moment what is happening deep in the innards of the economy except to say that the capital structure is now fucked. Not just a little fucked but hugely so.

    I really don’t think you understand how interest rates work. You seem to think that a low number is “bad” while a higher number is “good”. You seem really confused.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  41. Homer:

    As someone always singing the praises of the Nazi/ Hilter economics you should be the last person to talk about other people’s economic illiteracy champ.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  42. let us go through CL’s lies

    Yes world trade and growth experienced great depression type activity and the US did as well but no-one ever suggested that here.

    As I have shown CL cannot even add up numbers properly.
    Obama has even come close to tripling the deficit.
    Gosh that was hard taking that rubbish apart

    let us go through Forrest’s mindblowing thoughts.

    Net debt is very low and was mainly caused by poor economic growth not the economic stimulus which is why Treasury revised net debt figures LOWER when the economic conditions changed. 9 We also saw the non-existent Government financial assets rise in value as well.)

    Then he confuses crowding out with inflation. oops
    We still have no explanation of how inflation will rise with a large output gap now given the labour market is very much more deregulated.
    these two people wil lhave us believe the economic actors are the same now as in the 70s.
    Only an idiot such as Forrest would swallow such codswallop.
    We also have evidence that both these fellows wanted rates up when commodity prices rose because underlying inflation would rise. It didn’t.
    the Fed takes no notice of their views.
    The transmission effect didn’t even work in sclerotic Europe let alone the USA.

    Ah yes Forrest brilliant idea that Italians will be forced to finance their government’s budget deficits for ever. wonderful logic especially since Italian can choose where they wish to lend.

    No Glenn has said they are raising rates because EMERGENCY levels are no longer required.

    Oh yes has Forrest found anyone that believes Germany did not get out of the depression or get to full employment by 1936.

    Yeah thought not.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  43. The “GFC” was nowhere near as catastrophic as the Great Depression. Didn’t even come close. That Homer believes otherwise is a laughable testament to his historical and economic illiteracy. It’s worth remembering that Homer also backed GroceryWatch and FuelWatch. They were great ideas, Homer insisted. Here’s what we also know: the American “stimulus” has failed and the Rudd “stimulus” was totally unnecessary. Regarding Obama, he is now the most plofligate fiscal bum in US history. Because he’s a Democrat, however, economist Homer gives him a pass.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  44. I will allow you have a forest like understanding of economics afterall you are a Santamaria man.

    No-one said it would be as catastrophic what people said was that the levels of World trade and growth reached depression like levels.

    Similarly in the USA there was depression like levels for a number of economic indicators.

    so in fact it came very close.

    No even the CBO has acknowledged the stimulus in the US has had an effect.

    I have also shown where the forecasts were for the major official organisations for Asutralia and indeed it shows CL again completely WRONG AGAIN.

    I have also shown how the US deficit is made up so his statement on Obama is WRONG AGAIN.
    The major Reason for the present deficit is he who cannot be criticised.

    CL again cannot understand the difference between when the is a liquidity trap ( this means CL when things a werry werry bad and monetary policy does not work) and when it is not ( This means CL things are bad but monetary policy can be utilised that means it is working.)

    Actually let us have a laugh.
    CL show us all how the various measure are contributing to the US budget deficit.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  45. Homer:

    It didn’t reach depression levels, you fucking idiot, the sudden drop in trend was similar in terms of the slope. However the duration, reaching and staying at the bottom… no, it has been nowhere near depression levels. So stfu with that crap.

    In other words it was the rate of change that scared the shit out of everyone and the reason why assets were starting to be priced (for a very short period of time) as though a depression was about to hit. And even that period was a short few months.

    Look you illiterate dickwad, the depression was a years long thing not something that lasted a 90 days.

    For someone that preaches Nazi economics and treats those nazi thugs with the loving deference you do has no business speaking about economics. In fact you have no business talking about anything remotely related to economics.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 2:22 pm

  46. Homer:

    You spend your time reading up hard left sites discussing their delusional version of economics, plagiarize that swill and then bring it here. We’ve had enough frankly.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  47. The Depression era that homer, the nazi economist wants to compare with……

    from 1929-32 GDP was sawed in half, the price level fell by 40% (that’s real deflation), the stock market fell 90% , unemployment reached 27% and farm prices collapsed. This is the era this moron is trying to compare to.

    What a complete choker. What a moron.

    jc

    December 31, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  48. The “GFC” isn’t even talked about anymore really. Didn’t come within a bee’s penis of the Great Depression. That’s a necessary ideological ‘narrative,’ however, because the left now has to cover up the fact that fiscal deadbeat Obama has tripled the deficit in a year.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  49. oops let us look at hmm what about the Dow jones and the S&P 500 after 16-17 months hey that looks pretty close to me.
    world industrial production actually fell more than in the Depression. the falls in Trade and growth were comparable.

    Golly Forrest wrong AGAIN. Who would have thunked it.

    No we didn’t have a depression but no-one suggested that you blithering idiot. Why are you comparing apples with oranges.

    We had better policy both monetary and fiscal.

    It is typical of both CL and Forrest that that they prattle off in areas no-one has suggested.

    Create another Strawman fellows.

    On second thoughts it is probably a lack of understanding of English.

    No the GFC isn’t talked about now because it is more or less over.

    Come on CL produce the figures that has Obama tripling the deficit.
    I have already shown your mathematical ability is the equal of Forrest.
    come up with some numbers.

    you won’t and can’t because you are not capable.
    It is like asking Forrest for evidence that Germany did not get out of the Depression.
    He can’t and won’t

    We had depression like conditions and then avoided it.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  50. Peter J. Wallison has an important piece in the WSJ on the role of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in the Democrat financial crisis – which, happily, didn’t come close to the Great Depression, as Homer laughably claims. An excerpt:

    In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote.

    Barney Frank – who should be in jail alongside Bernie Madoff – famously said he wanted the GSEs to “roll the dice” on housing loans. Now we have a president who has also rolled the dice – tripling the deficit in a year and becoming the biggest fiscal deadbeat in living memory (if not, of all time). Homer backs Obama’s plofligacy, of course, because Obama is a Democrat.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  51. Homer:

    You complete Dullard. The worst quarter we saw in the US was an annualized GDP fall of 6.4%. That was the worst. I keep trying to explain to you that what spooked people was the rate of change not the absolute change. To suggest this was somehow even mildly comparable to the Depression takes a certain amount of innumeracy combined with generalized stupidity of which you are well endowed. look you idiot:

    2008 to 2009 quarterly change in real GDP annunalized:

    -0.7 1.5 -2.7 -5.4 -6.4 -0.7 2.2

    It was basically two bad quarters that looks nothing like the great depression you nimrod. Stop bringing your plagiarized bullshit that you fail to even understand over here from 3rd rate sites pretend it’s yours and then start arguing as some sort of authority. You aren’t even able to explain how to take a leak properly by taking proper aim let alone comparing GDP stats of different eras.

    It is typical of both CL and Forrest that that they prattle off in areas no-one has suggested.

    Oh really dickhead?

    Yes world trade and growth experienced great depression type activity and the US did as well….

    Which he describes as a strawman.

    STFU, you brainless moron.

    JC

    December 31, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  52. CL provides no figures merely prattles his latest idiocy.

    Forrest proving no-one is a bigger idiot copies my comment on WORLD trade and growth and talks about US growth.
    wow did he really sat that.
    Yes he did and of course if it were plagiarized he would be able to show that but of course he cannot.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  53. CL provides no figures merely prattles his latest idiocy.

    And what figures have you ever provided you brainless moron? Ever?

    Forrest proving no-one is a bigger idiot copies my comment on WORLD trade and growth and talks about US growth.

    Considering the US was the worse hit and pretty much ground zero for the recession it provides a pretty decent marker for the world economy.. In fact the US numbers would reflect a worse picture for the world than what actually happened.

    You’re so stupid it’s no longer funny, which is why I’m even ruder to you, blockhead. You have zero capacity to think.

    wow did he really sat that.

    Wow I really sat that, homer, you nimbus.

    ….if it were plagiarized he would be able to show that but of course he cannot.

    Of course it’s lifted. You plagiarize stuff, convert it to swill and distort it in the unique way you have done in the past and peddle as your own thinking which is why you’re always left to appear like a driveling goose every time you show up.

    Moron.

    JC

    December 31, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  54. The GDP is a blunt instrument and so small changes mean very little. GPP is boosted by traffic congestion so people use more petrol getting to work. Driving with the handbrake on will boost GDP as well (more petrol consumption) plus the bonus when you have to repair it.
    Money wasted on school halls could be usefully spent elsewhere like nuclear power stations which will deliver benefits while the school halls become a maintenance problem. Great for the GDP but!

    Rafe

    December 31, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  55. I know Rafe, you’re right. When a normal government is running things the GDP is a decent rough and ready tool to use, as there isn’t as large a mis-allocation of resources through distorting economic policies as we have now.

    However when we have a thoroughly economically incompetent set of layabouts such as these bozos who peddle the idea the duplicate school halls is a boon to our productive capacity it always a good idea to look at other indicators.

    Good point.

    JC

    December 31, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  56. I’ve always provided the figures. Here they are again.

    Heckuva job, Barry!

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 5:02 pm

  57. CL cannot produce any figure to back up his false claim because he has no idea of how it is made up however I actually showed how the budget deficit is made up and as we saw CL is WRONG AGAIN.

    Forrest is clearly wrong too. perhaps he should examine some of the major countries in the OECD.

    UK, Germany, Japan wow.
    Germany has a fall in GDP similar to the US but as the Economist noted without the disastrous employment cost
    And of course an accusation without ANY evidence is quite typical of our Forrest.

    Typical knows nothing and proud of his ignorance

    Rafe Nuclear Stations are useless unless there is a carbon tax/ETS.

    By the way.Menzies would be the most useless PM.He left the heavy lifting to Hawke and Keating.
    If he had done a decent job everyone else would have had little to do like Howard

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  58. Homer :

    What are you trying to say with that incoherent babble?

    Cl’s link was clear. As soon as Obama gained office the economically illiterate nutball sent the deficit into hyper space ignorant of the consequences.

    JC

    December 31, 2009 at 5:49 pm

  59. As soon as Obama gained office the economically illiterate nutball sent the deficit into hyper space
    .
    yes, surely that’s uncontested. you can argue about whether it was necessary, but it’s indisputable that he’s created an unprecedented amount of national debt.

    daddy dave

    December 31, 2009 at 5:55 pm

  60. Homer, just as you were wrong that Barack Obama was a gifted manager and a talented vetter (LOL), you’re also wrong about his economic smarts. He has tripled the deficit in a year, thus becoming the worst fiscal deadbeat in American history.

    You were also wrong about GroceryWatch, FuelWatch and, indeed, most of the topics raised in economic discussion for the past few years. I can’t remember the last time you were emphatically right about something. It wasn’t 2004, I know that. In that year, you predicted that Mark Latham would win 89 seats and become prime minister.

    Finally, you’re laughably wrong about the “GFC” being like the Great Depression. The “GFC” – which hardly anyone bothers talking about anymore – didn’t even come close to the Great Depression. Didn’t come within a bee’s penis. The reason lefties hype the “GFC” is that it’s the only way to scrape up a nominal justification for sleazy vote-buying and budgetary wreckage.

    C.L.

    December 31, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  61. CL cannot produce any figure to back up his false claim because he has no idea of how it is made up

    Yes he did. He nicely provided a link showing the deficit’s progression.

    however I actually showed how the budget deficit is made up and as we saw CL is WRONG AGAIN.

    You haven’t proven anything other than pathetic drivel with delusional claims that everyone is wrong (except you of course). You’re an evidence free zone homer, you dissembling goose.

    Forrest is clearly wrong too. perhaps he should examine some of the major countries in the OECD.
    UK, Germany, Japan wow.

    Homer, I have already told you that the US was a pretty decent marker for the rest of the world economy. This is something you really want to ignore because you’re wrong as usual. As I pointed out the US figures would make the global stats appear worse than they actually were.

    Germany has a fall in GDP similar to the US but as the Economist noted without the disastrous employment cost

    Germany wasn’t as leveraged as the US. We know that, dickhead.

    And of course an accusation without ANY evidence is quite typical of our Forrest.

    Oh fuck off homer, you delusional fool. I provided 7 quarters of US stats, which is 100% more than you have ever done, you hypocritical dolt.

    Rafe Nuclear Stations are useless unless there is a carbon tax/ETS.

    Oh why, doofus? All we need to do is prescribe an emissions policy and allow nuke into the suite. We don’t need an ETS for that.

    By the way.Menzies would be the most useless PM.He left the heavy lifting to Hawke and Keating.

    Homer the Historian is now toozing Menzies.

    JC

    December 31, 2009 at 6:03 pm

  62. oops the illiterates don’t know about how the deficit is made up.

    Is Obama responsible for the Bush tax cuts?
    no then lets take off $364b. Is he responsible for the deep recession.
    no then let us take off $427b. how about Tarp,Fannie and Freddie oops take out $247b what about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan no take out $178b. now he is responsible for ARRA that is $184b.

    oops our mathematically challenged people are WRONG AGAIN as I showed last time.

    now Did Germany’s GDP fall similarly to the US well yes it did. so no don’t tell me all those nation’s falling and the developing nations also falling oh that’s why world trade and growth fell in to Depression like levels.

    Hang on why didn’t they get worse?

    oh that’s right annualised GDP growth in the US is evidence of plagiarism. That’s’ out Forrest for you the complete idiot.

    oh yes who can forget. Nuclear power cannot work with raising the price of carbon.

    When Menzies left office we had little competition in any sectors, regulation aplenty in labour and industry markets, high tariffs etc.
    As I have shown he didn’t triple the deficit only the most literate buffoon would actually try to say that which again you have produced NO evidence for.

    I wasn’t wrong on either of Grocery watch or Fuelwatch you merely do not want consumers with full knowledge. This is very Santamariaish
    Oh yes I remember the 2004 election. I actually remember writing each day every day on Chris Sheil’s blog and I do not recall ever saying the ALP would win
    .You should know you were writing there as well!

    Yeah lefties like the RBA, Treasury, the IMF ,the OECD and John Humphrey’s also spoilt your party.

    Stick to denialism

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    December 31, 2009 at 7:03 pm

  63. oh yes who can forget. Nuclear power cannot work with raising the price of carbon.
    .
    so that’s why there’s no nuclear power stations in other nations. Thanks for explaining that to me.

    daddy dave

    December 31, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  64. go the the economist’s March 12 edition for an explanation

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 1, 2010 at 10:55 am

  65. oops the illiterates don’t know about how the deficit is made up.

    Okay, homer so tell us how it’s made up. I can’t wait for this one.

    Is Obama responsible for the Bush tax cuts?

    That’s a good start… No Homer, Bush and the congress were “responsible for the bush tax cuts. I thought you would have known that. Obama didn’t have any hand in it.

    no then lets take off $364b. Is he responsible for the deep recession.

    Why would you do that, Homer? The tax cuts weren’t a problem. Bush allowing the Congresses profligate ways were. Bush should have vetoed a ton of spending bills.

    no then let us take off $427b. how about Tarp,Fannie and Freddie oops take out $247b what about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan no take out $178b. now he is responsible for ARRA that is $184b.

    Mutton head, no one asked Obama to run for the presidency. He made that decision so he owns every single problem from the day he was sworn in. There’s no equivocation about that, Doofus. If you put yourself out there and run for office you own the problems.

    oops our mathematically challenged people are WRONG AGAIN as I showed last time.

    Well you’re wrong on Freddie and Fannie and nowhere near that amount has hit the governments books. Furthermore the additional capital that went into those toilets occurred during bush budgets period which therefore added to the previous year’s…. not Obama. There is a timing difference you eggnog.

    now Did Germany’s GDP fall similarly to the US well yes it did. so no don’t tell me all those nation’s falling and the developing nations also falling oh that’s why world trade and growth fell in to Depression like levels.

    Nice to see that you agree with me in that we can use the US GDP stats as a marker for the rest of the world. You can never admit anything can you and are always caught out because you’re too freaking stupid to cover your tracks. As I said the rate of change was frightening, you moron, not the absolute fall, as it turns out.

    But answer me this, doofus. If you think the spending has done such a great job and Obama’s stimulus plan was introduced at the state of the union, which was in January (and only part of it was factored in the GDP numbers I posted upthread), then how did GDP begin to improve before the stimulus even hit the economy? I wonder if monetary policy and the Fed finally gaining the upper hand had anything to do with it? You’re cultist, homer. Totally oblivious to facts.

    Hang on why didn’t they get worse?

    “They” didn’t get worse because monetary policy started to work even before the Stimulus was pushed through congress, as you can see from the GDP stats.

    oh that’s right annualised GDP growth in the US is evidence of plagiarism. That’s’ out Forrest for you the complete idiot.

    Homer, your arguments are mostly lifted from left wing sites.

    oh yes who can forget. Nuclear power cannot work with raising the price of carbon.

    Ah, let me see, there are nuclear reactors dotted all over the western world, which didn’t require a carbon price but you think they do. You egg nog.

    When Menzies left office we had little competition in any sectors, regulation aplenty in labour and industry markets, high tariffs etc.

    So freaking what? What has Menzies have to do with the 08 recession, Doofus?

    As I have shown he didn’t triple the deficit only the most literate buffoon would actually try to say that which again you have produced NO evidence for.

    Yes he did.

    I wasn’t wrong on either of Grocery watch or Fuelwatch you merely do not want consumers with full knowledge.

    Yes you were. Even the economically illiterate Rudd gave that away.

    Oh yes I remember the 2004 election. I actually remember writing each day every day on Chris Sheil’s blog and I do not recall ever saying the ALP would win

    Shiel banned you for being too stupid, remember? That’s quite a feat as he really wasn’t mergatroid himself.

    You should know you were writing there as well!

    Homer, CL has posted direct quotes of yours, which clearly show your stupid predictions, so stop lying.

    JC

    January 1, 2010 at 11:00 am

  66. JC

    none of those “nuclear reactors dotted all over the western world” were built by the private sector, they were built by states in a regulated market. The costs are not clear in fact it is very hard to ever get a true idea of costs.

    In a deregulated market nuclear power is too expensive, that is the opinion of ANSTO and numerous others who have called for a price to be put on carbon.

    So what do you want, a regulated market or deregulated?

    In a deregulated market

    For the private sector to build

    rog

    January 1, 2010 at 11:24 am

  67. delete the last 2 lines

    rog

    January 1, 2010 at 11:24 am

  68. Cost estimates suggest that in Australia nuclear power would on average be 20–50 per cent more
    expensive to produce than coal-fired power if pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions, is not priced.

    And estimates are always under

    rog

    January 1, 2010 at 11:29 am

  69. Rog:

    You call an ETS deregulation do you? This is the same ETS which Lindsay Tanner has admitted is also going to operate as a redistribution scheme. This is the same ETS that the pathetic Tanner trumpets while saying that the better off are not going to be compensated while the worse off are. It’s that ETS, Right?

    none of those “nuclear reactors dotted all over the western world” were built by the private sector,

    That’s just plain wrong. In fact it’s total bullshit as numerous reactors have been built by the private sector.

    As we begin to see standardization in the production of these plants, we see large price drops.

    We don’t need at ETS to introduce nuclear power.

    JC

    January 1, 2010 at 11:32 am

  70. I already explained to you that you don’t need a price for carbon to introduce nuclear. You can also set it as a % of power production.

    That certainly isn’t market based, but neither is the ETS which for the most part was a huge pork barrel exercise and a redistribution scheme for Labor’s constituency. Turnbull supported this abortion.

    JC

    January 1, 2010 at 11:35 am

  71. So who is going to build the nuclear “% of power production?”

    The state

    Hang on to you wallets.

    rog

    January 1, 2010 at 11:45 am

  72. “it’s total bullshit as numerous reactors have been built by the private sector.”

    Built and owned by the private sector?

    Name them

    rog

    January 1, 2010 at 11:47 am

  73. Happy to pay for nuclear power. It’s a SENSIBLE, CLEAN, STRATEGIC approach to power needs.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 1, 2010 at 11:59 am

  74. By the way, Menzies would be the most useless PM. He left the heavy lifting to Hawke and Keating.

    That’s a good way to describe Hawke and Keating’s reliance on John Howard’s Campbell reforms: heavy lifting. Keating was actually a coward. A coward on the GST, a coward on IR, a coward when his miserably unsuccessful prime ministership started to splutter and he returned to Keynesian junk polcy like a dog to its vomit. This is the man, after all, who trashed war hero Alec Downer even though his own father was a bourgeois concrete merchant who stayed out of the war. He dumped his wife at a dinner party – which tells you all you need to know about this clock-collecting former council clerk’s character.

    C.L.

    January 1, 2010 at 12:37 pm

  75. let us examine the village idiot to see his latest mad splutterings.

    oops we are using CBO figures but our ‘expert’ doesn’t understand how a deficit is made up. Well he does believe the stimulus caused all the debt here and in the US, Bear with us however.

    the tax cuts aren’t a problem. Well yes they are .they are buring up red ink because they were never paid for however Forrest did champion them as helping to get the US out of recession at the time.
    You know what he now criticising here.

    the US stimulus , small as it is, is not working but the CBO and most business economists think it is indeed the growth happened at the very time they thought it would. wow

    Forrest now admits that other nations did have economies that experienced falls in growth.wow where did you read that.

    Oh now it is monetary policy that is working except rates should be negative 5-6%.

    how does Forest get it right so often.

    He doesn’t understand that falling to depression like levels does not mean falling into a depression.
    Nations right around the world took action to avoid that hence the rise in world output and trade.
    By the way it was mainly fiscal policy that did this.

    A problem with liquidity traps has made monetary policy impotent , if it wasn’t growth would be absolutely roaring now.

    .I have already shown the fallacy of nukes from the left wing rag the economist.

    Forrest then proceeds to show more ignorance by saying Obama tripled the deficit despite the evidence to the contrary however given he is clueless in economics and even more in fiscal policy we will make allowances in this area.

    Actually numbskull had you been reading you would have seen the Menzies insert was directed to Rafe but you need to be able to read to understand that.

    Sunshine I was never banned from Backpages. you maybe confusing that with the campaign I launched when Evilpundit was banned at Troppo.
    I do recall Chris saying he never banned me there either.
    wow great going.

    No the only quote of me is from Quiggin’s blog where it is perfectly obvious I am having fun with the figure.As yet no-one has found me predicting the ALP to win the 2004 election because I didn’t.
    finding reasons why they will win from me is as scarce as finding any evidence that Mark Latham knew what Skanky ho meant.

    Ziggy Switkowski also said the price of carbon would need to rise for nukes to be viable. What is he the head of again?

    CL of course provides more evidence of Menzies years being useless. We needed Hawke and Keating to deregulate the financial sector something Howard could never do.
    Keating deregulated the labour market something that Howard didn’t do.

    We also see the deviousness of CL. He implies Keating trashed Downer Snr’s war record which of course is incorrect. He certainly trashed his record as a minister and the cushy Government job in the UK he acquired.
    Also if he dumped his wife he would have filed for divorce or she would have given the lurid details however this has never happened indeed if the event had happened it would have been all over Sydney the day after.
    We had to wait to read about it later without any corroboration not that CL ever needs that.

    Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

    January 1, 2010 at 2:49 pm

  76. Built and owned by the private sector?

    Name them

    I’ll name one for you that I knew about. LIPPA. (Long Island power) was privately owned and was forced by the state to decommission a nuclear reactor after the irrationals forced New York state to take it out.

    That’s one.

    I’m not your researcher and you can do the other work for yourself.

    JC

    January 1, 2010 at 5:45 pm

  77. let us examine the village idiot to see his latest mad splutterings.

    I did earlier, homer. You obviously haven’t read my post?

    oops we are using CBO figures but our ‘expert’ doesn’t understand how a deficit is made up. Well he does believe the stimulus caused all the debt here and in the US, Bear with us however.
    the tax cuts aren’t a problem. Well yes they are .they are buring up red ink because they were never paid for however Forrest did champion them as helping to get the US out of recession at the time.
    You know what he now criticising here.

    Well of course I championed them. They were a good idea and unfortunately didn’t go far enough, should have been made permanent and should have been matched with decade long spending cuts.

    the US stimulus , small as it is, is not working but the CBO and most business economists think it is indeed the growth happened at the very time they thought it would. Wow

    Homer, please show evidence where the CBO says the stimulus is working. You won’t because you can’t, as they didn’t say any such thing you lying moron.

    Forrest now admits that other nations did have economies that experienced falls in growth.wow where did you read that.

    Admit? Admit that there was a temporary but severe slashing of global growth rates? Are you this freaking stupid? Yes of course you are I never denied any such thing you moron. In fact that’s what I have continually maintained you plagiarizing jerk off.

    Oh now it is monetary policy that is working except rates should be negative 5-6%.
    how does Forest get it right so often.

    Yes, monetary policy has worked as the deflationary impulse was a monetary problem.

    He doesn’t understand that falling to depression like levels does not mean falling into a depression.

    Which I have mentioned time and time again you fucking idiot. I said that what spooked people was the sudden rate of change you moron. I repeated this several times.

    Nations right around the world took action to avoid that hence the rise in world output and trade.
    By the way it was mainly fiscal policy that did this.

    Bullshit. Fiscal policy was never really enacted as economies began to repair. Monetary policy like always did the heavy lifting.

    A problem with liquidity traps has made monetary policy impotent , if it wasn’t growth would be absolutely roaring now.

    The only thing that’s impotent is your mental state Homer, not monetary policy, you lying jerk.

    .I have already shown the fallacy of nukes from the left wing rag the economist.

    The fallacy of nukes…. Tell that to France, Sweden the US, Japan, Switzerland, Uk……

    Forrest then proceeds to show more ignorance by saying Obama tripled the deficit despite the evidence to the contrary however given he is clueless in economics and even more in fiscal policy we will make allowances in this area.

    He tripled the deficit. That’s correct.

    Buzz of Homer, as you’re too stupid to be posting here.

    JC

    January 1, 2010 at 6:07 pm

  78. To use your words, Homer, Hawke and Keating engaged in some “heavy lifting” – from Howard’s Campbell reforms. Howard could no more pursue the agenda he pioneered than Keating could get his way on Option C and for the same reason. As for Menzies, your argument that he should have deregulated banking in the 50s is moronic. His achievements included Asian cultural and commercial engagement (which the uneducated Paul Keating later claimed to have invented), re-engaging with Japan (when that was an EXTREMELY hard sell) and dismantling the White Australia Policy (which Labor racists opposed).

    We also see the deviousness of CL. He implies Keating trashed Downer Snr’s war record which of course is incorrect. He certainly trashed his record as a minister and the cushy Government job in the UK he acquired.

    No, we see your deviousness, Homer. Coward Keating repeatedly trashed Alec Downer as a MAN – mocking his station in life and his alleged aristocracy. In fact, Downer was a genuine war hero. Keating, for his part, liked people to believe he was working class when his father was actually a well-off businessman who dodged war service. As for cushiness, Alec Downer would never have embarrassed his country by smooching the buttocks of a mass murderer like Suharto as Keating did.

    Also if he dumped his wife he would have filed for divorce or she would have given the lurid details however this has never happened indeed if the event had happened it would have been all over Sydney the day after.

    It probably was, Homer, not that the gossip reached your suburban backblock. SHE DID GIVE THE LURID DETAILS, Homer, you lying bozo. Annita Keating said THAT’S THE WAY IT HAPPENED. Thus illustrating again that Paul Keating was a coward in every way.

    C.L.

    January 1, 2010 at 6:25 pm

  79. Nuclear-generated electricity is more expensive than coal generated electricity; all the more reason why we should continue with the latter. But, then, so is geothermal, wind, tidal, solar-generated electricity. Why focus upon the deficiencies of nuclear alone?

    dover_beach

    January 1, 2010 at 6:40 pm


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: