Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Justin Obodie: "Thank's for the clarification Paul. But how does one come to terms with the many millions/billions of dollars made fraudulently by the banksters at the expense of the wider community?"

If the legal definition of a crime has been committed, there's laws in place to deal with such things.

There's no such thing as a bad borrower, only a bad lender. Society in this case is the lender. Society employs "our" public managers (politicians), if those employed can't do the job, society should find people that can. No different to a decision any individual may need to make.

It would appear effort has very little to do with their success, rather crime, deception and political bribery

Crime isn't any different to any other enterprise. In that it has some people more successful than others. What you put into it is probably what you'll get out of it.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could lie and cheat our way to riches while the powerless punter has to foot the bill?

I don't think it would be wonderful. I also don't think such characteristics are the best way to riches. The ever growing prison population leads me to believe the odds are firmly stacked against those that wish to try.

Sadly that's how the system works these days and it stinks

The only thing any individual can do is attempt to change what he/she doesn't like. For the sake of my own sanity I accepted long ago that I probably won't ever change many things I don't like. It doesn't stop me trying, I'm just not down on myself if I fail.

Justin Obodie, whilst I respect what you're writing (and agree in world terms), I'm writing about today's healthy western world citizens. I accept I should've made that clearer. We do get out of life what we put in to life. 

"People get out of this world exactly what they put into it."

Holy shit! the steady state theory of human effort, equity and equilibrium.

Sadly Paul you're thinking of a world the has never existed. 

By April 1945 Nazi Germany had murdered at least 6 millions souls of Jewish faith.

Paul, using your above theory does that mean they got what they deserved?

And, are you not familiar with the term "innocence"?

The reality is that for some life is bloody easy, for others not so - and too often it has little to do with ability and eveything to do with opportunity.

Opportunities are hard to find/create in dungeons, and gas chambers lad.

Enjoy your freedom for much of it is at the expense of the innocent.

Think about it.

But never mind, who cares? Won't happen in your lifetime, and your kids will always be ok inside the Secure Dome or whatever that dystopic place will be utopically named...

I don't know for certain where my children or their children for that matter, will be in the future. I don't own a crystal ball. My responsibility and my time is now, it's not in some distant future.

Hopefully any future generations will seek and achieve their goals. Hopefully any future generation will also understand nobody will or even can live their lives for them. I hope most of all they don't waste their lives blaming others for the disappointments and set backs that will surely come their way. Most of all I hope they don't use the problems of the world around them as coverage for their own inevitable failures, and as an excuse as to why those failures can't ever be addressed.

People get out of this world exactly what they put into it. It's not easy, it's never been easy, and it'll never be easy. Take out of that whatever you want.

China is succeeding because the state required foreign companies to team with local companies, and pass on their technology.

China isn't succeeding though, well not in "green technology", hence the need for subsidies. Making people give up trade secrets probably isn't the best way to turn this around.

It seems to me your "new way of economics" is a lot like the present European way. And we all know how thats turned out. China should stick to what has worked, and most definately shouldn't change that formula.

The strangest thing is that China would want to sell any breakthrough product to the same people they're locking out of this particular market. It just doesn't make any rational sense. 

My educated guess is they don't expect any breakthroughs, and they're certainly not acting as if they do. A protected industry ALWAYS means protected people. Who are the major investors, I wonder.......

John Pratt, industry subsidies always hurt competition. Industry subsidies aren't designed for "better outcomes", they come about to protect the "locals". Restricting competition in the green technology industry isn't going to result in a better industry or product produced. 

Industry subsidies don't equal good economic policy. Every dollar given to an industry (usually loss making) comes as a direct cost to somewhere/someone else. I think a government can spend money better than at a pick a winner crap shoot. I'm sure China like everywhere else as many pressing public needs that could do with a few extra "public" bucks.

China is at where it's at because of its use of comparative advantage. That advantage is its large low cost pool of labor. China has successfully complimented this advantage with a host of positives such as less business restrictions (compared to most competitors), positive infrastructure spending, and taking a very positive stance toward business and investment in China.

Generally, China has succeeded because it's the opposite of everything industry subsidies represent.

The US call comes after a major trade union in September accused Beijing of handing out hundreds of billions of dollars in illegal subsidies in a bid to corner the green energy market.

The United Steelworkers union (USW) also accused China of blocking access to materials used in green technologies, illegally linking subsidies to export sales, curbing imports and demanding foreign investors hand over technology secrets.

It also accused China of providing more than 216 billion dollars worth of subsidies to green technologymakers "more than twice as much as the US spent in the sector and nearly half of the total 'green' stimulus spent worldwide."

As China takes real action on climate change and soars ahead of the rest of the world, the US says it is unfair. Just because the US refuses to act responsibly it should not be surprised when others act courageously.

You see, when you think about it, using Ben Benanke's logic all we have to do is print money and inflate our way to prosperity.

Ben would like people to think this way without doubt. Ben however will face the same problem that has befuddled all who've tried before him. The very simple law of mathematics.

For example: If today the Dow is 10 000, and the Dow was 10 000 exactly three years ago, has value remained stable? The simple answer is no, because the currency has been devalued. If one point of the Dow is worth say $1 now, and it was worth $1 three years ago, $10 000 would need to buy the equivalent now as it did then. Clearly with the US dollar devaluation (more is worth less and that includes paper dollars), that's clearly not the case.

The USA has attempted to devalue the dollar for the last forty years. Every devaluation is quickly followed by calls for another devaluation, and so on, and so on. It hasn't worked in forty years, so when will it work? 

It wasn't a weak dollar that made the USA an exporting economic powerhouse, and it won't be one that makes it so again. A two bottle of whiskey a day alcoholic won't cure the disease by only drinking one bottle a day. Not dealing with the problem will never solve the problem.

And that is Ben's and all his fellow fraudsters only magical trick. There's just no ace in the deck to turn this monetary slight of hand around. None whatsoever.

Jay Somasundaram,the new politics of the situation is the hugely bizarre inconsistency of massive spending intended to stimulate growth. Growth which "we" are apparently being asked to curtail. It doesn't make much sense, does it?

Yes, we receive benefits from things produced by carbon. But, they are not externalities – we pay for those benefits. For example, I receive the benefit of street lighting produced by burning coal. But, I am paying for that benefit by paying rates. The Pacific islander who is flooded out of his home is not a party to the transaction, and loses out.

Paying for externalities isn't a one way street. Externalities are paid for in monetary terms, through the various taxation systems around the world. You may have a problem with the amount, however that's a different argument.

The Pacific Islander example is an appeal to emotion. Ignoring the validity of the argument (highly doubtful), it's a moral argument. A moral argument and economics don't mix, and you may ask why? The reason is that morals generally depend on who's doing the preaching. Is the coal industry "bad"? Well how about the education industry? Isn't it this industry that teaches the "evil coal mine engineer"? Do you see or can you imagine the absurd lengths your position can be played out?

Now my next bit may be a little off topic, however I don't think concerning oneself about western middle-class wealth is all that important. I certainly don't think a rush to curtail it is needed. In my opinion and it's shared by a number of people, we are undergoing a transition of this segment of wealth with Asia. Over the next twenty years the western middle-class will contract whilst the Asian middle-class expands. The ramifications of this both economically and culturally are fairly straight forward.

An interesting article, showing that the peer reviewed journal process has a major flaw - by picking and publishing only sensational findings: research-reports-are-often-beyond-belief 

The article is about medical research, but the same principles apply to climate science. 

President Wilson , who was originally responsible for creating the federal reserve , later regretted that decision for obvious reasons ~ "A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men " We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."

And this compliments of those "small groups of dominant men":

    Behind the fruitfulness are men of understanding and knowledge and skill, men who experiment with seed, endlessly developing the techniques for greater crops of plants...These are great men...They have transformed the world with their knowledge...

    The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit -- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains.

    There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must dill in the certificates -- died of malnutrition -- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot...
   

Sooner or later all that debt will have to be written off, or inflated out of existence; take your pick. But in the real world of capitalism if one can't pay their debts then the liquidators are brought in, and the share and bond holders have to cop it on the chin - not the poor bloody taxpayer,  their kids and grand kids.

You see, when you think about it, using Ben Benanke's logic all we have to do is print money and inflate our way to prosperity.

It would follow, using such logic, that all we have to do  to pay for carbon taxes is print the required amount of cash and be done with it. No need to argue about the price of carbon - price it at $1,000,000,000 if you wish and print the cash to cover it.

It also follows that if we need cash to declare war on, conquer and occupy Mars then all we have to do is print the cash to cover the costs.

In Ben's world it is as easy as that.

In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage. 

Jay Somasundaram 

You are quite right that externalities can give be either beneficial or harmful to society. Are you saying that current carbon emission levels are beneficial to society?

Are you saying the things produced with carbon emissions are not beneficial to society? Every action causes a reaction, and I don't think consequences have been given due respect. Unfortunately looking at how many people organize their lives, I'd say this particular lack of consideration seems most popular.

You could of course simply write a black and white response, appealing to nothing more than emotion and faith. Again, unfortunately looking at many people, I assume they're quite comfortable with such a presentation of a position. 

 Ps.On a purely technical note, beneficial externalities also cause market failure. Free market theory is that markets automatically create the right volume of goods at the right price. With beneficial externalities, the amount of goods produced is below optimal, since the price does not reflect the full value of the goods.  

In a truly free market (none exists) the price will reflect all externalities good or bad. Think of the role weather plays in crop prices for example. It also assumes all share equally in information.

I'm sorry you choose to ignore my summary of "our new politics". I earnestly believe that not only is much of this "stuff" intellectually bankrupt, it lacks to of the most important ingredients of success for individuals, groups, and ideas (policy). I'm referring to discipline and consistency as the key ingredients this new politics lacks, and because of this deficit more bad than good will come from it. I think we're entering a particular dangerous period.

Ps During the last two years the western world has undergone an orgy of government cash splashing. The amounts and methods (such as printing) are at such levels it can't be compared to anything previous. It would have seemed unimaginable only a few years ago. Millions of taxpayers have watched their taxes evaporate and become large debts (stealing from the future). Most of these taxpayers will receive the honour of replacing it or losing something else.

Much of this "new politics" agreed to these measures, and not only that, they claim it as a "success". And what was the number one reason given for this unimaginable largess? The theory was to artifically stimulate consumption back to previous levels, apparently creating growth and all the good stuff that rolls from that such as employment.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, however isn't this what taxes on air and all the new and shiny regulations will be attempting to arrest? Honestly, I don't know if I should be doubled over laughing or crying.

Jay Somasundaram"The economics of carbon emission are quite simple. Free markets fail in the presence of Externalities".

Economic externalities occur in any market, fair market or otherwise. Economics externalities are either good or bad, and even in that simple definition it more often than not comes down to a personal view. I've no idea why you believe an occurrence of economic externalities (there are often a number of them) automatically signifies a free market failure?

'Those who emit carbon without paying for it are stealing to make a profit'.

This opinion is the type of self righteous, disrespectful, pap, I give you more respect than ever holding. That type of opinion isn't something held or would ever be held by any person or organisation left or right wing. It can only be held in "our new age", heterogeneous sludge of self advancement politics.

Its only ideology is the unoriginal one stolen from somewhere else, for the no other purpose than helping out on the day. New left or right, I've no idea (and don't care), what they call this intellectually putrid garbage.

This "new politics" doesn't even off slight consistency and honesty. The mass contradictions are an absolute insult, and if one was to live a life the way this politics is formulated, one would be considered totally shameless embarrassment.

"Businesses that whinge when they get nasty shocks are not the type that can survive in the wild".

And that's probably would the self serving cretins and desperate grifters of this politics will claim when the inevitable happens, and failure is upon us all. One thing with utter failures is they always blame failure they cause on every single person except themselves.

It's anything but surprising these clowns not only won't debate, they won't even mention a number of truths and negative possibilities. Pathetic.

New forecasts suggest that coal reserves will run out faster than many believe. Energy policies relying on cheap coal have no future, say Richard Heinberg and David Fridley.

World energy policy is gripped by a fallacy— the idea that coal is destined to stay cheap for decades to come. This assumption supports investment in 'clean-coal' technology and trumps serious efforts to increase energy conservation and develop alternative energy sources.

 

This report in Nature shows how the global economy is based on a fallacy.

The global financial crisis we are currently experiencing is only the beginning.

As energy becomes more expensive what we have witnessed so far will be like a walk in the park.

How much will coal cost if we add a carbon price or carbon sequestration?

"Jay ,I agree with you that Global warming is the most important problem facing humanity."

Wrong again Alan, the single most important problem we face is the ever expanding biomass of humanity. We are the most verminous species ever to have evolved.

John Pratt, Australians are really greedy not only do we emit four times more C02 than the average Chinaman, we have exported most of  our dirty manufacturing industry to China while we continue to consume at an alarming rate.

The size of Australia and it's relatively small and sparse population are things that should be taken into account. Australia is also geographically isolated from the rest of the world, and even within its own borders.

Economics and Climate Science should be debated as separate issues. Economics should'nt over ride all considerations, and I've never claimed it should. I want people to decide these issues after due consideration is given to all the goods and bads of any changes. I even see it as a bit of an obligation for my part.

Personally, I'd doubt more than ten per cent of people have any idea at all about what these economic changes will mean for them.

Jay ,I agree with you that Global warming is the most important problem facing humanity.

Now please tell us how we are going to convince China and India to cut down their pollution. Go to China and see the crap they are spewing into the atmosphere, so what ever we do here will be nothing.

However the following sounds like the rantings of Bob Brown, If industry is to manage co2 release, it will increase manufacturing costs, these increasing costs are an opportunity to transform industry with new solutions, creating jobs and opportunities. How is increasing costs going to create jobs?.

Your item (vii) By Australia going it alone, achieving reductions greater than globally agreed, it can, by setting an example, ultimately make a difference to world climate.We will also be the laughing stock all around the world.

Remember how Rudd and Penny Wong told us that the sky would fall in if we did not do what they wanted in Copenhagen, the only thing that happened was they both lost their jobs.

Climate change is being used simply as an excuse for a broad based consumption tax. Take a look at the first worlds deficits. Take a look at the rate of net taxpayers in first world nations. The numbers I'm afraid, aren't lying.

A broad based consumption tax on energy (read everything) will hurt those that are pushing for it the most. This tax will also not only not address the original problem, it'll worsen the problem.

Economics without bias, makes for easy economics. It's built upon one simple truth called mathematics. The mathematics of any such tax are nightmare reading. If you believe me on any one thing, believe me on this one.