>Julia Gillard’s freakish political contortion, the likes of which have probably never before been seen in Australian politics, of breaking an election promise to not introduce a carbon tax, bowing to the radical Greens and then introducing a carbon tax can have no other outcome than increase the size of the Australian deficit and reduce employment.
Let’s assume that the amount raised from power companies by the carbon tax each year is $10 billion.
There are a number of groups that will be especially hurt by an increase in power prices – those at the low end of the income spectrum, trade exposed industries whose position against overseas competition will be damaged and small business, which seems to be a forgotten factor in the conversation so far.
It’s clear that the government can’t compensate all groups affected so let’s assume that they distribute the money to low income earners. Note that they are on record as saying that the money will not simply go into Treasury coffers so let’s also assume that it joins the short list of promises kept by this government since being elected in 2007.
The tax is introduced in 2011 and low income workers rejoice as they see the effects in their bank balances. They then feel the pain when they get their utilities bills but, being conscientious with their money and in no way tempted to buy more grog or smokes or stick it in the pokies or back something to beat Black Caviar*, they pay what they owe. So there’s no impact on them.
Power companies now have an incentive to reduce the amount of CO2 they produce, which is the whole point of the exercise and so they invest in clean technologies that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions to zero thus fulfilling the government’s ambition.
Can you see the problem?
At this point the government will raise no money at all from taxing so-called ‘carbon pollution’, the cost of power will not be reduced due the investment made by power companies that needs to be paid for meaning that low income households will still need financial support to meet their utilities bills.
So the government now has a $10 billion hole in its budget. Is it going to fill the void by raising taxes or by increasing the deficit? Either way, the impact on employment is negative.
And while all that has been going on our trade exposed industries have been shedding jobs at a terrific rate to countries that are not bound by the onanistic impulses of the climate brigade.
So let’s give all of the money to trade exposed industries instead of low income workers.
The government gets stuck in the same cycle. When the power companies clean up their act the government will need to maintain support for trade exposed industries otherwise there’ll be a massive loss of jobs in a short time frame to overseas competitors. Not a palatable outcome for any politician.
And all the while small business is getting hammered and is shedding jobs.
So here’s Labor’s dirty, little secret. I’m going to shout it at you so that you can take it in.
Labor’s carbon tax CAN ONLY WORK IF POWER COMPANIES NEVER REDUCE THEIR CO2 OUTPUT.
The government knows this, of course, which is why it’s just a great, big, redistributionist scam but it also knows that its allies in the mainstream media won’t point it out to the voting public any time soon.
The result will be that the tax will be in place before an emissions trading scheme is introduced, which the government expects will continue to provide the revenue it needs.
And bad luck to the people who lose their jobs because of it.
* I don’t live in this world, either, but the good folk who create government budgets surely must.
>Remember the Bird Flu epidemic that was going to wipe out vast numbers of people, especially in Asia?
Remember the dire warnings about Swine Flu from the World Health Organisation and Joe Biden’s classic “I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined spaces…” line?
How did that whole heterosexual AIDS thing work out?
What about silicone breast implants? The most negative effect was to the aesthetic appeal of the bodies of those women who chose to get them.
From the population bomb leading to mass starvation to peak oil to the hysteria du jour, global warming, we have had no shortage of end of days scenarios to contend with.
Now we can add to the list the massive overreaction to what has essentially been a serious local problem at the site of the Fukushima nuclear plant that the Japanese have had pretty much under control from the start. That people in the US and Asia were running out and buying iodide tablets shows the massive influence of the mainstream media to panic the masses (or, at least, those masses prone to panic). I wonder what the result of a survey of the political affiliation of those buying the tablets would be.
US radio talk show host Dennis Prager constantly reminds people that the hysterics, who are mainly on the left, are wrong 99% of the time.
How can this be? What drives people to so badly overreact at the slightest whiff of difficulty? Why is the left so much more likely to get things so badly wrong than the right?
I presume it relates to the left’s tendency to seek to exert more and more influence over people’s lives and nothing provides more control than a potential extinction event.
While that might explain the political advantage the left seeks to gain from upheaval it doesn’t tell us why people get so genuinely frightened when there’s no rational reason to be so. It doesn’t explain why they get so angry and abusive when they’re called out on their poor judgements.
I don’t know what the answer is, either. What I do know is that there’s a high correlation between those who believe in global warming and those who thought that Fukushima was an existential threat to life everywhere.
Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
>Australia’s Human Rights Commission, an unneeded organisation if ever there was one, has released a report saying that there’s a general fear of religion in the community.
By way of example they use only Islam to make their point, as outlined below in this piece from The Australian:
THERE’S a pressing need to use education to reduce ignorance and fear about religions in Australia, a new report says
It said there is a current anti-Muslim discourse that suggests entrenched hostility which is often related to overseas events.
The report, entitled Freedom of Religion in the 21st Century, was prepared for the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The researchers said some Christians fear the introduction of sharia law in Australia and believe that governments appease Muslim communities by giving Islam preferential treatment.
Some people told the researchers that evangelical Christians demonise Muslims partly because of “high levels of ignorance by churches about Islam”.
It also said some Muslim children see themselves as outsiders because they see their religion vilified at every turn.
“They see how they are viewed as Muslims, which in turn affects how they view themselves,” the report said.
The report’s conclusion said the commission needs to “foster a discussion about the place of religious rights along side other rights”.
It said the commission must allow “for the view to be heard that religious rights are absolute, and then to allow that view to be tempered by other views”.
It urges religious leaders to play a key role in overcoming ignorance about religion in the community.
There are currently only three groups who have issues with religion:
1. Anyone with half a brain who understands that more than 90% of the world’s terrorist attacks (excluding in Iraq and Afghanistan) are carried out in the name of one religion – Islam – in order to promote Sharia and create a new Ummah and is wary of all of those who say that it’s a small minority that carry out the attacks and they don’t represent the religion.
2. Secular fanatics who worship at the feet of Richard Dawkins’ and Christopher Hitchens’ post modern atheism that disguise their contempt for Christianity and Judeo-Christian values under the umbrella of rejecting religion completely.
3. The left and its rank anti-Semitism disguised as opposition to Israel.
When the Australian Human Rights Commission says there’s a fear of religion then do they include Buddhists? Sikhs? Hindus?
Why would we be afraid of the Mormons? Are they going to be sickeningly nice to us until we’re dead?
What about the Rastafarians? Afraid of reggae music and a little weed?
And why didn’t they include being a Green as a religion? They’re hardly any different to animists, if you ask me.
The reason that people in Australia are afraid, though ‘concerned’ is probably a better description, of Islam is two-fold:
1. Most terror attacks in the world are carried out in its name (as outlined above) and every, single person indicted for planning terrorist attacks in Australia has been Muslim; and
2. People understand that Sharia is a barbaric, restrictive, misogynistic, homophobic relic that controls people’s lives and has no place in a modern, progressive society.
Why am I not surprised that the folk at the Australian Human Rights Commission think that genuine and legitimate concern about the practices of one group of people, Muslims, is the same as a blanket fear of religion?
>There’s a lot going on.
I should probably consider a return to blogging.
(* Considering *)
>Can you spot the inconsistency between the two short descriptions below?
I’ll give you some time before posting the answer.
>For the modern left John Maynard Keynes is the source of all wisdom on matters of the economy.
Keynes was no dummy and his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is a major piece of work and serves as the economic bible for many economists to this day.
Being a major piece of work doesn’t make it right, though. Marx was an intelligent man but still manage to bring to life The Communist Manifesto, which brought so much suffering to, especially, people in the 20th century. Like Tolkein, Marx and Keynes invented their own reality and then proceeded to solve all of the problems within it.
However, Keynes’s reputation suffered a severe blow in the 1970s when major economies around the world went through a period of stagflation – the combination of high unemployment and high inflation – that Keynes said was impossible.
Due to this failure of Keynesianism, modern economists adjusted his theories and refer to themselves as “New-Keynesian”, which replaced the term “Neo-Keynesian”. As is the way in all branches of economics there are divergent opinions of which Krugman, Mankiw and Stiglitz are three such examples.
But how do they differ from the plain, old, vanilla Keynesian of days of yore?
Anyone who has even the shallowest understanding of economics will have heard of the term “pump priming”, which comes from Keynes’s theory that when economic activity slows the government can “prime the pump” by spending money to stimulate the economy.
“How does that differ from what Krugman is saying?”, I hear you ask.
Here’s the only real difference between Keynes and the Modern Keynesian…
Keynes believed that governments should create a fund into which surpluses would be placed when times were good so that those funds could be used when times were slow.
Saving for a rainy day, as my grandmother used to say.
Instead of using a pool of surplus funds as the source of government stimulus, Modern Keynesians use the next generation of taxpayer in the form of government deficit.
And that’s all there is to it.
Modern Keynesianism is about giving the bill to your kids.
That’s why Keynes has made a comeback; it provides political cover to those governments whose preference is to spend money rather than reduce in size.
Yet another example of the deep immorality of left wing policies and their ruinous effect on the world.
>Need to raise revenue for the government?
That’s easy, simply tax the rich.
The United States, like the majority of Western nations, is spending itself into oblivion at worst and massive civil strife at best.
There is some good economic news. The red ink the US is swimming in is not as bad as projected in February. Yes, at $1.471 trillion, it’s still huge – 10 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product – but an improvement of $84 billion from earlier estimates.
But bad news still looms large. In the next fiscal year, according to the mid-season review released by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Friday, the US deficit will be $150 billion more than earlier projections. It is expected to come in at $1.416 trillion, or 9.2 percent of GDP.
The White House, which released the change in budget estimates, was careful not to overplay the changing numbers.
“These are not substantial changes and nothing we want to make too big a deal about,” said Peter Orszag, director of the OMB in a press call with reporters. “The economy remains weaker than we would like and the unemployment rate higher than we would like.”
So, how the heck much is 1.4 trillion dollars?
Is it actually possible to increase taxes on the rich and deal with the debt (assuming that there’s no impact on employment or investment)?
I thought, why not simply confiscate all of the wealth that the rich have? That ought to solve all of the problems. Right?
I looked up the Forbes list of world’s billionaires that are domiciled in the United States and are doing business and paying taxes there.
The richest person on the 395 name list is Bill Gates with $53B, followed by Warren Buffett with $47B and a gap back to Larry Ellinson at $28B.
Now, here’s the kicker – and the sobering reality check for the soak-the-rich left – if you confiscated ALL of the wealth of these 395 people in order to fund the debt (which means it would need to be sold to overseas interests, of course, as there’d be nobody rich enough in the US to buy it anymore) then how much would you raise?
1.328 trillion dollars.
You’d still need to find another $143B to break even for the year! And your wealth creators have now got nothing! Good luck with that…
Here’s another way of looking at that $1.471 trillion deficit.
Consider the following: there are 113,146,000 households in the US, which means that in just one year each household now has an extra $13,000 added to its debt. No wonder the Congressional Budget Office describes the debt situation as unsustainable.
Competition from emerging economies in China, India and Brazil, coupled with declining birth rates, undermine the modern Western (immoral) indulgence of giving people money who haven’t earned it while putting the bill onto the next generation…and the one after that…in a gigantic, populate or perish, Ponzi scheme.
2010 is a momentous year in world history, I believe, as history will mark it down as the year that the welfare state, in its current form, ended.