George Carlin say's it with humour - Don't vote Australia!
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Australia - Don't Vote!! part 2
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com
Australians - Why you should not vote!
I have said as much on my blogs over the years, but this guy sums up nicely why you should not vote in this August 2010 election.
This is a well-argued presentation. The only thing I would argue is that WWII was made possible because the German people sanctioned the system by participating in it. The reason they did not object when they were forced to, was because they did not object when they had the choice to. If you 'choose' to sanction their rhetoric today, you will accept their 'guns' tomorrow. This is the way we are going. Don't think you are moving towards freedom because Western governments are liberalising markets. Government does not need to control the manufacturing of product, they need only to control your income. They would prefer China to be with them. They don't want China to end fascism, they want them to join their style of fascism. In fact, we are moving towards Chinese fascism. Last month, Australia tried to adopt a resource rent tax. The miners accepted a comprised version. The full version was adopted in China, though with a minor concession. Its not simply an issue of miners vs government spending; its one more step towards arbitrary fascist control over wealth and wealth creation. Fortescue Metals appears to have conceded the battle. Where will it end? When the concept of principles is nothing more than a faint background noise you ignore.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Friday, July 16, 2010
Australian election set for 20th Aug 2010
Julia Gillard has announced her intention to hold the election in mid-august 2010. This of course will give her the maximum opportunity to demonstrate that Australians need as little time as possible to learn about her.
If we switch to Tony Abbot. He is out with one of his policies. Pity its not a glowing respect for small business. He says that he will have a small business minister in the cabinet. Well that is simply a matter of tacking a portfolio on a minister with 'other more important duties'. He says he will also establish an industry ombudsman. The problem with an ombudsman is that they have utterly no authority to change policy, and if you give them "sufficiently little" resources, they might be just as useless as the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC).
It is actually remarkable how little Abbot has said. Based on initial statements Labor is going to win the election...but its very early days. They are equally useless so all Australians will lose. I won't be voting.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Greece - Learning from a government bail-out
Latest reports are particularly interesting on Greece. The reason why its interesting is that Greece was required to cut its deficit to comply with the EU's requirements for support. You might be wondering two things:
1. If its this easy for governments to cut taxes, why don't more of them do it to reduce the burden on taxpayers. After all the Greek government has been able to cut its deficit by 46%. Amazing! The reason of course others don't do it is because there is nothing in it for them. If you are happy to pay so much tax, they are happy to take it form you.
2. Why is the Greek government being asked to cut spending when other governments are increasing theirs, despite their bloated debt levels? Its simply that Greece does not sustain a very productive economy. Its like being a slave trader in Germany compared to the Bahamas. Bahamanians don't have a strong worth ethic, so they just can't sustain as much taxation burden as you. Living in a western country though is not so bad, as long as the quality of life is good. When the quality of life gets to a stage where you are better off elsewhere, you can expect these burdens to fall upon no one. Rest assured most people are not going to accept such a burden. But isn't it interesting that a nation's debt is not ascribed to any person in particular. i.e. You don't see banks offering loans to your 'collective family'. They will want to lend it to each of the family members individually. In fact conjugal property rights and obligations demand it. So why do banks accept debts from governments which rest upon nothing but your government's dubious ability to enslave you? Self interest to be sure. They will not be around when the system collapses. Fortunately the population of most Western countries is increasing. Possibly if these new migrants knew what they were accepting they might think otherwise.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Golden age for superannuation
This article by the SMH promises a golden age for superannuation thanks to reforms adopted by the government. Ultimately the idea of saving is great. But the problem I have with it:
1. Why would I want to simply get average earnings from a super fund that can only invest in large companies
2. Why would I want average returns? Fund managers manage billions, and many of them, whom I don't know are not even very good. They often don't even invest their own money. History is no indicator of future performance.
3. Why would I want restrictions on how I spend the money? There are tax advantages and disadvantages with super. The big problem is the risk of expropriation. Its a pool of money that can be taxed. No wonder small biz with the discretion to use it, don't bother.
4. Why would I want a pool of funds, locked into government control for 10-40 years, which the government can tax if it manages the economy so bad, or they think I made too much profit? That's the implication I can draw from their opportunistic grab at miners with the Resource Rent Tax. Of course this tax was sunk by opponents, but 40% of people supported it, and we are not in any dire economic situation.
I did not even read the article. Unless super funds are investing in a fighting fund to severely restrict the powers of 'arbitrary government' I am not interested. Alas, they are middlemen like government professing to offer some service and taking a fee in the process. Savings and investment are important. Too important to leave your savings to others. If you are less than 40yo you ought to be developing your own investment skills. Trust me, even if you don't make exemplary gains, at least you will have enjoyed it, and added to your job skills. It might even help you avoid Alzheimer's Disease. Most certainly it will protect you from the biggest, most vilest people you are even to come across - your 'representative' in Canberra.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Labor burns Peter Garrett over home insulation scheme
Further evidence that representative parliamentary democracy does not work. This time it comes in the form of 'Peter Garrett's head' - lopped off for really making a Economics 101 blunder. I did see him at Macquarie University one time. He must have been just a tourist because their 1st year economics courses were great! Oh well, I think he studied law. Maybe he should crusade for judicial activism....just maybe he'd give it his own slight 'judicial socialism'. Maybe its best if he stay on the backbench.
His mistake was an ill-conceived home insulation scheme. In fairness to Pete, there are not many 'rockers' around (aka Midnight Oil) who know how to manage money, so why should we expect any better from him. Also he was not the only minister to support such a scheme. They did the same in NZ, and probably elsewhere.....which just reaffirms my point. Democracy suxs...and it suxs badly. Not news to you? Well...why do you flipping vote for them! If you want change, you are going to have to participate! Coercion is a popular idea. Popular in school, corporations (usually in the form of extortion with incentives) and most of all government. Government is the peak body of corruption. It models subordinate sectors of the economy, just as the proto-parliament of England modeled the coercive powers of the monarch. We need to get away from unconditional love, as well as unconditional power. You get tax if you spend it well. If you don't, then you stop paying taxes. Why is everyone else expected to be accountable, but no one is. We are told by Dr Phil 'if there are no consequences, how do you expect him to learn'. The same rule applies to adults. Teach them to help themselves. They are like children!
Back to the home insulation scheme. The problem is that it involved government distortion in the market. Governments behave poorly because they get 'free money' they did not earn. It was extorted from 'earners' for the benefit of parasites, whether we are referring to the politicians, or the pragmatic politically-aligned business people who exist on government favours. Some business people don't even bother to get involved in such schemes because they understand the dubious nature of them.
Consider that - if you offer free or subsidised insulation - people rush to buy it. The problem is people are not deep thinkers, so they take the 'carrot', not recognising the other costs such as installation have been wildly overstated. They of course have no idea what installation involves, but they dive in, without even researching whether they would benefit from it. Cautioun is thrown to the wind. They don't even care about the quality because its cheap. The problem of course is that the wholesalers of the insulation and the installers cannot cope with all the demand, so they raise their prises. The implication is that we have a lot of installer millionaires around the country, and installation established which was probably not even justified. In many cases it was not installed properly. The rushed demand caused by the market 'distortion' of government resulted in house fires and even death. The problem is that roof lighting can ignite insulation if its not properly protected. So now we have law suits against government and people. All very silly! Its not a new problem....but it happens all the time, and people keep signing up for it. If you want an idea of how ill-conceived these schemes are - consider the same subsidies for 'heat pumps'. Heat pumps are great. But they make no sense if your house is poorly insulated. In some houses the best insulation is an "Eddie Bauer" jacket. It only costs $300 but it will keep you warm without heating the whole house.
A heat pump though is little more than a refrigerator in reverse. A refrigerator made in China can be bought retail for $500 these days delivered to NZ. A heat pump in contrast sells for $3000-6000 depending on its features. The implication is that it would be a better investment for you, and better for the environment for you to:
1. Defer your heat pump investment for 10-15 years until all those high-priced, unthinking Americans, Germans and Japanese have one, and then buy one. By that time they will likely integrate with your refrigeration, water distillation and home power solution.
2. You use the money saved to buy a wind turbine for zero future energy consumption. Or just buy some stocks, rather than go broke on government hand-outs.
Government is in the business of extortion because it does not know how to 'earn' money.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
PM Gillard - a low spending PM?
There are certain words that politicians love to use in order to convey legitimacy and prudence, particularly in hard times. They have a 'political lexicon' I'm sure which they reach for in times like these. Under the sub-section ''recession" you will see words like 'discipline', 'restraint', 'caution', 'long term', etc. Business executives have the same types of lexicons as well, and just like 3yo's they memorise these words on those long flights when no one else in around. They repeat them like some Indian guru 'mantra'.
Gillard has vowed to be 'restrained' in her next 3 years. She is going to use all the 'discipline' she can muster. The problem of course is that after such a bloated 'spend up' as the last 2 years, I would think that it is almost impossible to do anything but show 'restraint'. This is what I mean by lame duck politicking. You will not get any ideas from these politicians. Utterly hopeless. You need to believe that Labor are running with her only to get the women's vote...as liberals chase some false hope like Obama. Obama too presents as the 'reasonable advocate', but the problem is these people have no depth.
She is committed to climate change. This is sure idiocy when the pseudoscience postulating 'global warming' is demonstrably flawed, and the alternative model of 'sunspot activity' correlating with fluctuations in the climate are much more plausible, but also in need of some work. If there were an anthropogenic cause I would be saying 'ok, we should stop coal mining and burning', but what does Labor want to do...it just wants to tax it. The point being - if we are going to die from global warming, does it matter if the government has a fiscal surplus? If we are going to avoid calamity, do we want perception-driven politicians driving the disbursement of funds? The answer is NO!
If the science of global warming is plausible but unproven, perhaps the best or most prudent and conservative approach would be a 'provision' for contingent liabilities on the balance sheet of these companies. This would mean that people who think this science is nonsense can invest in either abatement measures, or even stocks which have made provisions. Does this not seem like the most sensible approach to 'global warming' IF it is a legitimate fear. But instead all we see with governments are plans to tax, tax and tax. This strikes me as materialistic self-preservation. Maybe they know something their mindless devotees do not - that there is no greenhouse threat, but they are happy to take their devotees for any support 'fear' can muster.
At this point she is only rhetoric, but she offers some hope. She at least talks about raising productivity, and it will be interesting to see what she means by 'raising education standards'. I disagree that 'education' is the key to higher participation. That is a more complex issue. Lower taxes would help, arbitrary adoption of taxes certainly does not. Will she learn from Rudd's mistake.
She is committed to the mining tax...though I have yet to see the final bill. I would suggest it will be a complete backdown, or have the miners sold out. Neither prospect would surprise me. Either way, we want wealth in private hands, not the government, which is not what she is about. She criticises Liberals for getting it wrong on the 'financial crisis', but the reality is both parties in government and opposition ignored the unfolding of the crisis, just as many voters did.
I agree with her that education and health are in dire need of reform....but is she the one to deliver. We can only wait. She argues that 'neither the private or public sector are any better', yet the reason for that is because the public sector sets a low standard, and yet people still abandon it for the private sector. I personally think private education is pretty poor, but people have expectations for it, and can vote with their feet. Whereas we are forced to pay taxes for public education like slaves. Which is why I call a 'slave a slave' and a 'slave-driver a perpetrator'.
The only short term acceptable way to combine public and private education to my mind is through private use of public infrastructure. If she does that - its a great start, and she will have made progress. That would be almost worth voting for...pity there is no competition in a two party duopoly, otherwise we might have expected a Liberal Party to raise the stakes. The question is - will her union bosses support her? I suspect not. The implication is that Gillard can promise anything, but she will only play into the hands of the union, which will have her dumped after the election. If she can get a huge gain in the election she could actually hold power against the unions (i.e. ACTU). The question then is - does she really believe it? Well...this is the sad part. I really think she has no belief in a public-private partnership....but its hard to know without more information.
She might just have my 'rhetorical' vote (since I don't really vote) for this election. What are the Liberals offering? Abbot? :)
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?
