What will the carbon tax achieve?
We should assess policies by the results they achieve not by the rhetoric that surrounds them or the hopes and aspirations behind these policies. Today I am going to look at what a carbon tax will actually achieve.
Let's begin with some facts.
Australia produces around 2% of Co2 emissions (actually 1.5 but 2 is a nice round number)
The Carbon tax aims to reduce at least 5% of 2000 levels by 2050
The IPCC models 5 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years.
So lets start with something easy. Australia's reduction would be 2%*5%= 0.1% of global emissions. Obviously im not a scientist and i cant proceed to speculate on how this reduction will affect warming levels but i dont think you need a degree to understand 0.1% isn't going to achieve anything. Yet politicians continually harp on about how the carbon tax is improving the environment and those who are against it are condemning the environment.
Now let's look at what a carbon tax will actually achieve.
1. It will make a lot of people feel better about themselves. Now when we travel to other countries we can be smug bastards about it. All those trendy inner city greenies can now finally say "I've done my part to reduce 0.1% of emissions what are you doing?"
2. A lot of people in the green energy sector will become rich. Because that's what happens when you redistribute money and concentrate it in a certain area of the economy. If only i owned a green tech company. Don't you just love it when the govt gets to pick winners and losers.
The Gillard govt is really stuck between a rock and a hard place here. On one hand they try to keep mining, manufacturing and households happy by providing tax cuts and subsidies to help protect them from the effects of a carbon tax. You often hear about the govt assuring the coal/mining industry etc that they wont lose jobs. But in itself is contradictory considering the whole purpose of a carbon tax is to move the economy away from such industries and they energy sources they use. They can't both assure workers of their jobs as well as guarantee meaningful reductions. You cant walk both sides of the street.
What about the unintended consequences of a carbon tax? Many of the industries that will be most affected are manufacturing, mining and steel. Guess what these same industries are booming in a country called China(whilst being massively inefficient because they are subsidized by the govt). Guess who doesn't have a carbon tax? So in essence this could lead to a situation where production is shifted to a country such as China which has vastly more inefficient industries leading to even more carbon emissions, defeating the purpose of a carbon tax in the first place. Before i forget: fun fact all of Australia's projected reductions till 2050 will be surpassed by China's increase in emissions in one year.
So next time you hear about the carbon tax helping save the environment no wait fuck that even reducing carbon emissions tell them that Australia's reductions will lead to a 1/700th of a degree reduction in temperature (it's smaller than the margin of error of the measuring instruments) and a 0.1% reduction in global emissions.
Random Rant: The IPCC is not a group of scientists. Its a group of UN bureaucrats. That's why its called the INTER GOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
Barney fWank
One of the most widely cited reasons for the GFC has been banker greed and deregulation.
"The PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this and it's government's role to get us out." - What every liberal loves to hear.
That's the mentality around the world and in America especially where new laws have been introduced to tighten up the banking industry. Another great catch-cry is that the GFC was a lesson against free-market capitalism run amok, Deregulation! Deregulation ! they cry. But let's take this path of thinking and see where it leads us.
Well according to many liberals the roots of the GFC were sown in the deregulation of the 1980's. Reagan's policies opened up the market for a huge increase in financial and capital flows. Now let's think about how deregulation helped create the GFC. It seems that one day the rich banker wakes up out of bed and thinks to himself * You know what i'm just going to throw out those longheld standards of creditworthiness and start lending to poor people. Lending to middle-income American home-owners was one of the safest most profitable businesses a bank could be involved in. But apparently banks dont care about money they just wanted to chase poor people around for their overdue mortgage payments and throw them out of their houses (which are now worth less than the mortgage) just for the fun of it. This demonstrates the fact that people (especially liberals) just don't think anymore.
It's also another example of people seeing the world through political lenses. See it all fits, the rich banker preying on the helpless poor home owner, repossessing their homes and government, the knight in shining armour, stepping in and fighting against deregulation. But that's all it is, a fairytale.
Instead what contributed to this massive scale of lending to poor and lower income families were these affirmative actions policies for home ownership, introduced under the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Lets take one example the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods."It sounds really good, encouraging banks to lend to lower income households and help them build wealth through home ownership. Guess what? These are the same people who were labelled 'sub-prime' and couldn't afford the minimum standards of credit worthiness: a job, a secure form of income, other assets, etc. But we shouldn't blame people for having their own self interest in mind.
So government stepped in and pushed for lessened restrictions on mortgages. The two Government Sponsored Enterprises GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to start underwriting more sub prime loans. Here is where Barney Frank comes in. Frank heads the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services which is in charge of Fannie and Freddie. In 2004 he said "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing." Fannie and Freddie underwrite around 80% of new mortgages in the US, so they're not some small company that 'couldn't have possibly caused the entire crisis.' Another example of the absurdity realised in this push for affordable housing was a release by the Boston Federal Reserve to mortgage lenders suggesting to them that a lack of proof of a secure income "should not be a negative when considering a loan application." They also included a small clause about the threat of legal action for lenders who did not meet these new standards.
But when the shit hits the fan we see the politicians earn their pay As Kevin Rudd would describe it, they love to pass the buck. See after the housing collapse Barney Frank, as head of the Financial Services Committee summoned all the CEO's of Wall Street and gave them a public denouncement on television. See Barney Frank likes to blame everything and everyone else but himself: banker greed, deregulation, speculation, Reaganomics.... Frank loves to pointing the finger. The whole situation is very much like the saying "Heads I win, Tails you lose." When everything is going well, as it was prior to 2007, the lax lending standards were seen as a win for 'social justice' and 'equity' against the 'racist lending practices' of the banks. Frank can take all gratitude from his voters from their increased home-ownership. But now after the world has been brought to a near financial collapse, it was the private sector greed that drove us into this mess and more regulation is needed. If you want to see Barney Frank lying see below
But you have to hand it to the guy he literally did a 180 and painted himself as the great regulator battling against the Republican DEregulation agenda. This guy is a political genius a modern Machiavelli? or maybe not. Its easy to change people's minds when all they do is lap up propaganda (as could be said of Fox News). So next time you hear someone say the GFC proves that free markets don't work, don't get into a useless argument (its like arguing with a brick wall).
"The PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this and it's government's role to get us out." - What every liberal loves to hear.
That's the mentality around the world and in America especially where new laws have been introduced to tighten up the banking industry. Another great catch-cry is that the GFC was a lesson against free-market capitalism run amok, Deregulation! Deregulation ! they cry. But let's take this path of thinking and see where it leads us.
Well according to many liberals the roots of the GFC were sown in the deregulation of the 1980's. Reagan's policies opened up the market for a huge increase in financial and capital flows. Now let's think about how deregulation helped create the GFC. It seems that one day the rich banker wakes up out of bed and thinks to himself * You know what i'm just going to throw out those longheld standards of creditworthiness and start lending to poor people. Lending to middle-income American home-owners was one of the safest most profitable businesses a bank could be involved in. But apparently banks dont care about money they just wanted to chase poor people around for their overdue mortgage payments and throw them out of their houses (which are now worth less than the mortgage) just for the fun of it. This demonstrates the fact that people (especially liberals) just don't think anymore.
It's also another example of people seeing the world through political lenses. See it all fits, the rich banker preying on the helpless poor home owner, repossessing their homes and government, the knight in shining armour, stepping in and fighting against deregulation. But that's all it is, a fairytale.
Instead what contributed to this massive scale of lending to poor and lower income families were these affirmative actions policies for home ownership, introduced under the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Lets take one example the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods."It sounds really good, encouraging banks to lend to lower income households and help them build wealth through home ownership. Guess what? These are the same people who were labelled 'sub-prime' and couldn't afford the minimum standards of credit worthiness: a job, a secure form of income, other assets, etc. But we shouldn't blame people for having their own self interest in mind.
So government stepped in and pushed for lessened restrictions on mortgages. The two Government Sponsored Enterprises GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were told to start underwriting more sub prime loans. Here is where Barney Frank comes in. Frank heads the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services which is in charge of Fannie and Freddie. In 2004 he said "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing." Fannie and Freddie underwrite around 80% of new mortgages in the US, so they're not some small company that 'couldn't have possibly caused the entire crisis.' Another example of the absurdity realised in this push for affordable housing was a release by the Boston Federal Reserve to mortgage lenders suggesting to them that a lack of proof of a secure income "should not be a negative when considering a loan application." They also included a small clause about the threat of legal action for lenders who did not meet these new standards.
But when the shit hits the fan we see the politicians earn their pay As Kevin Rudd would describe it, they love to pass the buck. See after the housing collapse Barney Frank, as head of the Financial Services Committee summoned all the CEO's of Wall Street and gave them a public denouncement on television. See Barney Frank likes to blame everything and everyone else but himself: banker greed, deregulation, speculation, Reaganomics.... Frank loves to pointing the finger. The whole situation is very much like the saying "Heads I win, Tails you lose." When everything is going well, as it was prior to 2007, the lax lending standards were seen as a win for 'social justice' and 'equity' against the 'racist lending practices' of the banks. Frank can take all gratitude from his voters from their increased home-ownership. But now after the world has been brought to a near financial collapse, it was the private sector greed that drove us into this mess and more regulation is needed. If you want to see Barney Frank lying see below
But you have to hand it to the guy he literally did a 180 and painted himself as the great regulator battling against the Republican DEregulation agenda. This guy is a political genius a modern Machiavelli? or maybe not. Its easy to change people's minds when all they do is lap up propaganda (as could be said of Fox News). So next time you hear someone say the GFC proves that free markets don't work, don't get into a useless argument (its like arguing with a brick wall).
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Socialism 2.0
With the failings of socialism or attempts at communism clearly seen in the failings of the USSR, China, Cuba having massively hurt any credibility of liberal socialism or communism (If it had any at all). This movement instead having abandoned their core tenents (the improvement of the common worker and worker rights) has instead grasped for anything, inserting its tentacles to any social, environmental or political issue in a struggle for legitimacy. Here this movement has failed almost comepletely destroying their legitimacy through their misguided and to be honest ridiculous policies. The new socialist movements especially in Australia have instead associated their organisations with environmental action (climate change, global warming and pollution), social issues (aboriginal rights, gay movements and LGBTI) and even foreign policy issues (Israel-Palestine, Libya and an endless defence of the social conditions in socialist countries which i consider an untenable position)
On the surface some of their general statements can be considered fair if not desirable eg growing awareness of climate change and environmental issues, removal of racism etc) However when you analyse their arguments in depth do you understand the truly misguided representations these people have.
1. We support the Libya Uprising but not international intervention.
I'm not sure if they can understand that the only reason the Rebels are still alive is because of the actions of NATO and the US in establishing no fly zones and helping attack Gaddafi ground forces. But no any military intervention is seen as Western Imperialism
2. Marrickville Council Boycott Israel
Here the socialist left has come to draw attention to the plight of Palestine in it's conflict with Israel. A noble cause but I guess they can't understand that for an international company such as Hewlett-Packard are not hurting from the loss of $200,000 in revenue
I like their youth policy which basically states that if you link Youth Allowance with programs of Higher Education you're discriminating against people. So basically we're going to create a new socialist haven with the use of technology to help save the environment, reduce inequality make everybody's life more satisfying by paying young people to sit on their asses. Thanks a lot socialists Divorcing themselves from reality since1867. Maybe you should get back to defending worker's rights oh wait I think the workers realised they're a lot better under capitalism.
On the surface some of their general statements can be considered fair if not desirable eg growing awareness of climate change and environmental issues, removal of racism etc) However when you analyse their arguments in depth do you understand the truly misguided representations these people have.
1. We support the Libya Uprising but not international intervention.
I'm not sure if they can understand that the only reason the Rebels are still alive is because of the actions of NATO and the US in establishing no fly zones and helping attack Gaddafi ground forces. But no any military intervention is seen as Western Imperialism
2. Marrickville Council Boycott Israel
Here the socialist left has come to draw attention to the plight of Palestine in it's conflict with Israel. A noble cause but I guess they can't understand that for an international company such as Hewlett-Packard are not hurting from the loss of $200,000 in revenue
I like their youth policy which basically states that if you link Youth Allowance with programs of Higher Education you're discriminating against people. So basically we're going to create a new socialist haven with the use of technology to help save the environment, reduce inequality make everybody's life more satisfying by paying young people to sit on their asses. Thanks a lot socialists Divorcing themselves from reality since1867. Maybe you should get back to defending worker's rights oh wait I think the workers realised they're a lot better under capitalism.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Re: Elitism and Egalitarianism
It has come to my attention that a certain thinker has recently exposed the faults of of elitism and merits of ideological egalitarianism. I would like to clarify that I personally do not support elitism in the fact that elites only benefit themselves. Instead we should acknowledge that society has structured itself in a way that there are a certain group of people who are smarter, more knowledgeable or even more interested in social issues.
(Lets face it the majority of the population cares more about what new dress Paris Hilton is wearing or how the injury to Greg Inglis will affect the game on the weekend). But now to deconstructing his comments:
One of the Irishman's arguments is that humans have evolved to a level where "survival of the fittest" is no longer applicable to social evolution. Here he has misunderstood the argument, which should be reworded as "survival of the smartest." In this new and globalised world the main asset that we have to separate ourselves is our education. The ability to synthesise information, apply new knowledge and relate it to others is the key to social progress in our new world. Here in Australia we are blessed with great education system that combines both information processing along with analytical and critical skills. Children have access to free public education (paid for through taxes of course), great teachers and the ability to access higher education such as university. However there are those that take advantage of these opportunities, many who come from migrant backgrounds and whose parents sacrificed much in order to make it easier for their children and then there are others who feel no affinity to school, books or any sort of structured learning. Instead they may believe that image, popularity and pursuing the opposite sex is far more important than their education. Nobody can exactly forecast the future social class or income bracket that these two prospective people fall into. However on average people with a university degree have on average 3 times more earning power than people with a high school education. This is where the crux of matter falls. If we live in an egalitarian society then if we are born equal when do we stop being equal?
Is it at the start of high school when one student attends a selective high school and the other a local comprehensive high school.?
Is it when one attends university whilst the other begins an low skilled or medium skilled job?
Is it when both have children and begin to raise their children in their own respective ways?
Is it when their own respective children start to attend school? One to a private school another to a local primary (nothing being wrong with that)
This links with my next subject and that is in a perfectly egalitarian society what motivates us? Here the G-man has pointed out that recent experiments in communism or socialist societies have failed i.e Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. He has pointed out quite rightly that these societies have never achieved the holy grail of communism an egalitarian anarchy. In a perfectly equal society what motivations do I have to pursue goals? To be honest we as animals are engineered to recreate ourselves and ensure the continuation of our specific DNA in the population pool. In ancient societies it was those who could hunt, gather and organise the best that were the most successful. Now that has increasingly been replaced by those who can learn, work and apply themselves and essentially earn money, which helps them put their offspring at an advantage. If we are permanently held to be the same as everyone else what motivation do we have to improve ourselves. What motivation does John from Kirawee have to go to university and spend 6 years of his life to write a PhD thesis on urban dynamics when in a egalitarian society John from Woy Woy's views on late trains should be held in the same esteem?
He has also put forward that democracy is essentially egalitarian and that politicians are there to serve the voters. Although usually true I would suggest that politician's have much more power than the common person in shaping public thought and opinion. Politcians are the ones who convince the common voter that somehow 1% of "illegal refugees" that arrive by boat are "overrunning our borders." They are the ones who convince people that the carbon tax will cost $600 per year for an average household on figures that they themselves created. It is the willingness of the common masses to be led like sheep to their pen of public thought. And here it is revealed that democracy is inherently elitist.
Last year as the government debated to Mining Tax there was one of the most farcical and comical displays of elites herding the sheeple. The mining companies, their executives, their advertising company and a few common "battlers" in WA ( some who earn 4 times the national average income) convinced the rest of Australia that this new mining tax was going to destroy the country. This change of public sentiment help bring about the downfall of a first term Prime Minister and a complete backdown by the successor and now $60B stolen from the rest of the public. I salute the mining companies, in a capitalist society they successfully protected their own interests
Democracy are groups of elites fighting over a populace that knows nothing or often doesn't care about the issues. This is my most important point. Although the 6 pack's great arguments draw heavily upon classical writers and philosophers ( which demonstrate his superior knowledge- an elitist expression in itself) most people do not care about Rosseau, Karl Marx's Das Kapital or allocative efficiency they just see jobs outsourced to China and India.
The reason that most of the downtrodden, disenfranchised support egalitarianism is because they are the ones who stand to benefit most. So in itself egalitarianism is elitism for the poorer and lower classes. Egalitarianism is what politician's pull out when they want to smother their speeches in a oily layer of mother hood statements and then proceed to butter it up because guess what: It's what makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Everyone at President Obama's victory speech felt equal for those 13 minutes and they went to sleep feeling nice and comforted but they awoke to the same day as yesterday (90% of the iceberg was still under water) and they'll awake to the same situation everyday until a time where we transcend out human qualities where we thus lose our own humanity : P
I suggest some reading:
The Economist Debates: "Do the elite serve the masses." Whilst not technically about what we're discussing the debate draws interesting questions about how society is structured. Specifically note the featured guest article by Peter Saunders.
The Economist Special Reports: "The Few" January 22nd 2011
------- "The Rise and Rise of the Cognitive Elite"
"They Work for Us"
(Lets face it the majority of the population cares more about what new dress Paris Hilton is wearing or how the injury to Greg Inglis will affect the game on the weekend). But now to deconstructing his comments:
One of the Irishman's arguments is that humans have evolved to a level where "survival of the fittest" is no longer applicable to social evolution. Here he has misunderstood the argument, which should be reworded as "survival of the smartest." In this new and globalised world the main asset that we have to separate ourselves is our education. The ability to synthesise information, apply new knowledge and relate it to others is the key to social progress in our new world. Here in Australia we are blessed with great education system that combines both information processing along with analytical and critical skills. Children have access to free public education (paid for through taxes of course), great teachers and the ability to access higher education such as university. However there are those that take advantage of these opportunities, many who come from migrant backgrounds and whose parents sacrificed much in order to make it easier for their children and then there are others who feel no affinity to school, books or any sort of structured learning. Instead they may believe that image, popularity and pursuing the opposite sex is far more important than their education. Nobody can exactly forecast the future social class or income bracket that these two prospective people fall into. However on average people with a university degree have on average 3 times more earning power than people with a high school education. This is where the crux of matter falls. If we live in an egalitarian society then if we are born equal when do we stop being equal?
Is it at the start of high school when one student attends a selective high school and the other a local comprehensive high school.?
Is it when one attends university whilst the other begins an low skilled or medium skilled job?
Is it when both have children and begin to raise their children in their own respective ways?
Is it when their own respective children start to attend school? One to a private school another to a local primary (nothing being wrong with that)
This links with my next subject and that is in a perfectly egalitarian society what motivates us? Here the G-man has pointed out that recent experiments in communism or socialist societies have failed i.e Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. He has pointed out quite rightly that these societies have never achieved the holy grail of communism an egalitarian anarchy. In a perfectly equal society what motivations do I have to pursue goals? To be honest we as animals are engineered to recreate ourselves and ensure the continuation of our specific DNA in the population pool. In ancient societies it was those who could hunt, gather and organise the best that were the most successful. Now that has increasingly been replaced by those who can learn, work and apply themselves and essentially earn money, which helps them put their offspring at an advantage. If we are permanently held to be the same as everyone else what motivation do we have to improve ourselves. What motivation does John from Kirawee have to go to university and spend 6 years of his life to write a PhD thesis on urban dynamics when in a egalitarian society John from Woy Woy's views on late trains should be held in the same esteem?
He has also put forward that democracy is essentially egalitarian and that politicians are there to serve the voters. Although usually true I would suggest that politician's have much more power than the common person in shaping public thought and opinion. Politcians are the ones who convince the common voter that somehow 1% of "illegal refugees" that arrive by boat are "overrunning our borders." They are the ones who convince people that the carbon tax will cost $600 per year for an average household on figures that they themselves created. It is the willingness of the common masses to be led like sheep to their pen of public thought. And here it is revealed that democracy is inherently elitist.
Last year as the government debated to Mining Tax there was one of the most farcical and comical displays of elites herding the sheeple. The mining companies, their executives, their advertising company and a few common "battlers" in WA ( some who earn 4 times the national average income) convinced the rest of Australia that this new mining tax was going to destroy the country. This change of public sentiment help bring about the downfall of a first term Prime Minister and a complete backdown by the successor and now $60B stolen from the rest of the public. I salute the mining companies, in a capitalist society they successfully protected their own interests
Democracy are groups of elites fighting over a populace that knows nothing or often doesn't care about the issues. This is my most important point. Although the 6 pack's great arguments draw heavily upon classical writers and philosophers ( which demonstrate his superior knowledge- an elitist expression in itself) most people do not care about Rosseau, Karl Marx's Das Kapital or allocative efficiency they just see jobs outsourced to China and India.
The reason that most of the downtrodden, disenfranchised support egalitarianism is because they are the ones who stand to benefit most. So in itself egalitarianism is elitism for the poorer and lower classes. Egalitarianism is what politician's pull out when they want to smother their speeches in a oily layer of mother hood statements and then proceed to butter it up because guess what: It's what makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Everyone at President Obama's victory speech felt equal for those 13 minutes and they went to sleep feeling nice and comforted but they awoke to the same day as yesterday (90% of the iceberg was still under water) and they'll awake to the same situation everyday until a time where we transcend out human qualities where we thus lose our own humanity : P
I suggest some reading:
The Economist Debates: "Do the elite serve the masses." Whilst not technically about what we're discussing the debate draws interesting questions about how society is structured. Specifically note the featured guest article by Peter Saunders.
The Economist Special Reports: "The Few" January 22nd 2011
------- "The Rise and Rise of the Cognitive Elite"
"They Work for Us"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)