By now you should have worked out that your editor is not a fan of government. Regardless of the colour and political persuasion, all government parties and government opposition parties are corrupt.
You can see that by the horseplay at the federal level and in New South Wales in recent weeks. Their only concern is to gain power so they can grab taxpayer money to spend on their own favourite projects.
However, there is one policy that we would like a government to implement – right before government itself is abolished – and that is for all actuaries to be made illegal.
I’ll explain why in a moment. But before I do, a quick note on the debacle in Copenhagen, which ties in to today’s Money Morning.
If you’ve visited the Money Morning website you’ll have seen our band of bloggers have been quite active on the subject. Your editor writes about crazy Keynesian economists, so the bloggers make comments about Climate Change.
Your editor writes about ratings agencies which causes the bloggers to make comments about Climate Change. But that’s alright, we don’t mind at all. In fact we’ve even acquired our own unofficial ‘Climate Change Correspondent’ who goes under the name of ‘cb’.
It seems ‘cb’ has posted a number of comments and even links to other websites. We haven’t had the time to look at all of them yet, but what we have read so far makes for pretty revealing reading.
If you’d like to leave your own comments feel free to do so. The more the merrier. Even if you disagree with your editor that shouldn’t stop you from making a comment. There are quite a number of posts which “dare” us to post their comment, so we do. But don’t worry, even if you don’t “dare” us, we’ll still post it.
In fact, providing you keep the language clean we don’t censor any comments.
But aside from that, you may have heard about the stink caused by a secret drafting of an agreement that is to be put to delegates at Copenhagen. You can download the full document here.
Naturally enough, the fuss has been because developing and island nations don’t believe they’re getting enough money. Which says it all really. They didn’t protest in the streets because of rising sea levels or warmer temperatures.
They protested in the streets because they don’t believe USD$10 billion per year is enough cash.
They shouldn’t worry though, because if Copenhagen only costs taxpayers USD$10 billion per year then you can count that as a victory. Because if you look at points 20, 21 and 22 in the document you’ll soon figure out the number is going to be much, much higher:
“International public finance support to developing countries [should/shall] reach the order of [X] billion USD in 2020 on the basis of appropriate increases in mitigation and adaptation efforts by developing countries.”
Obviously they’re still filling in the gaps. Any guesses on what the ‘X’ billion will be?
It’ll be a lot more than USD$10 billion, we know that for sure.
And whatever number they come up with it’ll only get more expensive for taxpayers as time goes on:
“The Parties commit to regularly review appropriateness of contributions and the circle of contributors against indicators of fairness based on GDP and emissions levels and taking into account the level of development as set forth in Attachment C.”
In other words, once this document is signed, future governments are locked in to paying out more and more cash each year. And no country is going to fight to reduce their contribution are they?
Not on something as important as Climate Change.
Then point 22 reveals that a Climate Fund will be established with:
“Parties commit to allocate an initial amount of [$x] to the Fund as part of their international public climate support.”
Again, we’re not talking chicken feed here. They’ve backed taxpayers and themselves into a corner.
You can’t go on about sea levels rising by six metres and Antarctic ice shelves collapsing causing ice bergs to hurtle towards Western Australia, only to donate a second hand totem tennis set and a $50 Myer gift voucher.
The biggest ever fear campaign – bigger than SARS, AIDS, Y2K, Swine Flu, and even bigger than the fear of Mark Latham becoming PM – must be accompanied by the biggest ever funding promise.
How big? No idea. But surely the benchmark is the $43 billion the Australian government has pledged for the funding of the national broadband network (NBN). How can the government logically spend any less?
Think about it, if the Australian government offers to contribute less than $43 billion to the UN programme then it’s admitting that combating alleged Climate Change is less important than you being able to download the latest Miley Cyrus hit in three seconds.
That’s the thing with spending by the coercive (public) sector. Its only benchmark is spending. It can’t or won’t measure the return because that’ll only highlight how inefficient and pathetic the coercive sector is.
So each bold new plan has to be more expensive than the previous one. And in the case of Climate Change the spending will have to be the biggest ever.
But how on earth will the government pay for it? Raising taxes perhaps? Not yet it seems. Or, not direct taxes anyway.
I’ve shown you the table from the Department of Climate Change. That shows the ‘generosity’ of the government in that it will take with one hand – higher bills – but then give some of it back with the other – government benefit payments.
And that brings us back to the abolition of actuaries. You know what they are, they’re the boffins who crunch the numbers for insurance companies, working out how much a premium should be based on the likelihood of an event happening.
Anyway, two actuarial boffins, Professor Michael Sherris and Associate Professor John Evans (remember that ‘Professor’ is a job title not a qualification) have concluded that:
“It is difficult o see how the private sector could develop efficiently priced annuities that would be attractive to retirees… a public sector solution is likely to be the most efficient, provided the annuitisation is compulsory.”
Money Morning reader Robert drew our attention to the comments. The comments were in a report commissioned by Australia’s most dangerous and powerful man – treasury secretary Emperor Ken Henry.
You can download the full document here.
You know what they say about commissioning reports, “don’t do it unless you know the outcome.“
Is it really possible that Ken Henry and his cronies would commission a report on compulsory annuities unless it was high up on the list of priorities?
Of course not.
But let’s take a step back. What is this whole thing about?
Well, if you’ve read Money Morning for a while you’ll be aware that earlier this year I warned you the government had a secret plan to “steal your super.” Of course we were told that would never happen, people would never stand for it.
Wrong, we declared. Not only will the government do it, but they’ll do it soon.
Our rationale is that with $1 trillion tucked away in superannuation funds, it was inconceivable that the government wouldn’t want to get its dirty paws on it.
When stimulus programmes, and ’shovel ready’ building projects are all the rage, getting access to a pot of cash to fund those programmes would be like finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
After all, why commit electoral suicide by raising taxes when the government can just use a clever ruse to ‘encourage’ individuals to hand over their superannuation funds instead.
And if the Emperor Ken Henry accepts and recommends the submission from the two professors, that’s exactly what will happen. Except they won’t need to encourage people. Oh no, when you’re in government you can go much further than that…
The most distasteful part of it is the final comment from the submission:
“The estimated premiums clearly show that greatest efficiency is achieved through the compulsory conversion of superannuation benefits to annuities through a public sector arrangement.”
Got that, “compulsory.” The 9% that comes out of your pay every year and which goes into the super fund which you think is yours, will – under this proposal – be compulsorily acquired by the government as soon as you retire.
Imagine the uproar if the government proposed compulsorily acquiring your house on retirement. But instead of giving you the proceeds it kept it but then paid the rent for you to live in a rundown block of flats.
Would you agree to that?
Because that’s the exact comparison. We’re not sure what planet these two actuarial profs are living on, but it isn’t this one. Because in this world the government is the least efficient entity there is.
The private sector may not be perfect – although in a free market it would be because success and failure would be determined by the market not by government – but even the manipulated market system we have now is better than anything a monopoly government system could come up with.
We wonder if these profs are familiar with the current Aged Pension system. They can’t be. Because if they were they would see just how efficient the government is at managing a retirement programme.
It’s astounding that in their 40-page report they don’t make a single reference to the existing “annuity” modeled Aged Pension. How could they miss that out of their analysis?
Think about what the Aged Pension is. You pay ‘yer’ taxes for most of your life and then at the end of it the government pays you an income. Not that dissimilar to an annuity.
Well how successful has that been? It hasn’t, it’s rubbish. And now Emperor Henry is considering Aged Pension II – The Emperor Strikes Back!
As I mentioned, we warned you about this months ago. And now it looks as though it’s happening. And that in a roundabout way answers our question from earlier – how will the government pay for its Climate Change commitments?
It’s pretty simple when you’ve got access to $1 trillion worth of savings. There’s bound to be a few bob left over after building new roads, bridges, hospital wings and school gymnasiums.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that your superannuation funds, after being compulsorily acquired by the government on your retirement, will be ‘invested’ in Climate Change programmes too.
Whether the ‘investments’ will be overt or covert is irrelevant. Overt investments will be in subsidizing uneconomical ‘green’ technologies. And covert ‘investments’ will… well, they won’t be investments at all.
They’ll be contributions to Climate Change slush funds. And just like every other government programme they won’t return a single dollar of profit. That means your super fund money will have disappeared into a big black hole, never to return.
The embezzlement of your retirement savings will result in the government having to reduce your benefits which it will do through inflation, slowly eroding the value of your dollar so that like Aged Pension I you’ll be forced to live out your autumn years eating tinned hot dogs and stale bread.
If the Stable Climate Deniers still think that Copenhagen and Climate Change policies are all about saving the planet then they’re sorely mistaken, and perhaps they’re living on the same planet as the two learned profs.
Because it’s about nothing more than lining the pockets of the politician’s favoured special interest groups and ensuring that they can climb to ever higher levels of power.
Cheers.
Kris.
60-Second Market Round Up
by Shae Smith
The S&P/ASX200 finished down yesterday to 4,637.90, down by 32 points. The index has opened down this morning.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 51 points last night, closing to 10,337.05. A board member of Goldman Sachs Group Inc [NYSE: GS] has announced that the firm is taking a ‘very hard look’ at the bonus structure. Funnily enough, public outrage is the reason why they are reviewing this.
The FTSE didn’t know which direction to take overnight, but ended up closing to 5,203.89, lower by 19 points. Despite the news of the one-off bonus tax being announced yesterday, most of the major banks ended higher.
The Nikkei was down was down yesterday by 135 points to 10,004.72. The Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama believes the 7.2 trillion yen (AUD$89 billion) stimulus package will help the country avoid recession next year. Read more here.
Gold was lower again overnight, but many have attributed the decline to profit taking and closing out trades preparing for the end of 2009.
The price of spot gold in Australian dollars is trading at $1,240.87, while in US Dollars it is trading at $1,128.45. The price of silver in Aussie dollars is $19.12 and in US Dollars it is $17.39.
The Aussie dollar versus the US dollar is trading at USD$0.9098, and against the Japanese Yen JPY79.97
Overnight, Crude oil was down again, closing at USD$70.67.
For the biggest movers on the market yesterday click here…
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, Kris, it looks like those on the Climate Nirvana Gravy Train might just end up getting for us more than they bargained for.
You only need to listen to this report to realise that these mfs are exposing the country to potentially unlimited claims for damages and compensation from all the countries who can now claim that they are being damaged by global sea level rises and climate change we are saying we are responsible for.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2767169.htm
So, regardless of whether Copenhagen succeeds or fails (whatever success and failure might mean in this context), plenty of damage is being done.
sayce’o if u r so sure bout this superannuation bizo
& the first i’ve ever heard of it ,on this here forump…
GO PUBLIC ON THE RADIO 3AW & tell the whole of australia
especially with MITCHELL or HINCH cos u are unveiling a humungous conspiricasy
nobody in oz wants their super touched & if you lead / form a political party to do so ,u will win by a land slide
IF YOU DONT GO PUBLIC 3AW WILL still hear of you cos they will be notified of this super-swindle-scenario the gov wants to implement
& it must be stopped
You are quite right, etch. The problem one would encounter, not that it should deter one from trying, is that for Kris’s arguments to be appealing, his audience would largely have to share the deep seated distrust of government and bureaucracy that this somewhat self-selecting audience here tends to share with him and Co.
I, for one, would consider it naive in the extreme for anyone to suppose that our super savings should not be in the crosshairs of the politicians and their minions. In fact, the frequency of the matter being mentioned from official and semi-official quarters should leave us in no doubt that super is being eyed off fair and square.
But, I think that it is probably worse than that. Chances are that all manner of clever plans and scams are being devised by the likes of Goldman Sachs to entrap and suck away as much of our savings as they can get through various schemes and scams. Some will say that I am being paranoid, but consider this:
1. It has already been reported that Goldman Sachs is going to be a large player in the financing of the new NBN. Consider that to be the first number ‘1′.
2. It has also been reported that our own bankers, bureaucrats and politicians consider it a good idea that part of our supersavings be put to good use through infrastructure of national significance. Consider this to be the second number ‘1′.
3. Now, in order to see that the suggestion made is not that improbably at all, you only need to add 1 and 1 together.
Ergo: Consider seriously taking as much control of your super as you can, before your fund manager spends it on some losing cross city tunnel or some other bureaucratic pipe dream project. Anywhere the giant vampire squid shows up, watch out for your money!!!
Yes, but you lot don’t understand, it is a moral imperative for the government to steal your super to battle the forces of darkness destroying our environment. It should make you feel proud to be contributing your retirement money to Goldman Sachs mega bonuses so that they can can be enlisted to fight for the cause.
Kris, if thats going to happen how about giving us a solution to avoid it? My solution is to refuse super from my employer – that’ll stuff em
I dont follow global warming issues but i think its good we are taking action. not for global warming but because of the toxic fumes we spew out of our machines. I see it this way:
imagine i build 2 glass globes about the size of a house. In the first one i place a solar panel and a light bulb and in the second i put a petrol generator and a light bulb. After some time the solar panel globe will still be crystal clear and if i walk inside the globe i can breathe the air. The petrol generator globe will end up with brown sticky oily slime on the walls and if i walk inside i die. These gases we spew out aren’t buggering off to mars there still here in the air. If anyone has been to europe lately you will have seen that when you descend in a plane you actually pass through a thick brown cloud of smog
climate change could be a load of BS but are governments using it as a reason people will accept as plausible to tackle these smog clouds and the toxic fumes?? will humans begin getting cancer, medical problems because of the fumes??? is it being used as a way for developed nations to move from oil based machines to electric???
So i like this idea of reducing emissions and if i have to pay for it so be it – its a good ethical and moral choice.
However if i have to pay I WANT TO CHOOSE TO PAY FOR IT not be forced or screwed by Rudd for it
Good one, Chunkton. Silly old me, I forgot that Goldman Sachs, by their own admission, were doing God’s work on Earth.
GB, nothing wrong with that line of reasoning, except that what they are trying to do is not get sulphur and other such obvious pollutants out of our environment, but CO2, which is a largely inert gas, and very much needed by plants, as well as animals. This is part of the madness. The world drinks it in very high concentrations in all manner of fizzy drinks, including your good old scoona of beer, and plain and trusty soda water, and these indiots propose to waste trillions on capturing the stuff and burrying it underground. How absurd.
But actually you are right in saying that all this hooplaa about CO2 is all a smokescreen, that it is only an excuse for something else. But it is a mistake to suppose that their true aim is to clean out other pollutants from our environment. No, they propose to sell people licences to pollute just the same as before, and collect big money from selling those licences and permits.
It is that great big river of promised “green” moneyflow that all the proponents are salivating over, from our own PM to the UN, the IBC, the traders and scamsters, and of course all those poor and developing countries who have been lead to believe that they will all get big chunks of fast money out of it.
Just keep this in mind when you next hear about the protestations of this or that country about how unfair this proposal or that proposal is going to be to them. They are all out watching the money — the great promises they have all been given to come to the table and sign.
The fools. But they will find out soon enough.
cb – you guys (inc. sayce) talk about scam that is extorting money from people and i dont disagree as i dont follow global warming but i will not for a minute believe that i cant also make money from a scam too
if what you’re saying is true and the world is about to spend copious amounts of our super on green technology that doesn’t work then invest in that green technology now and ride the bubble
i dont really see a problem???
ride the y2k bubble, ride the .com bubble, ride the property bubble, gold bubble, commodity bubble, oil bubble
you are also assuming the world will work together on it forever….. forever is a long time
check out the link below, its another example of countries getting tired of China’s advantage because of its peg to the USD
If all hell breaks loose will this climate stuff even come to pass???
Maybe the cliamte stuff is just something to distract people away from the bigger problem, i.e. the world is in a great depression!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/world/asia/10jakarta.html?hp
GB – You get no disagreement from me. Al Gore is a prime example of having positioned himself financially to become the first carbon billionaire, according to many reports. Now all he has to do is scare the world sh!tless into passing an ETS legislation and buy the pollution licences through his companies. Same goes for Goldman Sachs and many others. Being able to make money out of scams is not in question, but the point.
What is lamentable about the whole thing is that, if they succeed in passing these massive carbon taxes on energy production, then they will virtually double or tripple the price of energy. It is like, instead of your households using the abundant tapwater already in the house being forced to carry the water from 5 km away. The inefficiency of it all would makes households suffer and would make them less and less well off, while the water carrier businesses set up by those who shut off your tap water would make a mint.
Anyhow, one way of looking at this entire scam is that it will mean a lower standard of living because it will mean the greatest, global misallocation of resources in human history. But there is so much misinformation about, and so many conflicts of interest, that the whole thing is becoming extremely chaotic and, yes, as you suggest, unpredictable. But big money is at stake and only time will tell to what extent those pushing this madness will succeed.
People will reject it.
They love to pretend to care, but they wont want to spend a cent of their money and when the financial mess we are still in becomes apparent, global warming wil lbe relegated below the economy and security as an issue.
Dont lose any sleep over Copenhagen. They couldnt organise a tea party, let along a world wide plan to cut carbon omissions
expensive water is not a strong argument as we already pay about $6 a litre for it in the shops, i.e. evian etc… People also argue that water is a right of every citizen and should be cheap… well i think shelter is also the right of every citizen and yet we are prepared to pay $20,000 a year in repayments for it. If you are happy to pay huge amounts for shelter then you cant argue when you have to pay a lot for food and water.
Big electric bills reducing our standard of living gives huge incentive to go green which in turn will eventually kill off Goldmans carbon millions. What i mean by that is:
The cost of traditional energy is going to skyrocket – oil, coal, gas and GS and Gore will make a mint. However, people will stick solar panels on their roofs and drive electric cars which will effectively destroy the carbon credit millions made by GS and Gore. Therefore, if the treaty is signed their will be a surge in profits made on it initially but ultimately the treaty will destroy the traditional energy market with the exception of uranium (if we go nuclear).
And the end result – clean air to breathe
PuntPal, I agree. I would be surprised if they worked it out but not shocked.
cb – i have been reading up a bit on it this morning and i must say that it seems very vague like there is some kind of secret agenda. I cant find any solid info on it… that does not mean a conspiracy though it just means they dont want to tell you true reason why they are pushing this so hard so fast
I can think of two reasons of the top of my head
1. if i think back to late 2008, pollies were in panic mode and going on MM and DR and my personal beliefs i think we are in a depression that is going to last years. If thats correct and the pollies also know we are in for some serious hardships then they need something to distract people from the depression – confidence is the damacles sword. So we can all go to war or we can begin a global project that transforms dirty energy into clean energy.
2. lots of jobs will be created in rebuilding the world to replace all the debt driven jobs recently lost. So it could be a job creation project being disguised as climate warming because people will accept higher costs to help the environment but wont accept it to employ the bum down the road.
3. no oil imports into the US will remove their trade deficit, clean energy in europe means the europeans wont freeze over winter when russia turns of the gas
4. the US used to be producer and consumer, now the consumer and china producers. to keep employment up they must keep coming up with scams. Y2K bubble then dot com bubble then credit bubble then green bubble – maybe this way of life is caused by globalisation????
Incidentally, for those of you interested in Steve Keen’s work, you can see him being interviewed on the latest Keiser Report, here:
http://maxkeiser.com/
The interview seems centred on the velocity of money and what it all means in the current context. Still watching ….
Don’t always agree with you Kris (as you would know from previous comments) but I enjoyed this article (and the one in MM email this morning). Looks like you’re pulling back (a little?) from your former hostility to the idea of climate change. I couldn’t agree more with what you wrote today:
“It can’t be that urgent then. Maybe if the government stopped giving a free kick to the fossil fuel industry at the expense of ‘greener’ fuels they might actually achieve something.”
I happen to think that AGW is a better-than-even chance of being real. The data are complex and the models difficult so it’s hard to be sure. But I completely agree that 5% is a meaningless number and hardly justifies bringing in an ETS (or any other scheme) at all. And you’re right to ask the question of how rewarding the polluting incumbents with “credits” is supposed to fix the root-cause of the (supposed) problem in any case. It doesn’t, and on that particular angle alone the proposed solution is a “sham”. I think we need “affirmative action” on climate – a combination of solar (PV and thermal), wind and probably nuclear (gen IV / pebble-bed etc) – at least these are low-carbon solutions to a carbon problem. I’d rather see our valuable mining and resources industries left mostly untouched and see the responsibility for this “externality” (carbon) socialised onto us as a whole via the need to develop new low-carbon sources of base-load power in order to meet a real emissions target (25%, 50% or more). Let’s spend our money to solve the problem and stop kicking cans down the road, GFC-style.
Onto pensions … I’m not sure Ken will be pulling apart superannuation, which (despite its problems) is probably one of the most successful financial sector reforms of the past 25 years. The US experience, as well as that of debt at home (go Barnaby go!) have shown that governments cannot be trusted to provision for the needs of their populace. There are just too many special interests at stake – as well as the spend today and pay tomorrow thinking that has prevailed in the west for the best part of 60 years (since WW II) or perhaps longer.
We should be looking to further enhance competition in the superannuation space and to push for small government and non-interventionist approaches to self-funded retirements. Most individuals have proven themselves more capable of living within their means than governments ever will.
Lol, GB. You probably are onto something there. If it is not one thing, then it is another. Like a papasite that leaves from one host to another to survive. Or like the giant vampire squid that will latch onto anything that smell of money.
The overall game is probably hidden from us. We are getting glimpses of it here and there, and all who see the negative implications for themselves are starting to protest against it. All those who see benefiting from it, tend to support it. Many of these are being hoodwinked, and will learn about it soon enough. And, finally, there is a small coterie of true believers who genuinely belive the bs that the planet is about to fry and there is precious little you can tell them to change their minds. They would be very much in the minority, I would guess. Anyhow, we sure are living through interesting times.
Kris: I hope you will devote some coverage tomorrow to Barnaby’s fears of a US default. Honestly this is the elephant in the room that nobody wishes to confront. Obama doesn’t want to know. Geithner doesn’t. Bernanke doesn’t. Ron Paul does (but others don’t want to let him!). Sheila Bair does (but isn’t saying-so). Krugman and the Keynsian pump-n-dumpers don’t. China doesn’t (but it’s worried nonetheless ~ “we hate you guys” etc). Japan knows but isn’t telling … (Been there, done that, got the t-shirt).
And us .. we just assume the great economic sandpit of mining and resources will go on forever … But over the last 50 years USA has exported (1) a great deal / most of their technical know-how, (2) most of their high-skill / high-value jobs. Basically they just sacked the consumer, and now the consumer can’t buy. Who could have known?
I think Barbaby is right and it would be nice to see some independent analysis of his claims before he gets bumped off by the CIA
Kris; I just read on Mish’s site that 1 in 4 children in the US is now a benificiary of food stamps:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/one-in-four-children-on-food-stamps-one.html
Honestly are Barnaby’s “outlandish” claims really that outlandish in light of a > 10% unemployment rate (and that’s not U-6 which is much higher) and the above statistic. Are food stamps simply the “virtual bread queue” of the modern age? Probably.
Of course, “default” is a term that we should look at in the broadest possible sense – printing money (via QE) to buy your own debt, which is the most likely US “out” is nothing more than implicit default by devaluing the buying power of the bond (face-value) rather than failing to pay the coupon. It’s all the same.
KKKAAAAAABBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!
Did anyone else hear it??? Its the sound of China imploding!!! Official data states inflation is back….. UH OH!!!
GDP 9%, car sales up 98% last month, property prices racing up, industrial production running at 19% per month.
and yet they only register 0.6% inflation (first inflation reading this year)… dodgy, dodgy
now that is brilliant. If only Australia could run figures like that and not see any inflation
if China was truly in a deflationary spiral over the last year then we are seeing inflation a little too early, i mean check out the US, 2 years an no real inflation. Inflation should take longer to rear its head unless of course the massive lending boom and stimulus to get 9% GDP was way too big ????
I think we are about to witness whether a control/command economy actually works.
The age old question will be answered soon: Do people control markets or markets control people?
One thing is for certain, the government officials will certainly earn their keep before this is over
GB – you seem to be making a rather general assumption in that last line, namely that officials are doing something useful. Quite a leap of faith, that one, don’t you think?
“UPDATE
Professor Sinclair Davidson says the Rudd Government is right – Tony Abbott is hundreds of billions out when he says the Government could cost us $400 billion if it caves into the pressure at Copenhagen. Trouble is, the true cost is even more.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_man_made_warming_this_time_in_alaska/
lol cb – you are correct
Easter Island – Easter Island.
Here we come.
This talk of compulsory annuities is a real worry. I am 66 with money in a SMSF anyone think I am under threat maybe I am.
GB you talk somewhat about clean air, where do live? Next to steelworks or something? The target GHG is mainly CO2, colourless, odourless and really good for plants and us. We are about 18% carbon and breath out nearly a kg a day. The atmosphere has about 390ppm but your house is much higher than because of what you do or any human for that matter. Yes cleaning up harmful pollutants is good but decrease CO2 emission to below 3 tonnes (currently 29) will destroy civilisation as we know it.
USA’s economy & greenback is predicted to capitulate in the late first quarter of 2010 12 weeks??????????
its way too far in debt to regain
its gone no turning back,USA is bankrupt totally & its gonna take the whole financial world with it into a depression
this weekend in melbourne is the highest record of house auctions to be held almost a billion dollars worth
the rats are jumping off the ship selling out whilst the goings still good ……..
wat u think?????????
PF – That is too cryptic for me. ?????????
etch – not until alternative arrangements have been put in place, I don’t think. But, then again, those alternative arrangements will be made in secret, not in public view, so chances are that when it happens, it will catch a lot of us with our pants down.
And, need I add, that is unlikely to be a pretty sight. lol.
As a managing director of a company in Australia there are heavy penalties for trading while insolvent.
So how come the resident geniuses in Canberra can run up a huge future debt, with more to come, and keep on trading?
Hi cb. – You see I didn’t think it at all cryptic.
I have largely stayed out of the climate change debate here and on other blogs, partly because I don’t know 100% either way, but I suspect that Sayce and others here are really in the same boat but would rather not admit that.
I do have some faith in the climate change science, but I also know that many will be trying to build their empire on the theory. That always happens.
The catch for me is that I would rather be wrong and take some action against pollution, than be wrong by NOT taking action. If the theory is correct the downside will be catastrophic. A human starts experiencing organ failure at 45 degrees centrigade, if he/she can’t cool their body with the evaporation of perspiration, cooling breezes etc. Summer temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide are close to that at peak now, not to mention many inland centres, so a few degrees extra will kill people in our communities. Humans are not machines.
It will also reduce food production significantly, at a time when we are ever more dependant on that for a growing global population.
No food = war.
Hence my Easter Island quip. Although the islanders were wiped out by smallpox in the end, that just sped up the process, it didn’t change the outcome.
If the worst case scenario means that the world spends large sums of money on cleaner air, then I’m ok with that as long as each country spends an equitable amount. As with any new concept, I really expect them to get the initial strategies wrong, and then fine tune them later. I think that phase is unavoidable.
cb I know that you and the others have an entirely different view, but that is mine. Best of Luck……
Fair points, PF, and I would agree with everything you have said about cleaning up our air, water and soil of known and proven pollutants, but this is not what they are proposing to do. Instead, they are focusing their efforts on an inert gas, CO2, which according to all the available evidence is not harmful, but beneficial to plant and animal life on the planet. Plus, there is no reason to believe that higher concentrations of this gas in the atmosphere causes any noticeable or measurable change in global temperatures, full stop. If science proceeded by head count, which it does not, then the vast majority of scientists around the globe hold this view, in opposition to the warm-mongering alarmist minority. That much is clear. If science supported the warm-mongers’s allegations, they would not have had to fudge, hide, lie about the data and threaten and intimidate dissenters.
Besides, the proposal is clearly not designed to ensure reduced emissions and pollution we shoud clean up, but collect big money for the privilege to pollute. There is a difference. A big difference.
And, finally, the argument that we should be willing to do something if everybody else will agree to do the same thing is hardly the most appropriate way to arrive at our own decision. Just because some crackpot sells enough purists on the virtues of being teetotallers,
and then seeks to enforce a general prohibition on all alcohol, it does not mean that it would be a sensible thing to agree to a prohibition. And, that, even in a case where science is pretty much uncontroversial about the pros and cons of the effects of drinking on health.
And, PF, the problem is not just the science and the cheating that has been exposed there through Climategate. An equally big problem is the lack of consultation and the political propaganda and hidden agendas that are slowly coming to light about the whole affair. Our fair democracy has been whittled down to a sorry state where our leaders are hiding, fudging, and lying to the people about all manner of things with regard to what they are doing and planning for us, in our name, and allegedly all for our own good.
Quite apart from the offensive paternalism being implied by what the govt is doing at the moment, you have to start worrying about what is up their sleeves. As an indication, I will paste in here the latest post on this by Bolt, but if you click on the link, it will give you more links and references that you can check up on.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/this_reckless_spending_must_stop1/
“This reckless spending must stop
Andrew Bolt – Sunday, December 13, 09 (09:05 am)
Exactly how much of our money is Kevin Rudd shipping off to the United Nations, to pass on as a bribe to countries such as China?
Answer? He won’t tell you:
AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen. ..
“There are a range of figures flying around,” Senator Wong said. “(British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown has proposed a $100 billion mix of public and private money. We have not indicated a figure but we have indicated we’re prepared to do our fair share.”
Same story two weeks ago at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, where Rudd also promised away our cash for support for his global warming plans:
The Commonwealth plan for the so-called “Fast Start” fund calls for developed countries in the 53-nation group to spend $10 billion a year until at least 2012.
And again Rudd wouldn’t come clean on what he’d given away:
He decline(d) to put a figure on the funding, saying it was still to be determined.
And, wait, there’s more:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously backed a separate $US10 billion climate fund in talks with US President Barack Obama and Mr Brown.
How many billions of your money will be sent overseas by Kevin Rudd in his crazed crusade to “stop” a warming that seems to have stopped already? “
cb – fair enough, I don’t want to argue as everyone is entitled to their view on this, but I won’t be getting my scientific information from either Andrew Bolt or Kris Sayce. I will consult someone who knows more than them, and look for some substantive research.
At this point I am ok with being wrong on the issue. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.
I think that we have to allow the world’s leaders to formulate a plan. I have read the other posters here who feel that the leaders can’t get that done, but that excessively negative point of view will never achieve anything. It is far too defeatist for my liking.
Take care..
Sure, I think the world’s leaders were allowed to formulate and carry out their plans, pretty much through history. Not a very encouraging record, I must say, and we probably have an equally rough road ahead of ut, I suspect. But, as you probably would agree, we should keep good cheer, life will go on regardless.
we could literally have a free energy world ..but @ the end of day its not about FORWARDING ,ADVANCING ALL PEOPLE ON THIS WORLD
its about growing people as “sheeple” & then just fleecing them
& in saying so
i see this as a NEW TAX ,REVENUE to pay for the countries DEFECIETS
like the gst ,speed cameras ,parking fines ,wat-have-you
ITS JUST ANOTHER COST>>TAX
WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leave a Comment
Comment moderation policy: Port Phillip Publishing supports free speech and frank and open conversation. But we reserve the right to modify or delete your comments if we consider them to be offensive or in violation of any laws, including Australia's anti-discrimination laws