We’ll take a break from bashing the Copenhagen soiree for today.
Mainly because we’ve got nothing further to add for now.
We had hoped to come up with some elaborate analogy to illustrate the foolishness of the Copenhagen Conference and how the 34,000 attendees won’t achieve one single thing that will benefit the environment.
But fortunately we don’t need an analogy because it’s plain to see that nothing good will come of it.
I mean, take the opening paragraph to an article on page 14 of today’s Australian Financial Review (AFR):
“Heavy industry is pressuring the Rudd government not to lift its greenhouse target above a 5 per cent cut by 2020…”
Seriously, for the amount this scam is going to cost, 5%, what’s the point? It hardly seems credible that a 5% cut will prevent the whole world from melting and sea levels rising to the moon.
As we mentioned yesterday, we’ve been told Climate Change is of such vital importance for the survival of humankind, yet the government is only proposing a 5% cut in emissions.
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.
Anyway, as I say, we struggled to come up with a suitable analogy. We were looking for something Danish and the best we could come up with was bacon, pastries and Lego.
None of which seemed to offer any plausible comparison.
So we turned to the literary world instead. But still we’ve come up short. Our pea-sized brain could only come up with Hans Christian Andersen and Hamlet.
“The Emperor’s New Clothes” probably fits the bill best. Politicians and bureaucrats swanning around – like Ugly Ducklings – wearing their Climate Change clothes, only for the crowd on the sidelines to shout “But they aren’t wearing anything at all!”
But, like in the story, they keep strutting, hoping no one will notice.
Perhaps the best analogy is yet to come. That’s if the ending of Hamlet is anything to go by. We can only wait and see.
If you’ve read the Bard’s play you’ll know that after a few hundred pages only two or three of the players is knocked off. But then in the grand finale the entire main ensemble is sent off to meet their maker.
Meeting their end by the sword or from poison – and in a couple of cases a combination of the two! Of course we’re not advocating such an event in Copenhagen(!), but it would certainly liven up the proceedings.
Anyway, considering we weren’t going to mention Copenhagen we’ve done a pretty good job of, erm, mentioning it. We were going to pull the pants down on property again today, but that can wait until next week.
Instead a follow up on yesterday’s Money Morning article on the planned theft of your super.
As a refresher, we pointed out that two jumped-up boffins from the University of New South Wales had presented a submission to Emperor Ken Henry’s tax review panel recommending that a “compulsory” government provided annuity was the most “efficient” way to provide for retirement.
It would mean that the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars that you’ve accumulated in your superannuation fund would be compulsorily acquired by the government on your retirement and in return you would get an Aged Pension MkII.
The worst thing about it is that it was a commissioned submission. In other words Emperor Henry selected the two profs to come up with this report. So we can safely assume it’s in line with what the Panel has in mind.
But we’re still amazed the submission didn’t once mention the already tried and failed existing Aged Pension. That’s a perfect example of what happens when a government grabs your money and then tries to “invest” it for your retirement.
Because it turns out they don’t invest it, like most Ponzi schemes they just spend it.
But there are more examples. Money Morning reader Steve sent us this perfectly timed article from the UKs Daily Telegraph headlined, “Taxpayers face £2 trillion unfunded pensions liability.”
The article explains:
“The entire bill of around £2.2 trillion would more than triple the size of the national debt overnight. It is entirely unfunded, so will have to be paid directly by future generations of taxpayers, rather than paid out of a pot contributed to by the pensioners themselves.”
That’s what happens when the state is given responsibility of looking after you. It spends all the cash and then has to borrow and steal from future generations just to pay you an income that won’t even keep you above the poverty line.
In fact, there’s not much difference between what the UK and Australian governments have done with pension money to what dead crook Robert Maxwell did with company pension funds in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s.
Maybe Ken Henry and the tax review panel plan on taking a leaf out of Robert Maxwell’s book on how to handle pension money.
According to the ‘Lazy Researcher’s Handbook’:
“It emerged that, without adequate prior authorisation, he [Maxwell] had used hundreds of millions of pounds from his companies’ pension funds to finance his corporate debt, his frantic takeovers and his lavish lifestyle. Thousands of Maxwell employees lost their pensions.”
You could easily replace those words with “… pension funds to finance government stimulus programmes, infrastructure spending and public sector salaries.”
But before you say, “Aha! That proves the free market and private enterprise can’t handle this either”, I’ll quickly point out that being a crook and stealing money from people has got nothing to do with free markets.
Being a crook is being a crook whether it’s private sector or the coercive (public) sector.
The best way to stop crooks getting hold of your money is not to give it to them. Trouble is, in the government’s case it’s hard not to when you’re forced to do so, and when you’ve got the threat of jail if you don’t.
So, as Money Morning reader Dave asked us yesterday:
“What can we do to stop this theft of our super funds?”
The simple answer is probably, not much. But it’s a theme I’ve already started to look at in Australian Wealth Gameplan. One simple solution which I’ve advocated for some time is that you’d be mad to contribute more than the compulsory amount into your super fund.
I know many financial planners will tell you that super is the most tax effective investment vehicle there is, but just as with any other investment, you should never invest purely for tax reasons.
I don’t care how good something looks, if the primary reason for investing is because of a tax break, then the odds are it’s a bad investment – just remember all those “tree farms” and “grape farms” accountants and some of the dodgier financial planners were spruiking.
With the ‘compulsory acquisition’ proposal in the pipeline, adding more cash to your super fund now could be the equivalent of just burning it.
But don’t forget that if the trade unions and fund managers and super fund lobby group get their way, it won’t be 9% of your salary getting swiped each year, it could be up to 15%.
And there’s absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that you’ll ever see any of it ever again.
Which makes these pension plans sound more like a nightmare than a fairy tale.
Cheers.
Kris.
60-Second Market Round Up
by Shae Smith
The S&P/ASX200 finished down yesterday to 4,606.70, lower by 31 points. A positive day in Wall Street overnight has the index open up this morning.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 68 points or 0.67% to end the day at 10,405.83. Despite the mix reports about job losses and unemployment in the US, the major retailers all finished the day higher.
Overnight in the UK, the FTSE ended the day higher by 0.78%, closing to 5,244.37. There were no changes to the £200 billion quantitative easing program and the record low interest rates 0.5% which helped all the major banks to finish higher.
The Nikkei finished the day down to 9,862.82, lower by 1.42%
The price of spot gold in Australian dollars is trading at $1,233.41, while in US Dollars it is trading at $1,130.52. The price of silver in Aussie dollars is $18.98 and in US Dollars it is $17.40.
The Aussie dollar versus the US dollar is trading at USD$0.9172, and against the Japanese Yen JPY80.98
Overnight, Crude oil was down again, closing at USD$70.54.
For the biggest movers on the market yesterday click here…
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi
The article – Global Warning’s New Clothes – seems to fit the mood -
Have a great weekend
ooop the coding went wrong -
OK I give up
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/new_clothes.html
Thanks, Eric. I will read it. It looks interesting.
In the meantime, here is somethingworth watching. A sign of things to come, I fear, if the warm-mongers get their way.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/
Eric, that is one little beauty. Very observant and intelligent. The analogy is powerful and compelling. And how ironic that these clowns should go to Copenhagen to be tormented and mortified over their own turpitude and deplorable stupidity.
As the article makes the point, it is not only that the emperor has no clothes, that the whole thing is a fraud and a farce, but the emperor’s minions have no brains either.
Well Kris perhaps your right. If we take your advice on climate change we may never need superannuation.
Another poor quality post eagerly devoured by the faithful.
Hot Rocks, or Hot Gas? Your cash, down a green hole in the ground
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/your_cash_down_a_green_hole_in_the_ground/
PF – Not sure which aspects of the argument you find less than satisfactory, but the overall theme seems plausible enough for me.
1. The government has found a pipedream project, whereby the underlying emergency, the climate problem, is said to be so huge, so enormous, that if the underlying proplem is accepted as being real, then they can justify any amount of money being ripped out of the economy, and potentially worse. Worse, because if there is a binding treaty reached on the prolem, then more and more money can and probably will be demanded of us for anything and everything that anyone suffering of weather and climate-related losses and damages, and potentially, there can be no limit to the madness, until we are all back living in caves without being allowed to light a fire. I know the imagery is being pushed too far here, but the underlying point is valid.
2. Our super savings are being eyed off by the bureaucrats and the politicians, and they are busy devising clever ways of accessing that money.
If you accept the reality of those two points, then the overall line of argument is compelling, that our retirement savings will suffer as a consequence of this madness.
But your comment seems to indicate as if you were subscribing to the catastrophic climate change scenario if we don’t spend money on this scam.
If so, you need not worry. Contrary to the predictions of the alarmists, we have been cooling over the past decade, although the long term trend from historical cycles would seem to indicate that we will be warming again at some point, but not catastrophically. (If you want references, to follow up, I will be happy to oblige. )
Warm periods are good for life on Earth, and it is no coincidence that biodiversity is greatest where it is warmest, and it is the least diverse where it is coldest. This warm-mongering and the mainstreat propaganda is making lots of people to doubt simple commonsense knowledge like this, but this mania, too, shall pass, and the Earth will be still here.
For those of you interested in what Lord Monckton has to say on Copenhagen, and some amusing stories about the loss of sovereignty under the EU, and the now proposed Copenhagen Treaty, you can listen to an extended interview of Lord Mockton, which is very recent, here. The threat to national self-determination is more real than you would have been lead to believe, since this has not even been mentioned by our politicians at all, all this time. But if you care about what Rudd proposes to sign us up for in Copenhagen, then you really should take the trouble to listen to this interview.
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast_Gold+/Entries/2009/12/12_Lord_Christopher_Monckton.html
cb – Sayce has spent a considerable time telling you that our dollars are being printed and in fact are worthless.
On the other hand our planet is the only wealth that we really have, so why is it a problem to spend our worthless dollars to save the only asset we have?
It seems like a very fair trade to me. Can we double our money and save the world twice, that would be fun.
Really I think it is probably too little too late, and the problems are irreversible, but we have to try.
cb you have to read more than the narrow view posts and blogs on this site.
But again best of luck…
we could literally have an 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
None of us know the science behind it and we are all just making assumptions.
My concern is the way the argument has been framed. If you question things about climate change, you are quickly dismissed as an evil and naive sceptic – for me, that kind of approach suggests some people are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
I dont think the science is not as settled as the Climate Change belivers want us to think it is and that is my reason for not supporting drastic attempts to reduce CO2 emmissions. I don’t think supra-national treaties are needed right now (or likely to ever actually eventuate anyway) is another question
I do however agree with PF that something needs to be done to our way of living and have no objections to us trying to develop a more sustainable environmental framework (i.e. manage food and water scarcity better, invest in renewables, consider reforming our throw away society etc…)
Sorry I clearly meant…
I dont think the science is as settled as the Climate Change belivers want us to think it is and
Thanks PuntPal – please keep asking questions about the climate change scenario – actually no-one in the street has the answers so you and I are not alone.
I just don’t think we can keep abusing our planet and get away with it forever. We have the ability to develop alternative technologies which as first wiil be costly, but development and scale will eventually win out with low cost renewable energy.
You guys can and will take whatever course you choose, but for me, I want something left at the end for future generations.
Call me a greeny, I don’t care.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9943298
Simple but to the point.
Peter.. this is what I feel is the crux of the problem..IS there a genuine concern about seeking alternatives. I do not beleive that there is, at least by those in power. There are countless people who have attempted (and succeeded or close to) various alternative engines, fuels, methods etc but in all case, so far, has any government thrown money into it to make it happen. I can guarantee you that if $40 billion was thrown into such research (like is being proposed for hi speed broadband) we would have a solution the car problem in very short time. If the government was serious it would greatly subsidise the cost of a new hybrid car to make it affordable and hence attractive to the “common folk”. But they could not car one iota for the envirinment and whatever you I I do will not change their agenda. This is were people should gain knowledge and understand what is going on rather than just taking “sides”. I am all for cleaner technology to leave a better future for my children, however, I am definately against preparing a future of ensalvement for my kids.
Nick – I’m no expert, but my limited understanding of the Carbon (emission) trading scheme is that business’s who emit will be penalised and must buy credits. A business that reduces it’s emmission will get credits that can be sold to others who fail to comply.
I think that the government has spent too little time in explaining the working of the scheme, and perhaps on the few occasions that they have we haven’t listened as well as we should. Because of that unknown factor people naturally get cold feet on the launch because they haven’t been correctly informed. That to my way of thinking is the main problem.
Nick you have suggested that the government inject many $Billions into research, but the ETS will MAKE private enterprise inject those dollars into research that will eventually lead to greater efficiencies.
Now in any new venture I would expect us to trip stumble and fall through the first 3 to 5 years before we see great results. But whenever you put a system under stress you will always be rewarded when you see how it responds. Yes there will be winners and losers, but that’s life.
Think of the fantastic advances that were made as a result of two horrific wars in the last century.
I repeat that I would rather be wrong and pay to fix a problem that is not as bad as I think, than to ignore a problem that could be worse than I think.
I don’t mean to lecture, Nick you are able to make your own decisions, and I have made mine.
I respect your views Peter but when you say “that the government inject many $Billions into research, but the ETS will MAKE private enterprise inject those dollars into research that will eventually lead to greater efficiencies.” will this not burden those companies with additional costs? Will this give them the incentive to spend even more to survive?
I am not convinced about the governments motives in explaining the situation. If they had agreed to an open debate on the matter and thoroughly wheight both sides of the argument, then I would be more inclined to accept the final decision. Instead, however, they have created an atmosphere where ANY questioning/opposition to their view is automatically labelled as “sceptic” Why? We are simply asking to have a look at the “other” evidence that many scientists want to put forward. Is that not a reasonable request? When something is forced down peoples throat, like it or lump it, it will always leave an intelligent mind wondering as to the motives behind it. Why should we (Aust) be the first to lead the way since we are the least of the polluters? Why does China want to dump it’s nuclear waste in our back yard? If India China & USA alone reduce their emissions by 10% what a difference that would make? Now with new evidence and exposure of a more sinister regarding the whole fisaco, shouldn’t that be allowed to be investigated? If proven false then so be it! All it would achieve is to discredit those who are advocates to the “conspiracy”. My true beleif is that the planet will survive, if we are in the way, it will remove or reduce our numbers, (if we don’t do it ourselves). Whatever mount of money thrown in it’s direction will not stop a thing as the more people there are, the more egos there are, the more consumption there will be, the more production of products there will be to satify the masses, hence we are back to the same old problem again. By the way, why is the goverment building a new and larger “bunker” under parliment house?
PF – We have no major difference of opinion, I am tempted to think. But you really would benefit from listening to what Lord Monckton has to say about the European ETS. The whole market mechanism they are proposing has been trialled already, and it is a shambles. Europol says that the system has been gamed and is rife with corruption and crime. White collar crime, a la Wall Street. And through it all, Europe’s emissions have in fact been increased all this time, not reduced. We are all for a cleaner and healthier and sustainable environment – that virtually goes without saying – but the fat cats behind this push are clearly trying to use that sentiment as an excuse, as a vehicle, to set up a system that they can rort right, left, and centre.
In fact, looking at the current proposal, you can regard the science of CO2 and climate warming to be a secondary issue, if an issue at all. But even so, these mongrels should pay enough respect to our intelligence to make their plans go by a name something like a Sustainable Environment Trading Scheme, not a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is simply false that CO2 is a danger to our climate or our health, and in fact the opposite seems to be the case. Plants and food production are far more robust and reliable, and they need far less water, when they grow in a CO2 rich environment. So, this lie is not going to wash, no matter what. The result will be surpression of science and freedom of speech. Mark my words. You cannot build a free society on lies. Especially not blatant ones like this.
Here is an interesting observation by Kohler about the impasse between the US and China at Copenhagen. What he fails to mention that the arguments applying to the US, also apply to us, equally. Make no mistake about it: the number of free riders wanting onto this gravy train goes well beyond what its instigators have envisaged.
“China, the world’s largest carbon polluter, is now holding the Copenhagen conference to ransom. To get an agreement, the US will have to borrow more money and ‘compensate’ China and other developed nations for its own past emissions so that China can keep increasing its own pollution.”
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Americas-obligatory-lessons-pd20091214-YPRTJ?OpenDocument&src=kgb
Mike Shedlock – aka Mish – even makes links between green movement and housing affordability
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15765.html
PF – This is about the science, and about what the majority of people have been lead to believe about the science by a collusive mass media.
It is a perfect illustration of the dynamics that underpin the subject of catastrophic climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk&feature=player_embedded
Here is a law we should consider impementing!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34331094/ns/world_news-asiapacific/?source=patrick.net
cb…good link. How typical!!
Hi Nick. That is exactly what I thought, that it is very typical. The average person will take their information through the mass media and will not go to the source to get their information. There are two highly relevant questions that each citizen should seriously ask themselves and then investigate:
1. Have I been lied to by my government through the mass media?
2. If I have been lied to, have I also been sold a puppy?
I have researched the subject for my own satisfation, by going to the source and relying on what the scientists on both sides say, and by their respective behaviour, and there is no question in my mind that the answer to both of those questions is affirmative. Now, I will just leave it to every person to do their own investigation and draw their own conclusions.
i see this as a NEW TAX ,REVENUE RAISER to pay for the countries DEFECIETS
like the gst ,speed cameras ,parking fines ,wat-have-you
ITS JUST ANOTHER COST>>TAX REVENUE RAISER FOR THE FAT CATS TO rort & PAY FOR AUSTRALIA’S NATIONAL DEBT,STIMULUS PACKAGES $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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