One widely popularised by warmageddonists, who have never conscientiously considered the simple truth spoken by Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”
In recent days, Wayne Swan has once again been loudly touting the latest IMF forecasts. He wants you to believe that what the IMF says, is somehow proof that the Australian economy under his management is doing great, and will do even better in 2012-13.
But there is a very interesting, little known fact about the way in which IMF forecasts are put together. One that every citizen should be aware of.
Here is the Unconventional Economist Leith van Onselen, who has previously worked for the Australian and Victorian Treasury departments:
Click to enlarge
So, pointing to an IMF forecast is really nothing more than a deceitful argumentum ad verecundiam put forward by dishonest politicians, who negotiate with the “authority” they appeal to concerning what that authority’s report/forecast will actually say!
Indeed, one only need read the latest IMF report to see that its forecasts for Australian growth are really nothing more than parroting of the government’s own wildly optimistic budget forecasts:
Click to enlarge
Remember this little piece of information.
Tuck it away near the front of your mind.
Ready and waiting for the next time you hear Wayne … or any politician … or journalist … appealing to a “report” by some Higher Authority like the IMF, or the World Bank, or the UN.
“(But) we have matched all of our expenditure with savings since mid-2009 – that’s the hard work of government.
No, that’s two lies in two sentences.
First, as we have seen previously ( Wayne’s “Per Cent Of GDP” Lies Debunked, Our Media In $140 Billion Lie For Wayne ), “our” total government revenues have actually gone up, by $23.67 billion in 2010-11 vs 2007-08 (pre-GFC). And for this year 2011-12, the government’s November ’11 forecast was for an increase in Total Revenue of $37.41 billion vs 2007-08. The truth is, the only thing that has been “hit”, is the Treasury department’s wildly exaggerated May Budget forecasts. You know … those grand annual smoke ‘n mirrors performances, where the Treasurer tells the nation what a great job he is going to do in the next year, using deceitful words that project an appearance that he has already achieved it … and then, never actually does it.
About Gillard’s second lie.
As we have also seen previously, the government’s Expenditure has blown out by a whopping $91.64 billion versus 2007-08. But in Gillard’s statement, she claimed that the ALP has “matched all of our expenditure with savings since mid-2009″.
Oh really?
In the 2009-10 financial year, the government spent $339.23 billion.
In the 2010-11 financial year, the government spent $356.1 billion.
And this year, the government most recently forecast that they will spend … wait for it … $371.74 billion.
So, they spent $16 billion more in 2010-11 than they did in 2009-10. And they expect to spend $31.58 billion more this year, than in 2009-10.
But Gillard claimed that Labor has “matched all of our expenditure with savings” since mid-2009?!
If we took her words 100% literally, we would rightly ask, “Ok, show us where you saved $356.1 billion in 2010-11 and $371.74 billion this year?”
But let us be generous.
Can Gillard show us where the government actually “saved” $16 billion in 2010-11, and $31.58 billion this year? That is, savings equivalent to the extra government spending in those years, versus the year she referenced, 2009-10?
Of course not!
The simple truth is, this government has spent more (borrowed) money, every single year since coming to power.
Far more.
And, they are bringing in more Total Revenue than ever before.
This government’s mode of lying about the budget is very simple.
Every claim they make about “falling” revenue, or “write-downs” to revenue, or “hits” to revenue, or revenues supposedly “lost” to “global economic turmoil” or “the floods” or this or that or the other, is a lie.
Actual government revenue in total, is UP. It is only “down”, or “lost”, by comparison to their wildly exaggerated annual May budget “forecasts”.
And every claim they make about government spending, is also a lie.
They are spending literally tens of billions more money now, four (4) years after the GFC, than any Australian government has ever spent.
Every statement uttered by this government about the budget, and its economic management, is a lie, distortion, or misdirection.
I have never witnessed a more corrupt, more blatantly and repeatedly dishonest pack of politicians in this country in my lifetime.
And I will certainly be watching the subsequent weekly episodes.
Following is an excerpt from a (Western) news article about the show.
I wonder how many eyes will be opened, and minds awakened, as a result of the opportunities Assange’s show will evidently bring. To observe the demeanour, and hear the perspective of those whose opinions and beliefs our media either ignore, or censor, or misreport.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday made his debut as a chat show host on a Kremlin-funded channel with a deliberately shocking choice of first guest — the leader of Hezbollah.
While still under house arrest in London, the founder of the whistle-blowing website spoke via video link to Hassan Nasrallah, whom both the United States and Israel consider a “terrorist.”
Russia aired the show, called “The World Tomorrow,” with fanfare on its international RT news channel.
The multi-lingual channel, which makes no secret of giving the Russian take on world affairs and has the slogan “Question More,” built up anticipation by promising the first guest would outrage many.
“I won’t be surprised if after the first show the hawks want not just to shut down Assange but us as well,” channel director Margarita Simonyan wrote on her Twitter account, while stressing the guest was Assange’s choice.
Your humble blogger recently sought legal advice from a prominent constitutional barrister, specifically concerning clauses 109A and 110 of the Clean Energy Act 2011.
Like the mortgage-backed derivatives that blew up the world financial system in the GFC, carbon-unit-backed derivatives are simply the next form of wholly unregulated, unmonitored, shadow banking artificial “money” creation that has had bankers licking their lips in anticipation from the moment the(ir) draft legislation was released:
14 July 2011, Business Spectator — Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.
Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market….
I have now been informed by the eminent barrister referred to above, that I am right.
If it is judicially accepted that the Clean Energy Act 2011 is a bill “imposing taxation”, then the two cleverly worded little clauses buried within 1,000+ pages of legislation that I have long identified as those that specifically allow the shadow banking industry to begin creating and trading (unlimited quantities of) carbon dioxide derivatives, are, in the barrister’s opinion, in breach of section 55 of the Constitution:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55
As we have seen previously, there are numerous other areas of the legislation whose constitutionality is highly questionable and thus contestable, under section 55 and other sections too.
Unfortunately, I am advised that private citizens have no legal standing to mount a challenge against the legislation in the High Court.
[EDIT: For the reason that private citizens are not directly subject to the legislation. This perhaps answers the question many have asked, as to why the government still refuses to release a definitive list naming who exactly are the "biggest polluters". If those who will have standing to challenge the legislation in the High Court do not have confirmed proof of this, it would appear that they could not prove legal standing in order to file an injunction to prevent the bankster scam starting up in the first place. Doubtless this key information will not be made known until after the government has sent out billions in "compensation" bribes to households in May, and parked $10 billion in the banksters' Clean Energy Finance corporation in such a way that it cannot be retrieved.]
Those in the best position to mount a legal challenge, who do have standing before the High Court, are the State governments.
Having campaigned heavily for our vote on the back of a solemn promise to “fight” the carbon tax if elected, Barry O’Farrell and Campbell Newman have now shown their true colours.
As two-faced standard bearers.
For the predatory, parasitic banking industry that they depend on to help finance their election campaigns, thanks to our rigged and decrepit system of governance that means political parties do not get their hands on the public cash in proportion to their share of the popular vote, until after the vote count has been determined at each election.
For a political leader to promise not to foist a predatory bankster scam on the public, and then do it, is an unforgivable crime against basic human decency and integrity, and, an unforgivable violation of public trust.
But to present yourself as a saviour, and plead for our vote with a promise to fight a predatory bankster scam, only to weasel out of actually doing anything to fight it once elected, is, in the firm opinion of this citizen blogger, a far worse crime.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that on this issue, Julia Gillard is arguably one rung higher from the bottom of the rancid sewer that is politicians’ “integrity”, than Barry O’Farrell, Campbell Newman, and any other politician who has deceitfully gained political capital by falsely presenting themselves as an opponent of and a fighter against the banksters’ CO2 derivatives scam.
UPDATE:
Speaking of constitutional expert Greg Craven, here’s an excerpt from a column he has written for The Australian today -
“MEAN” is never a good word. There are mean dogs, mean great-aunts and mean parking inspectors. They all bite professionally, and enjoy their work.
Take X-rated state election results. Kristina Keneally was the bad premier of a bad government, but the last act of public vengeance rivalling her defeat was the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Anna Bligh was the fairish premier of a decrepit government, but she copped worse.
Federally, in terms of a normal electoral cycle, the Gillard government should now be contemplating whether a third term will be merely tough or downright heroic. Instead, ministers stockpile cyanide pills along with press releases.
It is easy to dismiss all this as the result of poor leadership, bad policy and weak personal hygiene. But the reality is that Australian politicians everywhere are now faced with a terminally jaded electorate, less inclined to pass judgment than automatic sentence of death…
#^&%(^$! oath.
UPDATE:
By Abbott’s own words, Liberal Party premier of NSW Barry O’Farrell and Liberal party premier of QLD Campbell Newman stand condemned.
Former chairman of the Future Fund, David Murray, ruffled lots of establishment feathers during his tenure, particularly for his scathing criticism of the Warmageddonist movement.
Now, he has shown up the Greens – and, the entire lamestream economics and political media contingent – with his astute comments about the real reason why the government must balance the nation’s books.
From the Australian (emphasis added):
FORMER Future Fund chairman David Murray has accused the Greens of making “ill-advised” demands on the federal budget, declaring the priority should be to protect the government’s credit rating as the global financial system remains under strain…
Mr Murray, former chairman of the nation’s $73 billion sovereign wealth fund and a former Commonwealth Bank chief executive, said he was concerned about the Greens’ suggestions that curbing government spending was not important, given the woes in the global economy and the size of the blow-out in the budget at the peak of the global financial crisis.
“That’s the higher risk that has to be managed at the moment. We don’t control what happens in the rest of the world. You need the commonwealth rating as a backstop because of what’s going on elsewhere in the world. You can’t put that at risk. To do that you have to achieve a budget that is cash-neutral at least, so that the debt stabilises and within that cash neutral position you can pay interest.”
Exactly right.
As we have seen here at barnabyisright.com for many months now, the government (and the economy) are now trapped by the errors and abject stupidity of the past.
The credit ratings agencies have put our government on notice that the credit rating of the government – and more importantly, of the banking system – is contingent on the government showing a credible path back to balanced budgets. Why? Because in the GFC, the government explicitly and implicitly guaranteed our hugely overleveraged, foreign-debt dependent, housing market exposed banking system, using the sovereign balance sheet. If the government can not promptly curb its ever-rising debt and deficits, then the government guarantee propping up the banks will lose credibility.
On the other hand, if the government does attempt to achieve an actual surplus in 2012-13, and not just a forecast for one on May 8th, that spells disaster for the economy too.
Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. ‘Do you wish to buy any baskets?’ he asked. ‘No, we do not want any,’ was the reply. ‘What!’ exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, ‘do you mean to starve us?’ Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off – that the lawyer only had to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and standing followed – he had said to himself: I will go into business; I will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would be the white man’s to buy them. He had not discovered that it was necessary for him to make it worth the other’s while to buy them, or at least to make him think that it was so, or to make something else which it would be worth his while to buy. I too had woven a kind of basket of a delicate texture, but I had not made it worth any one’s while to buy them. Yet not the less, in my case, did I think it worth my while to weave them, and instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them. The life which men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others?
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden; or, A Life in the Woods (1854)
Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 16 April 2012:
Dodgy modelling on Murray-Darling plan means consultation falls short
New economic modelling on the Murray-Darling Basin plan shows that the government has failed to consider the economic and social impacts of its draft basin plan. The government must immediately commission new economic research which covers the entire Murray-Darling Basin.
The modelling by Chris Murphy, of Independent Economics, shows that the draft basin plan could lead to the loss of 2100 jobs and a 9 per cent reduction in economic activity in just five towns around Griffith.*
“Chris Murphy is one of Australia’s leading economic modellers. His work shows that the economic impact of the draft could be up to 10 times worse than what the government has admitted to date” said Senator Joyce today.
“The government’s economic modelling of the Basin Plan is a complete farce. It assumes that no irrigator will leave the region after water is bought back from a community. The reality is that Bilbo Baggins gets his cheque and retires to the Gold Coast. I raised this issue with the government almost two years ago in Senate estimates and they have completely ignored it.**
Chris Murphy’s model allows people to move away from irrigation and he shows convincingly that this reason alone makes the difference between his results and the governments.
“With work this dodgy it’s no wonder Tony Burke has yet to get the support of one State Government for the Draft Basin Plan.
“The government can’t reject the findings of this modelling because it has been partly funded by the government through its Strengthening Basin Communities program and Regional Development Australia funding. Unfortunately the funding has only been able to pay for modelling in one of the 21 catchments in the Basin.
“The government must immediately fund more economic modelling for the entirety of the Basin. Without it there can be no guarantee that we will deliver a triple-bottom line outcome.”
** Senator JOYCE—If it is a general equilibrium model, my understanding would be, for example: say I buy a place in Leeton—a town that you did not visit—and the money just goes to everybody in the town, not to the person you actually bought the licence from.
Mr Gooday—You are getting at the way in which we distributed the proceeds of the sale of the licences back into the regional economies. The way we modelled it is what you described. For a region that sold, say, $10 million worth of water entitlements, the modelling was done by putting $10 million back into the region by spreading it across each industry. We recognise in the report that that is probably not the ideal way to do it, but the general equilibrium model does not distinguish between farm households and irrigation households. So we were not able to do it the other way.
Senator JOYCE—It is not even vaguely close to what happens. What happens with the general equilibrium model is: Bilbo Baggins gets $5 million for his water licence and he goes and retires on the coast. He does not go back into town and buy battered savs off the local servo.
Mr Gooday—Yes. And we understand that. I think the real point here is the level at which the general equilibrium model is constructed. It really does not matter how we give the money back. It does not make any great difference to the results, because the regions are rather large, and each of these seven regions contains—
… Senator JOYCE—This really brings us to the issue. Given the limitations of this study which we have just spelt out—and that has been in 10 or 15 minutes—in your view, does the study’s conclusion support the minister’s view that the report, and I quote:
… confirms that the Rudd Government’s long-term Water for the Future plan is supporting the future viability of our Basin communities and returning the rivers to health …
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has urged workers to “rise up” against Labor in protest at the carbon tax, which will come into effect on July 1.
Visiting a Melbourne bed-making factory on Monday, Mr Abbott said the carbon tax would act like a “reverse tariff” affecting Australian manufacturing while benefiting overseas competitors.
He said Labor purported to represent workers but was attacking their jobs.
“The carbon tax will go like a wrecking ball through the Australian economy,” Mr Abbott told reporters in Deer Park.
THE passage of the carbon tax has received a boost, with legal advice to NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell suggesting that a High Court challenge to block the tax would fail.
On Friday, Mr O’Farrell said NSW would consider joining a potential bid by Queensland to block the July 1 implementation of the carbon tax in the courts.
But The Sun-Herald understands Mr O’Farrell has already abandoned any thought of leading an assault on the Gillard government. Sources confirmed advice had come back that a legal challenge would be likely to fail in proving the carbon tax was unconstitutional.
So, advice that you are “likely” to fail is sufficient reason to not fulfill your pre-election promise, hey Bazza? Sounds like a convenient excuse from a twisting and turning liar to me.
The reluctance of NSW to challenge the controversial tax is likely to slow momentum for a High Court bid. Victoria, like NSW, has said it would consider joining a Queensland bid.
The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, has stated publicly that his advice is that a bid would fail. The Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, said he would not act without at least one other state with him in alliance.
The fix is in.
Unsurprising. And just what this blogger predicted.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Comments