There’s a little faux furore doing the rounds in the last 24 hours.
Allegedly, that awful Tony Abbott doesn’t trust economists.
In particular, he does not trust their judgement over their “popular” position on the proposed carbon “X”.
From The Australian:
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott defies economists on carbon tax
Tony Abbott today slapped down economists who were backing a price on carbon to deal with climate change, accusing the numbers men of getting it wrong.
The Opposition Leader urged economists vocally calling for a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme to examine their thinking.
Speaking at the The Australian-Melbourne Institute Growth Challenge conference in Melbourne, Mr Abbott said economists should not be taken in by Labor’s use of the term “market-based mechanisms’’.
“It may well be, as you say, that most Australian economists think that the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is the way to go,’’ he said.
Indeed.
Consider.
Not one of these economists who are calling for a carbon “X”, saw the GFC coming.
Not one.
Australians lost billions from their retirement savings.
Our country was plunged, unprepared, into a massive Labor and greenie-Ken Henry-inspired monster debt-a-thon.
Why?
Because NOT ONE of these #JAFA’s saw the GFC coming.
Including the latest #JAFA economist to be given charge over the Australian economy – and your future – the new Treasury Secretary, former student of “Helicopter Ben” Bernanke, Martin Mini-me Parkinson.
Only one (1) Australian economist did see it coming.
Dr Steve Keen –
And only twelve other economists, worldwide, along with him.
Proof?
Here’s a paper referencing the thirteen international economists who all predicted and forewarned of the GFC for years in advance, and propounded cogent analyses as to why a GFC was coming. Including Australia’s own Dr Steve Keen, who won an award voted on by his international economic peers for having done so:
This paper presents evidence that accounting (or flow-of-fund) macroeconomic models helped anticipate the credit crisis and economic recession. Equilibrium models ubiquitous in mainstream policy and research did not.
Note that well.
It was only those rare economists who shun the kind of modelling that is “ubiquitous in mainstream policy”, and instead use “accounting” models, that got it right.
In other words, it was only the few economists worldwide who think like accountants, who were able to see the GFC coming.
Is it any wonder then, that our much-ridiculed accountant in the Parliament, Senator Barnaby Joyce, is always the only one on the ball when it comes to correctly predicting the risks of what is coming?
REMEMBER back in 2009 when Barnaby Joyce pondered aloud the possibility of the US defaulting on its debt?
Just to recap in the concisest way, things went badly for Joyce. We found ourselves pondering this yesterday as we listened to the dulcet tones of the ABC’s Eleanor Hall on The World Today: “. . . the [US] Treasury has warned that Congress has only until August 2 to come up with a compromise to lift the $US14 trillion debt ceiling or risk a default and a default would have drastic consequences, not just for the US but for the global economy”.
Is the time approaching where Joyce must be acknowledged as a clear-eyed prophet?
Strewth found him in a reflective mood.
“Alas, Cassandras are rarely enjoyable company in any party. It was hardly the greatest feat of the prefrontal cortex amygdala [utilised for intuition, he explains] to foresee that one, but politically it had to wait for the economic karaoke to bravely sing all together prompted by the big bouncing cheque.”
Amen.
But wait, dear reader.
There’s another outstanding reason why no sane person should trust the “leading” “mainstream” economists’ opinions about “pricing carbon”.
The majority of these economists you are hearing from on the subject, have a massive conflict-of-interest.
They are owned.
By banks.
Take a look at this little online stoush that I had right here on barnabyisright.com, with “leading” #JAFA economist Saul Eslake.
He objected to my portrayal of his and his fellow dozen economists’ Open Letter in support of “pricing carbon”, as being a Banksters’ Glee Club.
Then under return fire, he foolishly conceded that, as far as he knows, 77% of those economists (including himself) are current and/or former employees of banks.
Mr Eslake himself being former chief economist of the ANZ Bank, and now employed by BHP Billiton (who stand to make a killing from “pricing carbon” – really!), and the Australian Government via the “independent” Grattan Institute.
Quelle surprise!
By Saul’s Own Words They Stand Condemned.
The sector of the economy that stands to benefit the most from “pricing carbon”, is the financial sector.
Banks.
And banksters.
And their many minions.
Including Malcolm Turnbull, whose balls are owned by international carbon-trading-pushers Goldman Sachs, after their “confidential settlement” to keep him out of court in the half a billion dollar lawsuit over the HIH collapse, in which Mr Turnbull was a named defendant.
Tony Abbott – who has an economics degree himself – is actually demonstrating both brains and balls, by defying the “mainstream wisdom” of economists over the carbon “X”.
No sane person should trust economists at all after the GFC.
And especially, no sane person should ever trust those “leading” mainstream economists who are now out there publicly singing for their supper, on behalf of the bankstering industry.
The “Pricing Carbon” Choir.
Barnaby Is Right 
Comments