Surprise, surprise.
A high profile “group of senior economists” – read “corporate shills for the bankstering industry” – have come out in support of their fellow #JAFA Ross Garnaut’s proposal for an “independent” Carbon Bank:
A group of senior economists has written an open letter advocating a price on carbon as an essential reform for the national economy, with an emissions trading scheme the preferred option.
The group of high-profile economists includes Grattan Institute director Saul Eslake, St George chief economist Besa Deda, Citigroup Global Markets’ Paul Brennan and Westpac chief economist Bill Evans.
Saul Eslake is the former chief economist for ANZ Bank.
Macquarie Bank‘s chief economist Richard Gibbs is also mentioned in the above article.
Given that banksters like these stand to make a killing on any carbon “tax” / emissions trading scheme, it’s hardly a surprise at all to see their glee club out on stage singing for their supper.
We can’t allow this to happen.
Handing the money from a “carbon tax” over to an “independent” Carbon Bank guarantees that this country will be bankrupted by the same greedy scum who brought the GFC on the world.
Learn why here – “Our ‘Squeeze Pop’ Carbon Bank” – and here – “Unelected, Unaccountable JAFA Garnaut Calls For Unelected, Unaccountable, Unholy Trinity Of Carbon Gods”.
UPDATE:
Saul Eslake takes issue, in Comments below.
Barnaby Is Right 
Macquarie bank especially is big in government bonds. I presume a carbon bank would have as its ‘capital’ those same government bonds. Any new scam to leverage government bonds further will potentially drive interest rates lower thus generating profits for the bank (bond prices rise as interest rates fall).
Of course this only inflates the government bond market into an even bigger bubble than at present. Nevertheless, it is possible that this is the real reason why it is being pushed so hard. Government debt is way past being payable. The bubble is the only thing keeping it afloat (with thanks to The Onion).
Oh what a cheap shot. I don’t work for a bank any more, and neither do two of the other signatories; while three others have, as far as I know, never worked for a bank. And while it is true that banks might make money from an emissions trading scheme, they could just as likely lose (as many banks have done from trading other ‘derivatives’. However there’s no way that banks would make any money out of a carbon tax. Moreover, none of the signatories of this open letter are likely to derive much if any benefit from whatever ‘compensation’ arrangements accompany whatever means is eventually adopted to put a price on carbon emissions.
So you are way, way off beam in accusing any of us of being motivated by self-interest – which is a typical accusation made by those who can’t be bothered debating the issue itself. Playing the man, not the ball, as we say in the southern states
>”…while it is true that banks might make money from an emissions trading scheme”
Weasel words, Mr Eslake. Will you come out and categorically deny that banks stand to make profits from an ETS?
I thought not.
>”…they could just as likely lose (as many banks have done from trading other ‘derivatives’.”
Indeed. And what does recent history show us all very clearly about who picks up the cost when (“if”, to use your weasel words) those banks do “just as likely lose” from their trading on the back of a CO2 scheme?
That’s right. The taxpayer.
Which is precisely the point that has been elaborated at length on this blog in numerous other (linked) posts regarding our Too Big Too Fail, government (ie taxpayer)-supported, $15 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet “Business”, derivative-laden banks.
>”However there’s no way that banks would make any money out of a carbon tax.”
More lies and deceptions, Mr Eslake.
What the government is proposing, and you and your tea-leaf reading cronies (who couldn’t predict the GFC) are publicly supporting, is not a “carbon tax” at all. And you well know it.
It is a “fixed price” Emissions Trading Scheme. From the government’s own Climate Change website:
So by pointing to the term “carbon tax” and claiming that banks won’t make any profit from one, you are either (a) ignorant of what is being proposed, in which case your Open Letter is farcical and demonstrative of gross incompetence on your part, or (b) you are deliberately engaging in deceit.
Moreover, as I have correctly pointed out, your fellow tea-leaf reader Mr Garnaut and your fellow banking sector cronies are also advocating for an “independent” Carbon Bank – run by unelected, unaccountable #JAFA‘s like yourself, of course – to “administer” the billions in carbon “tax” revenues. Fundamental to that proposal is the “suggestion” that this “independent” body be empowered to borrow against future government CT revenue.
So in other words, what you are publicly advocating is a grand scheme that rips billions of dollars out of the pockets of consumers – as Garnaut himself concedes will “ultimately” be the case – and puts the taxpayer’s future earnings on the hook for any losses the “carbon bank” “may” (your weasel words) incur.
>”Moreover, none of the signatories of this open letter are likely to derive much if any benefit …”
It’s a weasel word festival with you guys, isn’t it Mr Eslake.
Would you care to publicly and categorically state that (a) you, and/or (b) each one of your fellow signatories to your Open letter, will NEVER receive ANY personal financial benefit, either directly OR indirectly, from the introduction by government of the proposed scheme for “pricing carbon”?
[… crickets…] or
[… more weasel words, obfuscations, misdirections, deceit…]
That is a dishonest answer Saul.
Give me an example of a bank that has NOT made or lost money in an ETS.
Why are we jeopardising our jobs, our economy, our skills?
You have lost my respect……
On a different note, you are also ratifying that it is okay for our senior pollies like juLIAR to lie!!
Two things stand out about ‘the blissful ignoramus” response to my post.
First, like zealots in any cause, anyone who’s view of the matter under consideration differs from his is, by definition, either ‘a liar’ or beholden to some vested interest (or both). It’s much easier to cast aspersions like those (and perhaps, like other forms of self-amusement, more satisfying to those of that mind-set) than actually debating the issues themselves. It’s easier to argue by re-iterative assertion (Tis, Tis2, Tis 3 ….. Tis N+1, where N is the number of times someone else says tisn’t) than to engage with facts or arguments.
Second, those who chose to hurl personal abuse from behind the pusillanimous veil of anonymity, like “the Blissful Ignoramus” can make assertions, whether well-founded or not, about other people’s perceived motivations without risking the same blow-torch being applied to their own bellies.
People here and elsewhere can easily ascertain who I work for, who I’ve worked for in the past, and make whatever connections they choose between that record and what I say. But who is “Blissful Ignoramus”? Where does he derive his income? What commercial or other interests does he have? To what organizations or entities does he now, or has he ever, owed allegiance? Well, none of us can tell. Much easier to hurl abuse at those who do have the intestidunial fortitude to attach their names to what they say.
Easy to tweet that I’m a “liar” – simply because my view is different from yours – free of the risk of being sued, because you don’t have the balls to identify yourself.
To reiterate, I am no longer an employee of a bank. I am not a spokesman for any bank, or financial interest. Indeed, even when I was employed by a bank, it was never my responsibility to speak for the bank’s commercial interests – and indeed i was sometimes criticized internally for not having sufficient regard to that bank’s commercial interests in some of the things that I said.
I can’t speak for the other signatories to that letter. But I can say, categorically, that I can think of no way in which I will personally benefit from the introduction of a carbon tax or ETS. (Hydro Tasmania, of which I am a non-executive director, thinks it will benefit from the introduction of a carbon price or ETS; but the remuneration I derive from that position is entirely unaffected by Hydro Tasmania’s financial results).
Indeed I will probably be financially worse off from the introduction of a carbon price, because (not being a low-income earner), I probably won’t be fully compensated for the impact of a carbon tax on my own household spending. However, my views on particular public policy proposals aren’t dictated solely by the impact of those proposals on my personal offences. I’m not sure “the blissful igoramus”, whoever he is, could truthfully make the same claim.
Thank you for your further response, Mr Eslake. I will respond in full to your comments in a new blog post.
Meanwhile, I note for interest that, as a self-employed small (micro) businessman presently earning less than the median annual income, I presumably would be temporarily “compensated” for the impact of a CO2 “pricing mechanism”. Nevertheless, this in no way alters my view that a CO2 “pricing scheme” is an abhorrent public policy proposal with no redeeming features whatsoever – unless one is directly or indirectly connected with the financial sector – and is one that will unquestionably damage average Australians such as myself, and the nation as a whole, and demonstrably for zero “environmental” benefit vis-a-vis the deceitfully purported global temperature impact.
I look forward to your further (hypocritical) retaliation/s.
So ”the blissful ignoramus” ”looks forward to my (hypocritical) retaliation/s”
Well I ”look forward” – not with any expectation of it being realized – to ”the blissful ignoramus” being able to make a point without resorting to unwarranted persinal abuse, and to his having the cojones to come out from behind his gutless shield if a pseudonym.
Somehow, I think I’ve got a better chance of seeing a Tasmanian team plauing in the AFL.
Thank you again for your further comments Mr Eslake.
I will (respectfully) assume from the gross degeneration in your spelling and grammar as evidenced here – in combination with your seemingly inflamed ad-hominem attempts at provoking this lowly and inconsequential blogger – that you might be well-served to have a cup of tea, a Bex, and a good lie down.
Alternately, I would respectfully encourage you to seriously examine your conscience, with respect to your public support for a carbon pricing scheme.
You may do well to consider very, very carefully the consequences of said support, when this bankster-driven scheme all turns to cr@p, leaving the (angry) Australian taxpayer on the hook to bail out (a) the “Carbon bank”, and/or (b) the retail banking sector.
You’re evidently getting under someones skin Mr B Ignoramus. You might even be making an impact!
And something else you might want to follow up on. Heard for the first time tonight on ABC radio the words, “escalating debt crisis” & apparently the Treasury secretary having to deny such a thing, which of course means it is coming closer every day. And sorry folks, the gold is gone, there is no more.
“JMD” (another pseudonym), don’t flatter yourself, or “Blissful Ignoramus” too much. I’ve got a thick skin, and neither of you is getting under it.
The “degeneration”, as Mr “BI” calls it, in the “spelling and grammar” of my last post was solely the result of typing it out on my mobile phone whilst getting off a plane, not because of any requirement on my part for herbal, medicinal or therapeutic remedies.
It may have escaped the attention of “the BI”, “JMD”, “Roy” and others, that nowhere have I ever questioned their motives in objecting to any form of carbon tax or pricing, or their right to oppose it. I haven’t accused them, or any other opponents of pricing or taxing carbon emissions, or any who might be skeptical of the “science” (or whatever they choose to call it) behind the proposition that a price or tax should be put on carbon emissions, of being liars, hypocrites, deceivers, or acting solely out of the prospect of personal gain or fear of personal loss.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re all entitled to hold, and express, whatever views you wish on those and other questions, without being labelled liars, hypocrites, ignorant, or apologists for some powerful or vested interest.
However, I’d have more respect for you and your positions (as distinct from respecting your right to hold them), if (a) you could express them without accusing everyone who holds a different view from yours of being liars, hypocrites, deceivers, or motivated solely by the prospect of personal gain or the interests of their employers; and (b) you were prepared to be identified, so that others can make the same judgements about the extent to which your opinions might be influenced by your financial and other interests as you lot so readily (and in many cases entirely erroneously) have done with those economists who signed the open letter published in today’s Australian.
And that’s the last I intend saying here about the matter – other than to acknowledge, with thanks, that Mr “BI” has at least allowed me to post on this site without editing or amending what I’ve written.
Your skin is not very thick at all Mr Estlake. I don’t care if you want a ‘carbon tax’ but it’s a scam through & through, yet another in a long line to monetise something that has no utility & thus no real value, much like a government bond.
Of course the monetisers, the financial institutions, are going to profit from the deal. With the backing of the government they ‘monetise’ the worthless ‘carbon commodity’, it becomes a marketable instrument. They wouldn’t be falling over themselves to support it otherwise, money is the one thing you can’t have enough of.
Don’t think everyone outside the ‘high finance’ sphere is ignorant of the mechanism Mr Estlake.
“JMD”, I have never accused (nor thought) you or anyone else of being “ignorant”. After all, since you don’t identify yourself, how am I to know who you are or what you know? However you obviously are oblivious of the fact that my surname doesn’t have a ‘t’ in it.
Not getting under your skin Mr Estlake? Nor do I care if your surname doesn’t have a T in it. Who I am makes no difference, what I know I have posted above.
The carbon tax is a scam, if you are promoting it, under the guise of some government funded institute what’s more, you are part of the scam.
Gentleman, the fact is that, above the World Bank and IMF, lies the little known Bank of International Settlements (BIS). They instituted the GFC; please don’t buy the spin that some other source was responsible. It’s all to do with bringing down the U.S. dollar and imposing a Global Monetary Fund. Naturally, the Goldman Sachs connection is a heavy one. So, behind the Carbon Dioxide Tax scam is the redistribution of wealth treasonous claptrap we hear so much about. All this manipulation and distortion leads to a banking control over our country’s finances and economic activity which eventually won’t have to consult our government. The dumbing down education and mental health scams are part of this; one way or another we will all be winding up with some mental health diagnosis to condemn our voices any time they choose. Currently, governments use psychiatry, however, in time it will be the other way around. What a world we face unless we start using the correct term “treason” for what is diluting our citizenry power!