An OSCAR For The Clean Energy Future

11 Feb

How appropriate.

The key, mission-critical system used by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for reporting and calculation of “emissions” by the “biggest polluters”, is called OSCAR.

And now, with just over 4 months till the carbon ‘tax’ begins, the “science” is in.

OSCAR is trash.

As indeed was the government’s $20 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign for the carbon “tax”, which according to the Auditor-General:

“.. contained facts which were not properly sourced and seven breaches of financial management regulations.”

Last year, we closely followed the unfolding story … fairytale … of the Green-Labor Clean Energy Future legislation.

Regular readers know that close examination of the legislation, and the government’s ever-changing claims about the number of “biggest polluters”, and the comments from the bankster industry, and the comments from the banksters’ “expert” talking head economists, clearly show what the Clean Energy Future really is.

An unconstitutional, bankster-designed, CO2 derivatives scam.

With a ticking time bomb carefully hidden inside.

They also know that the government released a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). It tacitly conceded that Government emissions audits are nothing more than a propaganda exercise, to maintain “public confidence” in the scheme. Because without public con-fidence that the scheme is actually monitoring emissions accurately, and that companies are actually complying with the scheme, then the whole charade would collapse –

“If there was a perception of widespread non-compliance, community support for the scheme would be much harder to maintain (in the absence of community acceptance and support, the long term future of the scheme could be called into question).”

Indeed, the Government’s RIS actually admitted that “perceptions” of the scheme’s effectiveness are more important than whether or not it actually is effective:

“In closing, it is important to note that, in considering impacts on the credibility of the scheme, perceptions of non-compliance can be more important than the actual level of non-compliance.”

Last week, the Auditor-General released an “independent performance audit” by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), into the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The report is titled “Administration of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme”.

It is a fascinating read.

Now for lazy “give me the headline” readers, you can see the lamestream media’s lazy summary in The Age here – Audit Finds Errors on Emissions.

For more intelligent readers, or for those passionately and sincerely deluded folk who are placing their (blind) faith in the Government’s “carbon tax” to save the world from Warmageddon, you may find the following excerpts discomforting.

A forewarning – there are quite a few excerpts here. The Auditor-General’s report is 124 pages long. I’ve stripped out only the most interesting items, and highlighted them in yellow.

Rest assured, it is well worth your time to go through this. Especially if you wish to have a much clearer understanding of just what a total farce … and money-sucking fraud … the Clean Energy Future regime and its government department actually are.

I’ve done the tedious work.

And to make it a little more entertaining for you, I’ve sprinkled comments throughout.

Enjoy:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

To “encourage” compliance is code for, “Pleeeease go along with our scheme … pretty please?” At least this thinly-veiled begging makes a change from, say, The Goose’s impotent posturing towards the banks.

“Significantly higher” costs for compliance by business, ‘eh?

Hmmmm. How much higher?

Patience, dear reader. Remember, this is just the ‘Summary’ at the beginning. The ugly details come later.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

“Currently, the department does not verify the reported data”.

Ummmm … so it could all be total crap.

Or at the very least, riddled with even more errors than the ANAO audit discovered.

Remember, these (self) reported emissions by the “biggest polluters” are the basic, critical data relied upon by Treasury to “model” the impacts of the carbon “tax”.

How apropos was the title of my July 2011 blog post just days before the announcement of the draft legislation – A Disturbance In The Farce

Click to enlarge

Hmmmmm.

Just how big is a “significant error”?

Naturally, we have to look in the fine print for that:

Click to enlarge

So in the Clean Energy Future, a “biggest polluter” has only made a “significant error” if it is “greater than 40%” of the total annual emissions that qualified you as being a “biggest polluter” in the first place.

Would that we all could cruise through life with such a generous standard for (in)accuracy in our work.

Click to enlarge

She’ll be right mate. We’ll get around to submitting a report of our self-assessed “emissions” … eventually.

Click to enlarge

Hark!

Hear that sound?

That’s the sound of Treasury’s “modelling” on the impacts of the carbon “tax” losing any remaining vestige of credibility.

It’s also the sound of your wallet getting emptied at an even faster rate than you thought, as corporations pass on “significantly higher” costs than Treasury had “modelled”.

Click to enlarge

Great big new “tax”.

No tangible benefit.

Quelle surprise!

Click to enlarge

Funny how there is such a lack of “progress” under a new global tax regime being instituted by … progressives.

Ok, that’s enough from the “Summary”. Yes, all 31 pages of the “Summary”.

It’s probably more than enough for anyone with an IQ above room temperature to get the picture.

That even according to the Auditor-General, the government’s scheme for monitoring and reporting the emissions of the “biggest polluters” is a farce.

But if you want more … and the really good stuff is yet to come, because as every Yes Minister fan knows, the Summary is for the gormless ministers and the media, and you always hide the stuff you don’t want people to know in the endless pages of tedious detail  … then here’s selected excerpts from the remaining 93 pages of detailed subject areas:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And thus, dear reader, we have official confirmation – from the Auditor-General, no less – that your humble blogger was right throughout 2011, in his numerous blogs exposing Gillard’s “1,000 biggest … 500 biggest … more in the order of more like 400” “biggest polluters” lies.

Click to enlarge

Meaning … if you believe in the accuracy of the government’s data, which of course, as we have seen, you can’t … almost half of Australia’s total “emissions” won’t be directly covered.

Hmmmm … bushfire season coming up again.

Pushing on a string, anyone?

Click to enlarge

Sheesh!

$472 grand to tell us that the emissions reporting regime is a farce?

Great use of taxpayer dollars.

I’d have told you that for one one-hundredth of the price.

Indeed, I have been telling you that … for free.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Translation: The technical requirements being asked of corporations in order to report emissions are too bloody difficult.

Doubtless explaining why so many have either (a) failed to report, (b) reported months late, or (c) screwed up their report.

Click to enlarge

Arguably the most amusing quote in the entire audit.

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) actually defines “compliance” with the scheme as the ability to “encourage” corporations to comply. Its own definition recognises that the onus for compliance “rests primarily” with the corporations.

Oh yes, dear reader … I have no doubt whatsoever that corporations are very much “encouraged” to comply with the Clean Energy Future regime … particularly when they can see how impotent and farcical the DCCEE and its systems actually are.

Click to enlarge

“because of resource constraints”.

Public ‘service’ (vomit) code for “give us more money”. Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of this report.

“a fully functional compliance capability is not yet in place”“a critical capability to have in place prior to .. July 2012”

Better get a wriggle on then, fellas. You’ve got about 18 weeks.

Oh that’s right. Silly me.

That’s just the coded threat underlying the appeal for more taxpayer money.

“Quick quick La Gillardine, give us another few billion, or we won’t be ready to ‘encourage’ corporations to ‘comply’ in time.”

Click to enlarge

Just in case you missed our department’s appeal/threat for more funding the first time.

Click to enlarge

Translation: the DCCEE will only tell the responsible Minister what the department heads decide that he “needs to know”.

Don’t believe that’s what they mean?

Click to enlarge

Translation: The DCCEE has not been telling the responsible Minister (Combet) that the department is waaaaaaaaaay behind the eight-ball in implementing the basic (and critical) emissions reporting bureaucracy.

Sir Humphrey Appleby would be so proud of this department.

Click to enlarge

Data integrity is critical.

And yet, how exactly are emissions determined?

Well now, that’s in the fine print, of course:

Click to enlarge

Translation: The corporation tells us how much electricity they used, or generated, and/or how many tonnes of dirt they dug up. And our special black box called OSCAR “automatically calculates” the number of tonnes of “emissions”.

Sounds like a Great Big New FUDGE FACTOR to this humble blogger.

And since the audit also goes on to demonstrate just how appallingly agricultural (pun intended) the OSCAR software system is, one would have to be wilfully ignorant (or a vested interest) to believe that this system will actually generate and report accurate emissions data.

Don’t believe me?

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The “biggest polluters” own record-keeping is not up to par. Indeed, some corporations admit that they are passing this task off to junior staff or “third party providers” (read: the accountant).

But it gets worse, because …

Click to enlarge

… even the DCCEE doesn’t actually know how poor the “biggest polluters” record-keeping is, because the department’s own auditing program still isn’t finished, and so they didn’t have any documentation to show the Auditor-General, aside from their own “guidelines” handed out to corporations!

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Difficult for the construction sector to get the necessary records to report emissions, you say?

Contractors, you say?

I can smell a RORT-A-THON coming on.

Click to enlarge

Independent third party verification of the “biggest polluters” annual reports?

Never mind. We’ll take your word for it.

Click to enlarge

OSCAR, ‘eh?

Given the quality of data going into, and out of this system, one wonders if some nerdish wag in the DCCEE wasn’t thinking of this Oscar when they chose the name:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Someone left the lid off the trash can.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And the trash can is full of holes.

So, what do we do when the trash is leaking out of the trash can?

Why but of course … we stuff it back in again:

Click to enlarge

How much trash is leaking out … that we know of so far?

Click to enlarge

Oh, only 22% and 9% of total reported emissions for 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Or, about 77 million and 30 million tonnes of CO2-e.

At $23 tonne, that’s only about $1.7 Billion and $900 million dollars worth of “carbon credits” in error.

And let’s not forget the fine print caveat at 101 , telling us that there may yet be a further rise in resubmissions for those years … so, we can’t even rely on the DCCEE regarding error rates!

Billions of dollars for a massive department of sloth and gross ineptitude … money very well spent.

And speaking of costs, now we get to the Auditor-General’s assessment of costs of compliance with the Clean Energy Future scam:

Click to enlarge

Fair enough.

If the actual compliance costs are not similar to those estimated when the legislation was passed through Parliament, then “Houston, we have a problem.”

And indeed, we most definitely do.

For those readers who have not yet been enlightened to the woeful record of Treasury “modelling” (see Why Would Any Sane Person Believe Treasury’s Carbon Tax Modelling When Its Budget Forecasting Record Is This Bad? ), then now might be a good time to close your eyes:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And of course, as always, it’s vital to check the fine print:

Click to enlarge

Translation: we did our best to make the cost of compliance for corporations appear as low as possible, by ignoring the “outliers”. But sadly, we couldn’t fudge the headline “result” any more than this.

And the reason why the costs for corporations is so high, is because complying with the reporting requirements is a major pain in the arse:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Thank you, Mr Auditor-General.

That’s another $472K of borrowed money well spent by the government.

To check up on the (lack of) progress of … the government.

I wonder just how much more money the DCCEE will insist that they “need”, in order to get their “self-assessment” emissions reporting system ready by July 1st?

And I wonder how long it will take the government’s propaganda unit to prepare their next “education” campaign, to ensure that those oh so critical “perceptions of compliance” in the community are favourable?

After all, if we the people begin to have doubts that “big polluters” are fully complying with the scheme, then the “long term future of the scheme could be called into question”.

Wouldn’t that be terrible.

As the inimitable Senator Joyce said recently:

“The carbon tax is the biggest scam since … a pyramid scheme that if I mention its name I’ll get a suit”

Barnaby is right.

 

Advertisements

33 Responses to “An OSCAR For The Clean Energy Future”

  1. Oliver K. Manuel February 11, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    CORRECTED:

    I urge you and your readers to study the Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 6 on “The Royal Society and Climate Change.” It is available free here:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf

    Today Professor Judith Curry leads a discussion on the unfolding drama as evidence accumulates of almost total degradation of once proud national scientific institutions in members of the formerly “Free West” group of nations.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/10/nullius-in-verba/

    Also today the co-founders and national coordinators of the Tea Party Patriots, Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin, announced the release of a new book, “Tea Party Patriots: The Second American Revolution.”

    From my perspective, citizens of all member nations of the formerly “Free West” should join together in a “Revolution to Restore Public Control of Government.”

    Here is my video summary of the mutual corruption of science and politics in the formerly “Free West” group of nations (1961-2011):

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Study
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  2. Kevin Moore February 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm #

    The seeming stupidity of Governments schemes was foretold over 30 years ago as being part of the agenda to hasten the introduction of the New World Order –

    http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/01/31/proof-that-the-new-world-order-has-been-planned-by-the-global-elite-video-going-viral/

  3. JMD February 11, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    So you’re saying carbon credits are the new junk bonds?

    I’m shocked…. well, actually, not that shocked. They can’t be any worse than the $ itself.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus February 11, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

      At least issuance of the “$” is … sort of … tracked and reported.

      Carbon “derivatives” based on those underlying “carbon credits” won’t be. The banksters’ specifically made sure of that, in two little clauses hidden away amongst the 1,100 pages of the legislation.

      • JMD February 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

        Tracked & reported maybe, doesn’t mean they are quality financial instruments though. The $ is actually of extremely poor quality, thus worth little if anything. One day people will find this out…. the hard way.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus February 11, 2012 at 10:16 pm #

          Oh yes, absolute rubbish. I was just taking opportunity to flag that the carbon “tax” scheme is really about the “derivatives” thus giving excuse to link to my Nov 1 exposé 😉

  4. JMD February 11, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

    Sorry to hijack the thread here TBI but something I heard on ABC radio today got me hot under the collar & Andrew Bolt doesn’t publish my comments.

    There were some bomb blasts in the Syrian city of Aleppo last night, apparently targeting police or military facilities. The ABC reported that these attacks were not in the ‘style’ (that exact word was used) of the opposition, thus it was likely the government blowing up its own facilities as some kind of stunt justify oppression of the opposition. Some unknown opposition figure was broadcast saying as much.

    This is incredibly blatant propaganda. It is absurd to think that Syrian government would start killing its own people for nefarious purposes, they know western powers are out to get them & there is nothing they can do to change this.

    Such blatant propaganda, Goebbels would be proud. What other garbage might they be reporting – global warming? carbon emissions schemes? budget surpluses? the credit of the government is good?

    • The Blissful Ignoramus February 11, 2012 at 10:14 pm #

      Sounds as though we are of like mind on the ME “uprisings”, JMD. And the coming war on Iran too, no doubt?

      The media are a total disgrace. I don’t believe a word of what spews out of the TV/radio … indeed, I take everything that is said by the msm and politicians as a likely contrarian indicator – “What is the 180* opposite of what they’re saying? Ok, then THAT is probably the real truth”.

      • JMD February 11, 2012 at 11:25 pm #

        Certainly seems as if Iran can do nothing right. Damned if they do make nuclear bombs, damned if they don’t.

        This is an interesting site, if you haven’t already come across it – http://www.presstv.ir/

        It comes out of Iran & I’m not saying everything they report is true but interesting nonetheless. For one thing, I didn’t know Iran was launching its own satellites.

        Another factoid re. Syria, I heard that the Syrian & the Russian embassies in Libya had been attacked in some fashion. As if after all they have been through in the last 12 months, your average Libyan could give a shit about events in Syria.

        The propaganda & the modus operandi of these people is so unbelievably blatant, yet –

        Find a face… make up a crime… run sensational headlines…

        Works every time!

  5. Kevin Moore February 12, 2012 at 4:02 am #

    JMD

    Believe it or not ‘Russia Today’ is 200% better than your ABC.

    http://rt.com/

  6. Jazza February 12, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    Well, well, who is surprised this government has again stuffed up a policy and it s bloated servant pool reeks of go slow and incompetence?

    I’d be surprised however, if anyone in government outside the Cabinet had even read what you have just dissected!

    Have you dissected the mining tax as thoroughly, or will you, please?

    Hm, 100 corporations=90%tax payees.

    50% Australia’s Co2 emissions captured by the CO2 tax–Juliar, what was your goal again?

    And just what happens after July 1 when this hornet’s nest of problems comes into operation,with businesses having to pay and get their checks done later–there will be some skin flying!

    It’s no wonder the flimflam man coughed up to the Bolta that it would take maybe a 1000 years for any temperature difference to be measurable.

    Wake up Labor and Greens voters, you are being constantly HAD and dragging the rest of us along with you down the plughole!

  7. Oliver K. Manuel February 12, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    I appreciate the wide diversity of opinions here.

  8. Richo February 13, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

    Top work blissful. After reading the first paragraph I could no get the Benny Hill theme music out of my head.

  9. JMD February 13, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    You can’t miss this one TBI, incredible stuff, a picture tells a thousand words.

    http://greshams-law.com/2012/02/13/charting-the-federal-reserves-assets-from-1915-to-2012/

    The intro is also a killer, keep in mind the value of a central bankers obligation i.e. the $, is given by the quality of its assets.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus February 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

      “..a picture tells a thousand words”

      Indeed it does. Thanks JMD .. and yes, the intro really nails the situation.

  10. kelly liddle February 13, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    So basically the trick is to massively over report now if you will be a compensated industry and magically cut your emissions with the real figures starting on July 1. Oh maybe I am just a bit cynical a corporation would never do that.

  11. Twodogs February 14, 2012 at 9:13 am #

    They could have at least been a little imaginative and titled it “omissions on emissions”. Alas, it would probably only served to confuse their readership…

  12. JMD February 14, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    Uh oh, I didn’t read the story but it looks like Robert Gobbliebsen is angling to devalue your bank account, could be be good for carbon credits though, front running the RBA could be a play –

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Swan-interest-rates-RBA-banks-job-cuts-AUD-pd20120214-RFSBN?OpenDocument&src=sph

    He may have read this article the other day –

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-07/australia-to-welcome-growth-girl-to-rba-after-holding-fire-on-rate-cut.html

    Look out, those with their hands on, or think their hands are on, the levers wish to rob you blind.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus February 14, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

      Gotti started banging on with his BS “solution” – Fed Govt to increase borrowing and give it (!!) to the banks to weaken the AUD and lower banks’ cost of funding – last Friday when ANZ upped rates. Readers crucified him in comments. Despite this, in subsequent columns he’s kept banging the same drum, while demonstrating appalling disingenuousness in his dishonest descriptions of reader “conversation”.

      The general public .. well, his readers anyway .. are by and large a LOT wiser and more farsighted re consequences than the “experts” such as Gotti. Quelle surprise!

      I’m quite concerned by this sort of talk starting up JMD; it’s a dangerous sign. For at least a month I’ve been banging the drum (behind the scenes) trying to get someone of influence to take up this high AUD issue because it was patently obvious to me where things are going. NOT pleased at all with this garbage, and concerningly, he insinuates that Cabinet is meeting to discuss the issue viz his “solution”. True? Who knows. But folks like us who know better, and know where this path leads, need to start bending people’s ears. Hard!

      • JMD February 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

        Cabinet is meeting to discuss an outright devaluation!? That would be along the lines of the Swiss government a couple of months ago, pegging the Franc to the rapidly depreciating Euro.

        This is of course nothing new, it was the norm during the Great Depression & ever since.

        Now is a good time to stock up on gold, while the AUD price is well off its highs.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus February 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

          No, I think that Gotti is insinuating (or, just falsely talking up his own importance?) that Cabinet is meeting to discuss the Gov increasing its borrowing, and giving the money to the banks. His argument is that since the Govt is selling bonds at a lower rate than banks can get wholesale funding, doing this would (a) weaken the AUD, and (b) give the banks lower cost funding, so they have no excuse not to follow RBA cash rate moves. My understanding (wrong?) is that the Swiss central bank had been fighting the big Euro “hot money” flows into the CHF by selling the Swissie, but finally in September bit the bullet and set a peg instead. Like China has for so long, as I understand things. Edit: perhaps I’m missing something in my understanding of how a peg is implemented?

          As a side note, that’s where the scandal came from re the head of the Swiss central bank – his wife allegedly FX traded on the inside knowledge from hubby that the currency peg was coming.

          Gotti’s idea is dangerously idiotic. Apart from anything else, the instant the markets got wind that this was what they were doing, the Gov bond yield would rise and eliminate the current modest margin difference between Gov bonds and wholesale funding that Gotti somehow imagines the Govt can use to achieve those twin goals (weaker AUD, lower bank funding costs thence interest rates to customers). He’s either senile, or delusional. In either case, problem is he has an audience.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus February 14, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

          At my private urging (many thanks Chris and David, if you read this), MacroBusiness have taken up the baton re Gotti’s dangerous nonsense.

        • JMD February 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

          The central bank bidding for commercial bank debt would compress the ‘spread’ between government & commercial bank debt. It would lower the cost of funds for the commercial banks but wouldn’t weaken the AUD v the USD, the government is selling billions worth of bonds now.

          In fact the AUD tends to rise v the USD as money market spreads compress.

          These scheme would devalue the AUD, not in USD terms, rather in terms of ounces of gold. Like I said, now is a good time to stock up on gold. It would also be good for money markets in general, including the ASX.

          • The Blissful Ignoramus February 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

            I do not think Gotti’s idea was for the RBA to directly bid on commercial bank debt. Rather, his idea was for the Fed Gov to sell more Govt Bonds than they have been (and therein the dumb assumption that Govt bonds would continue to attract bids at the same yields as at present; this the gaping flaw in Gotti’s logic, IMO), and then, the Gov (via AOFM presumably) would lend the proceeds of those extra Gov Bond sales to the banks at (eg) 1% below current commercial banks’ wholesale funding costs. His theory being that the selling of more Govt bonds would weaken the AUD, and then, the on-lending of the proceeds of said extra Gov bond sales to the banks at less than their current cost of wholesale funding, would place the banks in position where they “had” to adjust interest rates with the RBA. Doubtless he also envisages the government placing conditions on the banks’ getting that reduced-cost funding – indeed, Gotti specifically spells out that likelihood. A “deal” that would be absolutely ripe for corrupt back room deal making between politicians and bank(st)ers.

            In a nutshell, even though you’re seeing the mechanism somewhat differently than what Gotti outlined, the outcome you’ve described re the spread between gov and (wholesale) debt getting compressed is precisely the flaw I’m pointing to – the market would very quickly see what was happening, and simply demand higher yields on Gov bonds, thus quickly compressing the spread and eliminating a big chunk of the benefit that Gotti imagines. And you’d be left with nothing except AUD devaluation shafting savers (and the Fed Gov AAA-credit rating directly used to prop the banksters’ profits). So yes, it might be time to back up the truck if this idiocy grows legs.

            • JMD February 14, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

              I’ll have to disagree somewhat TBI, I doubt the government selling even more bonds than it already is will raise rates (lower prices) of government debt. Remember, the unique thing about money is you can’t possibly have enough of it, simple supply & demand doesn’t apply to money itself. Government bonds trade ‘money good’.

              I believe interest rates are heading lower (bond prices higher), they have to, there is so much junk debt that central banks simply have to bid to keep the debt Ponzi scheme going, it is happening all over the world.

              Rather, commercial bank bond prices will rise, converge if you will, on government debt prices (spread compresses). The ‘moneyness’ of the ‘money’ market will grow. This will reduce the cost of funds for commercial banks but at the cost, as you say, of weakening the credit of the government.

              Gobbli’s (as I like to call him) plan seems to be good old fashioned currency inflation. The savers will get screwed again.

              The real question is when will the market realise that the credit of the government is ALREADY junk, as is the credit of the central bank re. the article I linked to yesterday. The credit of the Federal Reserve Bank has been junk since about 1917. Go figure!

            • The Blissful Ignoramus February 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

              “I believe interest rates are heading lower (bond prices higher), they have to, there is so much junk debt..”

              I agree .. in time. But in the short term, I see a lot of speculative money coming at the AUD due the international carry trade (ie, ZIRP + QE abroad, cash rate >4% here), meaning Gov bond yields are lower than they might otherwise be in the absence of all that speculative, carry trade “demand” for “safe” AAA-rated Gov bonds. But … if the markets twigged that Oz Gov policy was now to directly support our fragile banking sector / toppy housing bubble in this way, then I reckon you’d see a pullback in the carry trade, and yields rise. Long term I think you’re right; short term, I reckon this policy would be rendered useless in one of its major objectives in very short order. We’d be left with all the negatives that you’ve described, and none of the purported benefits.

            • JMD February 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

              Ok, I read the macrobusiness article. Yep, the Gobbler is talking good, old fashioned, inflation.

              It’ll work just fine until it doesn’t.

            • The Blissful Ignoramus February 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

              Yep … a matter of weeks. Possibly days. And then you’d have a Fed Gov who’d lost all credibility .. and probably the AAA rating too.

  13. jollyrojer2012Jolly Rodjer February 28, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    Carbon Tax Scam, Selling Water Scam, both are plans to increase Debt to Bankers, the taxpayer Debt handed to Banks via “government securities” read stealth bailout, just like other big wastefull spending, it is the Banks & multinationals that must be saved especially if they are American example GMC V Kell & Rigby government handouts.
    Our two most valuable resources water & energy are being corrupted, on energy (electrical) the switch over to gas from coal would see carbon reduction well below any need for a carbon reduction tax plan involving solar & wind or other fancifull ideas, likewise the Bradfield water diversion plan would fix much of our water & river problems in eastern australia.
    Why are these two very cheap solutions not considered? with gas we have plenty even a glut yet it is sold off by multinational “developers” overseas even before it is extracted on 25 year contracts, with water we will spend more on sharing puddles than it would cost to relieve annual rainfall and floods in north queensland and spill this water all the way to south Australia flushing the rivers along the way.
    I think I have answered the why in the first sentence, our politicians are bought off, they will make the taxpayer foot the Bankers bill, A Greek or other default could wake us up to this mad ponzi scheme as its fallout spreads from Country to Country & Debt to Debt.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Australia’s clean energy scam « bingbing - February 13, 2012

    […] Read on. Perception is reality, errors abound, and as for the amount of money wasted… eek! […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: