Tag Archives: emissions trading

Bankers’ Chief – Carbon Price Is “Essentially Creating A New Market”

16 Jul

From news.com.au (emphasis added) –

Revealed: The real winners of Gillard’s carbon price plan

Big banks, accountants and lawyers are among the big winners to cash in on the carbon plan, as companies wrestle with reporting requirements arising from the tax.

Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015, and will develop new products to help polluters reduce their carbon exposure.

Australian Bankers’ Association chief executive Steven Munchenberg said the Government’s carbon price was “essentially creating a new market“.

“We would therefore expect to see a range of instruments developed to help companies manage their carbon exposure,” he said.

Indeed.

There you have it.

Straight from the Australian Bankers parasites’ mouthpiece.

The grand Scheme scam to “price carbon” is “essentially” – meaning “in essence” – the creation of a new market.

A bankers’ paradise.

The key thing that bankers’ want – an underlying “market” of carbon permits, on top of which they can then create a whole new carbon “securities” (ie, “derivatives”) casino – is actually built into the Government’s Scheme scam from Day 1 –

Table 6 Compliance

Carbon permits

The domestic unit for compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism will be the ‘carbon permit’.

Each carbon permit will correspond to one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

The creation of equitable interests in carbon permits will be permitted, as will taking security over them.

Confirmed.

The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words. Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.

It’s worth noting that the above article is wrong in one very important detail.

Like all mainstream media, this story incorrectly reports that –

Banks will be involved in trading carbon permits when emissions trading starts in 2015

Au contraire!

As I detailed in “Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – ‘Carbon Permits’ Really Means ‘A Licence To Print'”, banks will be able to benefit from fees and commissions from trading in carbon permits, right from the beginning. Even during the so-called “fixed price period”.

How’s that?

Because … it is only “purchased permits” that are not tradeable in the first 3 years.

Freely allocated permits“, on the other hand, are tradable.

As with the now-notorious European ETS scheme, many of our so-called “500 biggest polluters” – 201 of whom may not even exist – will receive lots of “free permits”.  To “assist” and/or “protect” our “trade-exposed” industries, you see.

And those “freely allocated” permits are tradable:

Scheme architecture

Table 1: Starting price and fixed price period

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued. They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.

What’s more, Brown-Gillard’s grand design also allows “polluters” to sell their “freely allocated” permits back to the Government.

That’s right.

Lucky “polluters” will get lots of free permits, which they can either “surrender” back again to “pay” for their “excess” emissions – which they report themselves(!). Or, trade their free permits (for profit). Or, sell their free permits back to the Government … who will use your money to buy those free permits back again:

Buy‑back of freely allocated permits

The holders of freely allocated permits will be able to sell them to the Government from 1 September of the compliance year in which they were issued until 1 February of the following compliance year.

Moreover, the Government is not only “essentially creating a new market” for banks to profit from fees on the simple trade in the carbon permits themselves.

And create their new galactic-scale carbon “derivatives” market, leveraged on top of the simple trade in permits.

The news gets even better for the bankers.

Because the Government’s scheme scam will also set up an “advance auction” system, during the so-called “fixed price period”, where carbon permits valid for the later “flexible price” system can be purchased in advance.

Which is essentially nothing less than a Futures trading system for the bankers and speculators to exploit:

Auctions of permits

The Government will advance auction future vintage permits. There will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.

It’s easy to see why the banksters’ are pleased right now.

The Government’s scheme allows them to:

1. Begin creating and trading in carbon “securities” (ie, derivatives of carbon permits) from Day 1.

2. Earn fees and commissions from trade in “freely allocated” permits during the “fixed price” period.

3. Earn fees and commissions from Futures trading in the “advance auctions” of “flexible price” permits during the “fixed price” period.

4. Create other derivatives products on top of the Futures trade in advance auctions of permits.

And all this before the all-singing, all-dancing “free market” scheme kicks in three years later.

Any suggestion that this is somehow not a mechanism designed to allow banksters’ to begin creating the Australian arm of their new global derivatives monster – the true goal of the push for global “emissions trading” – is simply a blatant lie.

There is nothing in the Government’s scheme that prevents the banksters from doing everything they have wanted, from the moment the scheme begins.

In fact, as anyone can easily see from a careful reading of the Government’s own documentation, it is perfectly clear that the scheme is purposefully designed to grant the banksters’ free reign. All hidden behind the curtain of the misleading and deceptive name of “tax” or “fixed price ETS”.

Prior to the announcement of the Government’s “carbon pricing mechanism”, I argued extensively – including with Opposition Climate Action spokesman Greg Hunt MP – that the scheme is simply “the bankers’ CPRS by another name”.

Now that the scheme details have been announced, almost every passing day reveals new confirmations that I was right.

The strongest argument for my position comes from the Government’s own official documents.

But it is certainly nice to see the head of the Australian Bankers Association come out within days, and tacitly confirm the truth as well.

I rest my case?

It Begins – Opposition Takes Up The Fight Against The Bankster Class

15 Jul

At last, dear reader.

It begins.

The Opposition beginning to highlight the real purpose behind the global push for trading “hot air”.

The enrichment … and further empowerment … of the global bankster class –

Note that well:

But one of the things that I really want to draw people’s attention to today is the fact that we are learning more and more about just how much money is going to go overseas under this tax. It was obvious on Sunday that in 2020 more than $3 billion was going to go overseas to foreign carbon traders to meet the Government’s emissions abatement targets but if you go out just 40 years to 2050, no less than $57 billion of Australian money is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Within a relatively short time, more than one per cent of Australia’s GDP is going to go overseas to line the pockets of foreign carbon traders. Now, all of us want to help the environment but a get-rich-quick scheme for foreign carbon traders is not the kind of environmental assistance that Australians want. So, I just think that as each day goes past and more details of the Government’s carbon tax package become apparent the less the Australian public like it.

I hope that readers will forgive me a little moment of fantasy. A small, petty indulgence.

In my imagining the teensy possibility that my discussion with Senator Joyce just 2 weeks ago may have just a weensy bit of influence on this small shift of emphasis, in the campaign against the carbon “X” scheme scam.

I met Senator Joyce for the first time on July 1, at the Martin Place No Carbon Tax rally. Despite the pressures of so many wishing to speak with him – as you can imagine – he was gracious enough to make time available to speak with me about several concerns.

The chief of those concerns relates to my view that regular readers will be familiar with.

That is, my firm view – now confirmed by the evidence of the final package – that this carbon “X” scam is and always has been a scam designed solely to benefit bankers, from Day 1.

And therefore, it has also been my view that there is great opportunity for the Opposition to take advantage of Julia’s recent to-ing and fro-ing over whether the scheme is really a “tax”, “like a tax”, or … “an emissions trading scheme”.

How?

By emphasising the simple, demonstrable fact that an ETS only benefits the banksters, and speculators.

And further, that emissions trading has been shown to have zero impact on reducing actual emissions of CO2

Why do I believe it is so important to emphasise the bankster connection?

The reason is this.

While calling the scheme a “tax” has been very effective to date, in appealing to those of a conservative mindset – who in my view are generally predisposed to an ideology of lower taxes – I do not believe it is the most effective strategy for appealing to those of a more so-called “progressive” mindset.

It is my experience that “progressives” are not necessarily predisposed against bigger taxes – provided they can be convinced that it is in “a good cause”.

That is exactly how The Final Solution to global warming – the Great Global Carbon Trading Scam – has been sold to those of a “progressive” bent.

That it is “a tax” … or “like a tax” … that is “the best way” to “save the planet”.

A Robin Hood scheme, that takes from the rich, and gives to the poor, saving the planet in the process.

And so-called “progressives” have lapped this lie up.

It is also my experience that, in Australia at least, pretty much everyone … hates banks.

And it is my observation that so-called “progressives” are often their most fervent opponents.

In my discussion with Senator Joyce, I put this argument forward, and whilst congratulating him on his own frequent mentions of “bankers making fees and commissions from pushing bits of paper around”, impressed on Senator Joyce my view that the Coalition should raise the emphasis on the role of banksters in the Government’s planned scheme.

I explained my view that the polls clearly show those of a “conservative” bent are now very firmly against this scheme, irrespective of what title is given.

And that I firmly believe a significant raising of emphasis on the galactic-scale profit-making opportunity that the Scheme scam represents for global banksters – who are driving the push for global “hot air” trading – may be the best way to now begin appealing to “progressives” and the “undecided”. Using a touchstone for nearly all Aussies, conservative or progressive.

Hatred of banks.

I also suggested my view to Senator Joyce, that the Opposition should begin to do so only after a suitable interlude from the day of our discussion, being the day after Julia’s first backflip on what this scheme really is, a “tax” or an “ETS” .

An interlude of a week or two.

And here we are.

Exactly 2 weeks later.

Pure coincidence, I am sure.

But I do trust readers will understand my choosing to enjoy a little moment of vanity indulgence, on seeing the above statements by Tony Abbott yesterday 😉

Please do spread the word, to all you know.

That our Green-Labor-Independent government’s scheme, is nothing more than a global bankster scam.

As I am confident that one former Goldman Sachs Australia chairman (and “confidential” beneficiary of their deep pockets), Malcolm Turnbull MP well knows.

Spread The Word – “Untouchable” Turnbull Is A Goldman-Plated Turd

14 Jul

The public reception to the carbon “X” is somewhat hostile.

So … quelle surprise! … Malcolm Turnbull is at it again.

From today’s Australian (emphasis added):

Liberal colleagues turn on Malcolm Turnbull over his ‘bitter’ mindset

Malcolm Turnbull is being urged by colleagues to reconsider his future in politics after his latest attack on Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

A senior Liberal told The Australian Online that Mr Turnbull had a strong future in the party, but only if he could shake his “bitter and twisted” mindset.

Another Liberal went further, saying it was time for the former Liberal leader to resign.

“For the good of the Liberal Party and the country, Malcolm Turnbull has to leave the parliament,” the source said.

Here on barnabyisright.com, we have long covered the real background story of Mr Turnbull’s strident advocacy for Emissions Trading.

The background story that calls into question everything about Mr Turnbull’s motives, and actions:

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Goldman Sachs Australia chairman, named co-defendant in a $450+ million lawsuit, and beneficiary of a “confidential” settlement made on his behalf by his former employer, believes so strongly in Australia having an emissions trading scheme for a very good reason indeed.

But I personally harbour the gravest of doubts that “saving the planet” has anything whatsoever to do with it…

Your humble blogger has spoken with a number of persons within the Coalition, in seeking to draw widespread public attention to the above.

I believe that the public has a right to be fully informed about all the details of Mr Turnbull’s long involvement with – and possible obligations to – the international banking giant and carbon dioxide derivatives trading advocate, Goldman Sachs.

It has been made clear to me by informed sources that – in terms of our mainstream media, and this particular story – Mr Turnbull is an untouchable.

So dear reader.

It is clear that, if the truth will out, then it is up to you and me.

The people power of Australia.

To spread the word.

Because our mainstream media will not.

So, if you would like to see the Government’s carbon “X” scheme scam detonated, then I am asking for your concerted help, to make that happen.

To blow up the myth that Mr Turnbull is the politician of great integrity, standing stalwart by his beliefs in the need for an emissions trading scheme – and only an emissions trading scheme – as “the best way” to “save the planet”.

I have tried. Others have tried too. But the mainstream media will not touch this story.

In my firm view, if this story were headline news around this nation – as it should be – then the last bulwarks of public support for the carbon “X” scheme scam would collapse.

As the “conservative” hero and “preferred Liberal PM” of the green cargo cult was seen in a fuller light.

Illuminating the public to his questionable past … and present …. actions.

Please be a light of truth today.

And tomorrow.

And the day after that.

Every day, until the truth will out.

Please, share this post with everyone you know … and, those you don’t.

As a favour to your humble blogger.

To yourself.

And the nation.

Thank you.

* Other, related links to help you to be informed, and to inform –

Compassion For Malcolm – He Just Wants His Balls Back

Malcolm’s Motive: His ETS Lie Unravelled

Doing God’s Work – Turnbull An Angel Of ‘Death Derivatives’

“Turnbull Once Said To Me, ‘You Capitalise On Chaos'”

UPDATE:

Initiated by a reader and follower of my Twitter feed, the following exchange took place this afternoon between myself and Mr Turnbull, along with some interjections from Twitter onlookers.

I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions:

* Click on the bold ” @____ ” titles to view original tweets.


@TurnbullMalcolm

@nqcowboy_@barnabyisright@getuppr barnabyisright.com is such a courageous website there is nowhere can be found the identity of the author


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm Would you care to offer FULL disclosure re Goldman, HIH, FAI, “confidential settlement” Mr Turnbull? @nqcowboy_ #auspol


(Interjection by) @gtwarrior47

@TurnbullMalcolm @BarnabyisRight @ Politics is a dirty game Malcom.The goal is to get the labor/green coalition off the treasury bench,


@BarnabyisRight

@gtwarrior47 Disagree. The goal is to have an honest, open, transparent Parliament, w/out conflicts-of-interest etc @TurnbullMalcolm #auspol


(Interjection by) @makiwa

@BarnabyisRight Agree. Without full accountability and transparency, we will only have an illusion of change! @gtwarrior47 @turnbullmalcolm


@TurnbullMalcolm

@BarnabyisRight@nqcowboy_ and who are you? Or are you as cowardly as you are scurilous?


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm Not relevant, Mr Turnbull. What is relevant are the facts viz GS, HIH, FAI, ur “confidential settlemnt” @nqcowboy_


(Interjection by) @snowytristan

@BarnabyisRight @TurnbullMalcolm @nqcowboy_ We would like to to know Malcolm. Sounds like Gillard and her cover-ups.


@TurnbullMalcolm
 –

@snowytristan @barnabyisright @nqcowboy_ ok whats the question?


@BarnabyisRight
 –

@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 provide public w/ ALL documentation viz GS/HIH/FAI “confidential settlement”? @snowytristan @nqcowboy_ #auspol


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 publish sworn affidavit that u’ve 0 obligations of any kind 2 GS/their CT interests? @snowytristan @nqcowboy_


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 publish sworn affidavit that u will receive 0 benefit – financ/otherwise – from ETS? @snowytristan @nqcowboy_


@TurnbullMalcolm
 –

@BarnabyisRight a bit rich from someone who wont reveal his name..but I have no obligations to GS re carbon – only a paranoid wd say I did.


(Interjection by) @KeeptheBshonest

@TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright MT, we understand your frustration you will never be PM of Aust but calling folks Paranoid is a bit rich!!


@TurnbullMalcolm

@KeeptheBshonest @barnabyisright conspiracy theorists usually are. Especially when they dont have the guts to say who they are.


(Interjection by) @KeeptheBshonest

@TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright No Guts is about you sucking it up and “fully supporting your leader” in the fight for govt old mate, JS


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm You are obfuscating Mr Turnbull. Ad hom. is not honest response to the 3 simple Q’s posed, implies guilt. @KeeptheBshonest


@BarnabyisRight

RU willing to publish sworn affidavit to that effect? @TurnbullMalcolm “..I have no obligations to GS re carbon” #auspol


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 provide public w/ ALL documentation viz GS/HIH/FAI “confidential settlement”? @FixNSWLegal @JamesJohnsonCHR


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm RU willing 2 publish sworn affidavit that u, family, assoc’s, will receive 0 benefit – financ/otherwise, from ETS? #auspol


@TurnbullMalcolm

@BarnabyisRight If you are not prepared to say who you are, then I regret our interesting dialogue will have to come to an end.


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm Sir, it appears you are not prepared to openly, directly, & honestly respond to reasonable questions of public record.


(Interjection by) @NOH8ER

@TurnbullMalcolm That’s not reasonable – what matters is the value of what is said, not who says it, Malcolm. cc.@BarnabyisRight


(Interjection by) @maatilda

@TurnbullMalcolm This tweep has a large following and if you dont respond you condemn yourself @BarnabyisRight


@BarnabyisRight

@TurnbullMalcolm As I iterated earlier Mr Turnbull, who I am is irrelevant to the facts. You are the public “servant”. Pls answer direct Q’s


(interjection by) @joneschris79

@TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright – don’t let it end. Best Aussie twitter 2n and fro ever. Plus…we want the answers.


@NOH8ER

@KeeptheBshonest @TurnbullMalcolm @barnabyisright I actually wanted MT to be PM but the GS affair is unsettling.


@KeeptheBshonest

@NOH8ER @turnbullmalcolm @barnabyisright never liked the kid who took his bat & left a game mid way through because a point went against him


@BarnabyisRight
 –

@KeeptheBshonest Never liked “public servants” who attack the man when asked simple, direct Q’s of national import @NOH8ER @turnbullmalcolm


@KeeptheBshonest

@BarnabyisRight @noh8er @turnbullmalcolm you keep asking the tough q’s mate, MT lacks ticker, that’s why Libs turfed him out


@BarnabyisRight

@KeeptheBshonest No, disagree. Think Mr @turnbullmalcolm has lots of ticker. Q’s go to issue of obligation, opportunity, not courage @noh8er


@NOH8ER
 –

@TurnbullMalcolm I looked forward to you as an alternative to Abbott, then I found out about the Goldman Sachs affair. @BarnabyisRight

I Was Right – Our Banks Begin Preparing Carbon Derivatives Market

14 Jul

It did not take long. Just 3 days.

From Business Spectator (emphasis added):

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.

The initial three-year fixed carbon tax period from 2012 will serve as time to prepare for the release of ETS permits by 2015, when opportunities will really open up for banks to capitalise on the carbon market.

ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.

I was right.

On Carbon Sunday, I dissected the Government’s newly-announced “carbon pricing mechanism” (see “Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – ‘Carbon Permits’ Really Means ‘A Licence To Print'” ).

Here’s a couple of quotes from that article. The first is in reference to the “initial fixed price period” that the Government would have you believe is “like a tax”:

I was right.

The carbon permits will have no expiry date.

They are an artificial construct – “an electronic entry” – that is deemed by government decree to be a new “financial product”.

Moreover, note carefully the sentence I have bold underlined.

The creation of equitable interests, and taking security over them, simply means this.  The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words.

Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic, wholly-artificial financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.  The same bankster-designed “widgets” that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, spoke of as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

You can stop reading this piece right now if you like.

Because from that Table 6 alone, you now have conclusive proof that this is nothing whatsoever to do with the climate.

It is all – and only – about global bankster profits. At the direct expense of the common people of planet earth.

Note well. The banks do not have to wait until the “flexible price period” commences after 3 years, to begin creating their “securities” (ie, derivatives), based on the notion of the underlying “value” of the “fixed price” carbon permits.

The Government’s scheme allows this from Day 1. Naturally. Because that is what the banksters – and their “leading economist” shills – are all salivating over. A government-decreed excuse, to create a whole new kind of “derivatives” market.  It is the whole point of the scheme.

In specific reference to the “flexible price period” to follow three years later, I wrote this:

Now, why have I bold underlined “borrowing“?

And why have I bold underlined “advance auctions of flexible price permits…”?

Because these are the key words from the “banking and borrowing” section. The words that tell you all you need to know.

That this SCAM is nothing whatsoever to do with the global climate.

And that it is 100% about creating a new, global, CO2 derivatives-trading market for the banksters.

The world’s biggest-ever financial cesspool.

Of toxic, intrinsically-worthless, humanity-raping financial “instruments” called derivatives.

Non-existent, digital “widgets”.

That can be borrowed from the future – ie, before these artificial carbon “widgets” are even issued – and leveraged by scum-of-the-earth banksters.

And then, traded by these parasites at multiples of hundreds and thousands of times more than the underlying, artificially-created “value” of the carbon permit.

Furthermore, the “advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period” proves beyond all shadow of doubt, that I was right.

That this “carbon pricing mechanism” is the bankers’ CPRS by another name. From Day 1.

Why does it prove it?

The advance auctions of flexible price permits “in the fixed price period” means this.

From Day 1, the government is effectively allowing the setting up of a futures trading market, for Australian CO2 permits.

Futures trading of nothing. Before the nothing is even created.

The banksters’ wet dream.

Australia – you have been monumentally conned.

The Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s plan to “save the planet”, is a gigantic scam.

It is the bankers’ Casino Royale.

Where “carbon permits” really means, “A Licence to Print”.

Thank you, Australian Financial Review and Business Spectator.

For confirming that I was right.

Oh … just one more thing.

To help give you some idea – a picture in your mind – of how gigantic the new (government-rigged) “market” for the banksters’ carbon derivatives can become, take a look at the following chart, sourced from the RBA’s Statistics data.

It shows the size of our banks’ current holdings of Off-Balance Sheet derivatives bets, on the future of Interest Rates, and Foreign Exchange Rates:

Click to enlarge

Yes, that’s $3.98 Trillion in Foreign Exchange derivatives bets. And a whopping $11.68 Trillion in Interest Rate derivatives bets. Off-Balance Sheet. At March 2011.

Here’s another chart – also sourced from RBA data – showing our banks’ current On-Balance Sheet “Assets” (66% of which are actually loans) – the blue line – compared to their total Off-Balance Sheet “Business” (ie, derivatives) – the red line:

Click to enlarge

Yes, that’s $2.68 Trillion in “Assets” (mostly loans). Compared to … $16.8 Trillion in Off-Balance Sheet derivatives gambling. Mostly on Interest Rates, and Foreign Exchange rates.

Just try to imagine the size of the brand new carbon dioxide “hot air” derivatives market casino that our banksters’ will create, in the form of leveraged bets on the underlying so-called “value” of carbon permits.

It is Armageddon waiting to happen.

Why Would Any Sane Person Believe Treasury’s Carbon Tax Modelling When Its Budget Forecasting Record Is This Bad?

12 Jul

Adoration of the Golden Calf - Nicolas Poussin, 1629

The Treasury department is – like many false idols – placed up on a pedestal and revered as some kind of infallible authority.

An economic god.

And when it comes to our Green-Labor-Independent minority dictatorship’s newly finalised “carbon pricing mechanism”, the infinite wisdom of the Treasury department will once again be held up as the final Word.

We are talking, of course, about a government department long headed by well known green cargo cult members. True believers in the warmist cult, such as former Treasury secretary Ken Henry. And the latest appointee from among the green faithful, Martin “Mini-me” Parkinson. Previously the head of the government’s new Climate Change department.

So today, I’d like to indulge in a little “Moses” reenactment.

You know … the old Bible story.

The one where Moses smashed in pieces the golden calf that the people had taken to worshipping.

The Treasury department is our modern equivalent.  It has become a sacred cow.

I think it is high time we ritually slaughtered this sacred cow.  In much the same way as our minority dictatorship has slaughtered Aussie farmers’ cattle export industry.

It seems that we are all expected to (once again) bow and scrape to the Treasury sacred cow, when our dictators tell us that the economic modelling for their new “carbon pricing mechanism” all stacks up.

Yes indeed, we are all expected to accept in blind faith, that the Treasury department’s forecasts and predictions of the financial effects of this great new economic reform bankers’ money-go-round, are solid and sound.

Hmmmm.

Perhaps if Treasury’s forecasts and predictions as prophesied in past budgets can be shown as having been accurate, then we might have some basis, some reason, for placing our faith in them regarding this new carbon dioxide mega-scheme … right?

Well, let’s take a look at them, shall we.

And let’s keep it really simple.

Let’s not slice and dice every line item in their past Budget forecasts. Let’s just see how accurate they were with the two (2) basic, headline Totals.

1. Revenue (ie, income), and

2. Expenses.

Let’s look at the original Budget forecasts that our Treasury gods made in 2007-’08.  And especially, let’s note their “forward estimates” made back then, for the following 3 years.

After all, the Government’s “carbon pricing mechanism” plan has an initial 3 year “fixed price period”.

So, if we can see that Treasury got their Budget forecast reasonably accurate for the three years from 2007-’08, then maybe … just maybe … we can have a little confidence in their abilities, and their forecasting accuracy.

Note too, that the 2007-’08 Budget forecasts – prepared by the Ken Henry-led Treasury department – were for the Howard-Costello Government. So we are talking here, about the Treasury sacred cow’s forecasting effort for the so-called “World’s Greatest Treasurer” Peter Costello’s final budget.

Let’s get into it, shall we?

Here’s the original 2007-’08 Budget document, showing “estimates” and “projections” for Revenue:

2007-'08 Budget Paper No. 1, Statement No. 5

Ok.

So, in the May 2007-’08 Budget, Treasury “estimated” Revenue of $246.8 billion for the year 2007-’08.

And they “projected” Revenue of $260.7 billion for the year 2008-’09, and $274.6 billion for 2009-’10.

(Unfortunately, we cannot compare the forecast versus actual Revenue and Expenses for the 4th year (2010-11) of the 2007-’08 forward estimates, because the Final Budget Outcome for that year will not be released until September 2011.)

How well did our Treasury gods do on those “estimates” and “projections” for Revenue?

Let’s take a look.

Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Revenue in 2007-’08:

2007-'08 Final Budget Outcome - Revenue - Part 1, Table 2

Hmmm. $303.7 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $246.8 billion they “estimated” just 1 year earlier.

An error factor of 23%.

Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Revenue in 2008-’09:

2008-'09 Final Budget Outcome - Revenue - Part 1, Table 1

Hmmm. $298.9 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $260.7 billion they “projected” just 2 years earlier.

An error factor of 14.6%.

And finally (for Revenue), here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Revenue in 2009-’10:

2009-'10 Final Budget Outcome - Revenue - Part 1, Table 1

Hmmm. $292.8 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $274.6 billion they “projected” just 3 years earlier.

An error factor of 6.6%.

Summary – Revenue.

Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget “estimates” and “projections” for Revenue in the following 3 years, were wrong by a factor of +23%, +14.6%, and +6.6% respectively.

Or to put it another way, in the 2007-’08 Budget the Ken Henry-led Treasury department underestimated future government revenue by a grand total of $113.3 billion over the first 3 years of their “forward estimates”.

Incredible. They actually received $113.3 billion more than they originally forecast through to EoFY 2010. And yet, these Treasury gods and their Rudd-Gillard-Goose muppets have still managed to plunge Australia into $194 billion in gross debt by mid-2011.

That probably has something to do with their out-of-control spending, right?

Indeed.

Let’s move on to Expenses.

Here’s the original 2007-’08 Budget document, showing “estimated” and “projected” Expenses:

2007-'08 - Budget Paper No. 1, Statement No. 6

Ok.

So, in the May 2007-’08 Budget, Treasury “estimated” Total Expenses of $235.6 billion for the year 2007-’08.

And they “projected” Total Expenses of $247.5 billion for the year 2008-’09, and $259.7 billion for 2009-’10.

How well did our Treasury gods do on those “estimates” and “projections” for Expenses?

Let’s take a look.

Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Expenses in 2007-’08:

2007-'08 Final Budget Outcome - Expenses - Part 1, Table 3

Oops. $280.1 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $235.6 billion they “estimated” just 1 year earlier.

An error factor of 18.9%.

And don’t forget, ladies and gentlemen … the GFC had not even hit yet! That came 4 months later, in September 2008. Our new PM Kevin07 evidently got off to a treasury-emptying head start, even without a GFC as the excuse.

Here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for 2008-’09. This is the year that included the GFC panic, from September ’08 through early 2009:

2008-'09 Final Budget Outcome - Expenses - Part 1, Table 1

Oops. $324.6 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $247.5 billion they “projected” just 2 years earlier.

An error factor of … gulp31.1%.

And finally (for Expenses), here’s the Treasury’s Final Budget Outcome for Expenses in 2009-’10:

2009-'10 Final Budget Outcome - Expenses - Part 1, Table 1

Oops. $339.2 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $259.7 billion they “projected” just 3 years earlier.

An error factor of … gulp30.6%.

Summary – Expenses.

Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget “estimates” and “projections” for Expenses in the following 3 years, were wrong by a factor of +18.9%, +31.1%, and +30.6% respectively.

Or to put it another way, in the 2007-’08 Budget the Ken Henry-led Treasury department underestimated future government expenses (ie, spending) by a grand total of $201.1 billion over the first 3 years of their “forward estimates”.

Incredible. These Treasury gods and their Rudd-Gillard-Goose muppets spent $201.1 billion more than they originally forecast through to EoFY 2010.

Here’s another way of looking at the Treasury department’s forecasting genius.

It’s a chart showing the Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget forecast for Revenue over the following 3 years (blue line), versus the actual Revenue in the Final Budget Outcome for each of those years (green line):

And here’s another chart, showing the Treasury’s 2007-’08 Budget forecast for Expenses over the following 3 years (blue line), versus the actual Expenses in the Final Budget Outcome for each of those years (green line):

It’s interesting to note that Treasury underestimated both Revenue, and Expenses.

Convenient. Very convenient.

After all, most citizens will take more kindly to a government Budget that “forecasts” a total tax take … and total government spending … that are 20% – 30% less than they eventually turn out to be. And the odds of getting caught out are low – how many citizens (or journalists) ever bother to check how close the Treasury/Government’s final budget results came to their original “forward estimates”?

Now, there will doubtless be those who will cry out, “But wait! What about the GFC?! The Treasury forecasts were wrong because of the GFC!”

Indeed.

Our Treasury gods, with all their degrees and PhD’s … did … not … see … the … GFC … coming.

Think about that.

Why would any sane person believe in Treasury’s economic forecasting abilities now … after they totally failed to see that one coming?

After all, it’s not as though there is any shortage of dire warning signs out there right now, alerting us to an impending GFC 2.

A “bigger Armageddon”.

We have been documenting these warning signs coming from all over the world – and from here in Australia too – right here on this blog.

If the impact of the GFC is your excuse for the Treasury’s abject failure to get within a bull’s roar of predicting the Budget revenue and expenses for 3 years ahead of time … that they only got it so very, very wrong because they did not see that impact on the Budget coming … then I rest my case.

By your own words … and their own data … they stand condemned.

(And by the words of Macquarie Economic Research too. Click here to see what they had to say about the “truly extraordinary” Treasury modelling underpinning the recent May budget)

UPDATE:

A late thought that just occurred to me.

At precisely the time that Peter Costello was handing down the Treasury department’s 2007-’08 Budget “forward estimates” that we have just examined – in early May 2007 – your humble blogger was commanding his superannuation fund manager (contrary to strenuous “expert” financial advice) to put all his super into cash –

Why?

Because thanks to the clear evidences already coming out of America and elsewhere in the world, even I could see that a GFC was bearing down on us.

The overpaid, tea leaf reading numpties led by former Treasury secretary Ken Henry … could not see it.

UPDATE 2:

Feb 7, 2012

Reader and Twitter follower @Ayeshavit asked me to update this post to capture the Final Budget Outcome for 2010-11 … the last year of the 2007-08 “forward estimates” by the Treasury genii.

Recapping – way back in the (Coalition’s last) May 2007-’08 Budget, Treasury “estimated” Revenue of $287.3 billion for the year 2010-’11.

And they “projected” Expenses of $272.7 billion for the year 2010-’11.

Now, from the 2010-11 Final Budget Outcome, here’s what the Labor government actually achieved in 2011-’11:

Final Budget Outcome 2010-11, Part 1, Table 1

Oops.

$302.0 billion in actual Revenue, versus the $287.3 billion they “projected” just 4 years earlier. An error factor of 5.1%.

And ‘Payments’ (ie, Expenses)?

Double Oops.

$346.1 billion in actual Expenses, versus the $272.7 billion they “projected” just 4 years earlier. An error factor of 27%.

Yup. The Labor Government spent more than one-quarter more money in 2010-’11, than Treasury had “projected” in 2007-’08.

Isn’t it interesting how the Treasury department’s “forward estimates” actually turn out?

What a shame for all Australians, that the lamestream financial and economic commentariat never bother to go back and compare what Treasury originally said, versus the reality of what actually happens.

Instead, sheep-like, they lap up and bleat on to the public whatever nonsense “projections” the Treasury puts out on Budget night … as though it has actually happened.

When as you can see, the Treasury’s “forecasts” are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Barnaby: “I Thought One-World Government Was A Conspiracy Theory, Then I Heard The De Facto Deputy PM On Radio National”

11 Jul

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 11 July 2011:

I thought one-world government was a conspiracy theory, then I heard the de facto deputy PM on Radio National

Well, welcome to the world of a new broad based consumption tax to sit on top of the other green state based taxes and swindles, and of course the GST.

Welcome to the capacity of the government to jack the tax take via your power point, as they please, to pay back their gross debt of $194.4 billion.

Welcome to the fact that the Prime Minister said this is the deal before even a draft of the legislation has made it to the Parliament, another insult to your democratic rights.

Welcome to the Brown-Gillard-Windsor alliance saying this will save the Great Barrier Reef and stop droughts, a pitch that would put the dodgiest second hand car dealer to shame.

Welcome to the world where a member of the new government alliance, Bob Brown, has stated about the carbon price this morning on ABC radio that:

… it’s not locked in for 15 years to no change, this has got upward flexibility. It means that through the processes, including a Climate Change Authority here, we will be able to keep pace with the rest of the world as inevitably more mature and reasoned action is taken against the enormous threat of climate change in the years ahead.

Let’s all just retire from the Parliament as your rights follow your $3 billion of carbon credits, collected via a power point in your home just above the skirting board, to some other corner of the globe. Instead, a new Canberra bureaucracy, or Authority, will decide what the carbon tax should be in the future.

They didn’t need to go to an election to introduce it and now they don’t think they need to go to the Parliament to increase it.

More information– Matthew Canavan 0458 709433

If you’ve not read it yet, then perhaps you’d like to read My Idea to change the world.

How?

By undermining the power of the global bankers … the parasites who screwed us with their GFC, and are behind the huge push for global “air” trading –

“The People’s NWO:  Every Man His Own Central Banker”

Our Bankers’ Casino Royale – “Carbon Permits” Really Means “A Licence To Print”

11 Jul

I was right.

It is a scam.

A huge scam.

A clever, complicated scam.

But a scam, nonetheless.

In previous articles, I identified the two key details of the Green-Labor Alliance’s proposed “carbon pricing” scheme. The only two details that matter. Because they are the two key details which confirm whether this really is “a tax” / “like a tax”. Or, whether this is just a European ETS-imitating scheme scam:

Will the carbon permits:

(1) have an unlimited expiry date?

(2) be bankable from the commencement of the scheme?

If you’ve not read the previous articles I’ve posted about this – including my online brawl with Opposition Climate Action Onanist Greg Hunt MP about it – then you may wish to recap by reading this, this, and especially, this.

Now, if you just want the quick answers to those 2 key questions, then here’s the 30 second summary. All you need to know. Without bothering to check and understand the detail for yourself.

1. YES, carbon permits will have an unlimited expiry date.

2. NO, carbon permits issued during the “fixed price period” can not be banked. Although there will be unlimited banking after 3 years, when the “flexible price” period begins.

BUT … and (like Gillard’s) it’s a very big but … all “freely allocated” carbon permits can be traded. And – here’s the real biggie, ladies and gentlemen – from Day 1 the Government will allow securitisation of carbon permits (the creation of carbon derivatives, in other words). AND, the Government will set up an “auction” system in advance of the “flexible price period” – an advance-auction system that effectively creates a carbon Futures trading market, allowing banksters (and the lucky 500 “polluters”) to speculate gamble on the future price of the “flexible price” permits, that will replace the “fixed price” permits after 3 years.

I was right.

It is NOT a “tax”.

From Day 1, it operates as an ETS by stealth.

It is the bankers’ CPRS by another name.

And what “carbon permits” really means, is “permitted to profit”.

Or perhaps more accurately … A Licence To Print.

Want to know more? To see the proof with your own eyes … and understand it too?

Ok. Let’s get into the details.

Now that GilBrown’s Grand Design has finally been released, let’s take a look at the Government’s freshly-minted cleanenergyfuture.gov.au website. There we can see exactly what they have to say about those two key details that I identified previously.

Note that the answers are buried in the fine print.  Naturally.  You have to read the Appendices.

In this case, the “devil in the detail” is hidden in Appendix A.

First, let us look for the answer to my point #1 – Will there be unlimited expiry dates for carbon permits?

We find the answer in Appendix A, Table 6  (emphasis added):

Table 6 Compliance

Carbon permits

The domestic unit for compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism will be the ‘carbon permit’.

Each carbon permit will correspond to one tonne of greenhouse gas emissions.

The creation of equitable interests in carbon permits will be permitted, as will taking security over them.

In addition, carbon permits will:

* be personal property;

* be regulated as financial products;

* be transferable (other than those issued under the fixed price or any price ceiling arrangements);

* have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which they can be validly surrendered (‘vintage year’);

* not have an expiry date; and

* be represented by an electronic entry in Australia’s National Registry of Emissions Units.

I was right.

The carbon permits will have no expiry date.

They are an artificial construct – “an electronic entry” – that is deemed by government decree to be a new “financial product”.

And, they are a personal property right (see first asterisk) of the holder of the permit. Exactly as I argued with that onanist shill for the green cargo cult, Greg Hunt MP.

Moreover, note carefully the sentence I have bold underlined.

The “creation of equitable interests”, and “taking security over them”, simply means this.  The carbon permits can be used as the basis for bankers to create other, new financial “securities”.

Carbon derivatives, in other words.

Derivatives (or “securities”) are the toxic, wholly-artificial financial “products” that were at the heart of the GFC.  The same bankster-designed “widgets” that the world’s most famous investor, Warren Buffet, spoke of as “a mega-catastrophic risk”, “financial weapons of mass destruction”, and a “time bomb”.

You can stop reading this piece right now if you like.

Because from that Table 6 alone, you now have conclusive proof that this is nothing whatsoever to do with the climate.

It is all – and only – about global bankster profits. At the direct expense of the common people of planet earth.

Now, what about my point #2. The key question of whether there will be unlimited banking of permits.

That is covered in Appendix A as well.  But we must take a bit of a journey here, as it’s a little more complicated to get to the bottom of this one.

If you are interested to understand how this scam really works more fully, then do bear with me here (emphasis added):

Scheme architecture

Table 1: Starting price and fixed price period

Fixed price period

The carbon pricing mechanism will commence on 1 July 2012. There will be a three year fixed price period.

The fixed price

The carbon price will start at $23.00 per tonne in 2012‑13 and will be $24.15 in 2013‑14 and $25.40 in 2014‑15.

The prices in the second and third year reflect a 2.5 per cent rise in real terms allowing for 2.5 per cent inflation per year (the midpoint of the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target range).

Blah blah blah. We already knew all that. These details were leaked in advance, in typical Green-Labor fashion.

Let’s get to the nitty gritty. The characteristics of the carbon “permits” themselves, and what you can (and cannot) do with them.

Especially during the initial 3 year, so-called “fixed price period”.  The period in which the government (and Opposition) have been telling you that this scheme scam “is a tax” or “will operate like a tax” (depending on what day it is):

Fixed price permits

Liable entities will be able to purchase permits from the Government at the fixed price, up to the number of their emissions for the compliance year.

Any permits purchased at the fixed price will be automatically surrendered and cannot be traded or banked for future use.

Ok.

So, the lucky 500 “polluters” can not trade, or bank, any permits that are purchased at the fixed price.

Now, that appears to eliminate point #2 of those key points that I identified, doesn’t it? The question of unlimited banking of permits.

But does it really?

Hold your horses, dear reader. There’s more to it than that.

Let us peel back the multiple layers of deception.

Yes, permits that are purchased can not be banked.

But what about permits that are handed out for free?

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued. They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.

Right.

So, just like “purchased” permits, “freely allocated” permits also can not be banked during the “fixed price period”. (However, all permits will have unlimited banking after 3 years, when the “flexible price period” begins – see Appendix A, Table 3)

But note this well.

Freely allocated permits can be traded “until the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued”.

In other words, with respect to “freely allocated” permits in particular – which will be handed out to “trade exposed” industries rent-seekers – this IS an emissions trading scheme.

It’s right there.  In black and white.

I was right.

“The Carbon Tax Is Not A “Tax” … It Is The Bankers’ CPRS By Another Name”.

Now, did you notice that other little word back there?

“surrendered”?

What happens when “freely allocated” permits are “surrendered”?

Is that just a case of handing back something that you got for free?

Or … is there another profit-making opportunity for our lucky “polluters” there too?

That is, a profit-making opportunity over-and-above the profit-making opportunity they have been granted, to simply jack up their prices and use the “cost” of permits as an excuse – whether they actually paid for all their “permits” or not. Just like the lucky “polluters” have done in the European scheme scam (from Green-Left Weekly May 1, 2011):

The first phase of the ETS ran from 2005 to 2007. It made no dent in emissions. But power companies made about 19 billion euros by charging customers for the “cost” of permits they were given for free. Manufacturers made about 14 billion euros in windfall profits with the same trick.

So, let’s take a look shall we, and see if there might be yet another profit-making opportunity for our hand-picked lucky 500 “polluters”, on all those “freely allocated” carbon permits (emphasis added):

Buy‑back of freely allocated permits

The holders of freely allocated permits will be able to sell them to the Government from 1 September of the compliance year in which they were issued until 1 February of the following compliance year.

Got that?

You get some-thing for nothing.

You increase your costs to customers, using the government-decreed “price” of that “some-thing” as your excuse – a windfall profit.

And then, you either trade that free “some-thing” to someone else, or, you sell it back to the government – for another windfall profit.

Brilliant!

Now that’s what I would call “transitional assistance” too, if I were one of those lucky 500 “big polluters”.

Money for nothing.

How much will you get paid for selling back your free permits … you lucky big “polluter” you?

The price paid by the Government will be equal to the price of the fixed price permits for that year, discounted to 15 June of the compliance year by the latest available Reserve Bank of Australia index of the BBB corporate bond rate, so that the buy‑back price reflects the present market value of the permit.

From 15 June onwards, the price paid will be equal to the fixed‑price permits for that vintage.

What does that mean?

It’s very simple.

Those lucky “polluters” receiving “freely allocated” permits (to profit), can either:

(a) trade them (as we saw earlier), OR

(b) sell them back (ie, “surrender” them) to the Government.

If they can’t pull a big enough profit from trading their free permits … the fall-back plan is to resell them to the Government.

Now, who do you think is going to benefit the most from all the transactions of these carbon permits?

Who is going to make money for nothing via fees and commissions, each time a “freely allocated” permit is traded, or bought from/sold back to the government?

Banksters.

The same despicable scum, the parasites who created the GFC, and have been driving the global push for CO2 emissions trading from Day 1.

Our government’s scheme scam will achieve exactly the same result as the benchmark European ETS.

Huge profits for a few.

Raped wallets for the many.

And absolutely bugger-all impact on global CO2 “emissions reduction” –

Want more?

There IS more.

Is there anything interesting to note about the subsequent “Flexible Price Architecture” (ETS)?

That wonderful “market-based” scheme scam that comes after the so-called “fixed price period” (in which trading of freely allocated permits can happen anyway, meaning it is an ETS from Day 1)?

The final destination of the scheme scam that Gillard spoke of in these words just days ago – “I have always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme … for our nation’s future”.

Is there anything about the detail of the “flexible price architecture” that might give us further evidence – if any were needed – that this really is the bankers’ CPRS by another name?

Indeed there is.

Take a look at Appendix A, Table 3 (emphasis added):

Table 3: Flexible price architecture

Price ceiling

A price ceiling will apply for the first three years of the flexible price period.

The price ceiling will be set in regulations by 31 May 2014 at $20 above the expected international price for 2015‑16 and will rise by 5 per cent in real terms each year.

If the world is on a 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) trajectory or higher, this will be reflected in international prices and the price ceiling will automatically be $20 above this price. The level of the international price will be examined closer to the point of transition to a flexible price period to ensure that the price ceiling reflects a $20 margin above its expected level.

In other words, our Green-Labor Alliance would (if still in power) not only allow, but indeed, “ensure”, that the CO2 price in Australia could be traded at a $20 per tonne premium to the international price.

Economic planking indeed.

And, a Paradise Now bonus for banksters.

Because this detail tells us that this is a scam whereby the government will “ensure” that there is “flexibility” for the banksters’ – market manipulators extraordinaire – to use the many dodgy means at their disposal to push the Australian CO2 trading price up, by as much as $20 more than the international market price.

In other words, if the international market price for CO2 permits (again) fell to near-zero – let’s say, $0.10 – then our Green-Labor Alliance would still happily allow our nation to suffer under a $20.10 price for CO2 permits, and the flow-on effects of that to the prices on everything.

Insanity.

But there’s more:

Price floor

A price floor will apply for the first three years of the flexible price period.

The price floor will start at $15 and rise at 4 per cent in real terms each year.

Also highly significant.

And insane.

If still in power, our Green-Labor Alliance would force the so-called “free market” price to be at least $15 per tonne. And, they would force that price to rise at a rate of 4% per annum.

Ummmmm … hello?!

That’s NOT a “free market” mechanism.

That is quite simply, a Communist-style command-economy.  Wearing a very thin veil of “free market” respectability (if you’re idiot enough to believe it, that is).

But here’s the part I really love, dear reader.

The part that – once again – confirms that this is a bankers’ CPRS by another name.

Banking and borrowing

Unlimited banking of permits will be allowed in the flexible price period.

There will be limited borrowing of permits such that, in any particular compliance year, a liable entity can surrender permits from the following vintage year to discharge up to 5 per cent of their liability.

Auctions of permits

Permits will be allocated by auctioning, taking into account transitional assistance provisions for key sectors.

The policies, procedures and rules for auctioning will be set out in a legislative instrument.

The Government will advance auction future vintage permits. There will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.

Note that bit about “transitional assistance provisions” for “key sectors”. That’s Orwellian doublespeak for “freely allocated permits” for “big ‘polluters’ with the best lobbyists”.

If you are a “polluter” in need of “transitional assistance” – meaning, everyone – then you will get lots and lots of freely-allocated permits. To help you “transition” (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Now, why have I bold underlined “borrowing“?

And why have I bold underlined “advance auctions of flexible price permits…”?

Because these are the key words from the “banking and borrowing” section. The words that tell you all you need to know.

That this SCAM is nothing whatsoever to do with the global climate.

And that it is 100% about creating a new, global, CO2 derivatives-trading market for the banksters.

The world’s biggest-ever financial cesspool.

Of toxic, intrinsically-worthless, humanity-raping financial “instruments” called derivatives.

Non-existent, digital “widgets”.

That can be borrowed from the future – ie, before these artificial carbon “widgets” are even issued – and leveraged by scum-of-the-earth banksters.

And then, traded by these parasites at multiples of hundreds and thousands of times more than the underlying, artificially-created “value” of the carbon permit.

Furthermore, the “advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period” proves beyond all shadow of doubt, that I was right.

That this “carbon pricing mechanism” is the bankers’ CPRS by another name. From Day 1.

Why does it prove it?

The advance auctions of flexible price permits “in the fixed price period” means this.

From Day 1, the government is effectively allowing the setting up of a futures trading market, for Australian CO2 permits.

Futures trading of nothing. Before the nothing is even created.

The banksters’ wet dream.

Australia – you have been monumentally conned.

The Green-Labor-Independent Alliance’s plan to “save the planet”, is a gigantic scam.

It is the bankers’ Casino Royale.

Where “carbon permits” really means, “A Licence to Print”.

UPDATE:

Stock broker and licensed securities and derivatives dealer Andy Semple recognises the same point that I did above – that this is not a “free market” mechanism at all, but a Soviet-style command-and-control scheme. He has deconstructed the Government’s carbon trading scam, from a trader’s perspective. A must read –

The Clayton’s Emissions Market – “The Market You Have When You’re Not Having A Market”

%d bloggers like this: