Tag Archives: malcolm turnbull

How Malcolm Turnbull Helped Pump Howard’s House Price Bubble

23 May

ScreenHunter_68-Feb.-13-07.23

“…it makes no sense whatsoever for the average Australian family to have to tie up over two-thirds of all their wealth in the world in one highly illiquid and very risky asset: viz., the owner-occupied residence.

…we find that one in four families lose money (in real terms) when they come to sell the roof over their heads. For roughly one in ten dwellers, the situation is even more dire – these poor souls are subject to real price declines in excess of 13.4 percent.”

– Summary of Findings for The Prime Ministerial Task Force on Home Ownership, 2003

Australian economics and political forums are full of good-hearted, well-meaning types, who argue passionately, and often cogently, for the need for policy changes to enable lower house prices. Criticism of the Howard Government’s economic policies that encouraged rampant housing speculation and private debt growth is common with these folks.

Something I find particularly interesting to observe, is just how many of them are also given to lauding the Member for Wentworth — otherwise known as the “Member for Goldman Sachs” — as somehow representing all they aspire for in a national leader.

Apparently, the Australian economy would be magically transformed, our society would heal and “progress”, the national average IQ would rise, reality TV audience share would fall, spelling errors in news captions would cease, and childrens’ severed limbs would grow back, if only the brilliant, eloquent, self-made millionaire, and socially “progressive” Malcolm Turnbull were our PM. Or at the very least, the Treasurer.

These folks need to do their homework.

Let us take a journey ten years back in time, to the year 2003, and the Menzies Research Centre’s “Summary of Findings for The Prime Ministerial Task Force on Home Ownership” (pdf here).

It was chaired by Malcolm Turnbull – the former chairman, managing director, and partner of Goldman Sachs Australia, and co-owner (with Neville Wran and Nicholas Whitlam) of merchant bank, Turnbull & Partners. Which he sold to … Goldman Sachs.

Reading this summary report should, all by itself, be enough to convince any honest, open-minded person who (a) remembers the GFC, and (b) wants to see lower Australian house prices, that Malcolm Turnbull is hardly the wonderful, objective, unbiased, clear-thinking, far-sighted, vested-interest-free political saviour that so many gullibles imagine him to be.

First, let us consider the identity of the principal author of the report for the Howard government’s Home Ownership Task Force.

Christopher Joye. Arguably Australia’s most prominent housing “investment” spruiker.

Next, let us take a look at the list of “Institutional” professionals who are acknowledged on page 7-8 of the report (my bold added):

We would to like to recognize a number of individuals, categorized according to profession: –

Institutional: Rob Adams (First State Investments), Dan Andrews (RBA), Andrew Barger (Housing Industry Association), David Bell (Australian Bankers Association), Laura Bennett (Turnbull & Partners), Neil Bird (Urban Pacific), Mark Bouris (Wizard Home Loans), Angus Boyd (Foxtel), Jason Briant (The Menzies Research Centre), Kieran Brush (RAMS), Jasmine Burgess (JP Morgan), Alexander Calvo (RBA), Louis Christopher (Australian Property Monitors), Tim Church (JB Were), Bob Cooper (Tobari Management), Tracy Conlan (CBA), Lorenzo Crepaldi (Ebsworth & Ebsworth), Peter Crone (Prime Minister’s Office), Brendan Crotty (Australand), Margaret Doman (Cambridge Consulting), Tony Davis (Aussie Home Loans), Bob Day (Home Australia), Craig Drummond (JB Were), John Edwards (Residex), Lucy Ellis (RBA), Alex Erskine (Erskinomics), Jason Falinski (IAG), Arash Farhadieh (Phillips Fox), Guy Farrands (Macquarie Bank), Lyndell Fraser (CBA), Wayne Gersbach (Housing Industry Association), Steven Girdis (Macquarie Bank), Adam Gordon (Baltimore Partnership), Samuel Gullotta (Goldstream Capital), Michael Gurney (ABS), Jason Falinski (IAG), Martin Harris (First State Investments), Nick Hossack (Australian Bankers Association), Chris Johnson (NSW Government Architect), Alan Jones (2GB), Sally Jope (Brotherhood of St Laurence), PD Jonson (HenryThornton.com), Anatoly Kirievsky (RBA), Caroline Lemezina (Housing Industry Association), Steven Mackay (Ebsworth & Ebsworth), Angelo Malizis (Wizard Home Loans), Patrick Mangan (HomeStart Finance), Geordie Manolas (Goldman Sachs), Ramin Marzbani (ACNielsen.consult), Patrick McClure (Mission Australia), Gina McColl (BRW), Bill McConnell (AFR), Robert McCormack (Allens Arthur Robinson), John McFarlane (ANZ), Bruce McWilliam (Channel Seven), Robert McCuaig (Colliers Jardine), Peter McMahon (Clayton Utz), Alison Miller (Urban Development Institute of Australia), David Moloney (Booz Allen & Hamilton), Ruth Morschel (Housing Industry Association), Paul Murnane (JB Were), Darren Olney Fraser (Australian Public Trustees), Rod Owen (ABS), John Perrin (Prime Minister’s Office), Daniel Pillemer (Goldman Sachs), Dr Michael Plumb (RBA), Dr Steven Posner (Goldman Sachs), Brian Salter (Clayton Utz), Eloise Scotford (High Court of Australia), Tony Scotford (Ebsworth & Ebsworth), Nick Selvaratnam (Goldman Sachs), Tony Shannon (Australian Property Monitors), Matthew Sherwood (ING), Tim Sims (Pacific Equity Partners), Dr Tom Skinner (Redbrick Partners), Arthur Sinodinos (Prime Minister’s Office), Orysia Spinner (RAMS), Bryan Stevens (Real Estate Institute of Australia), Gary Storkey (HomeStart Finance), Arvid Streimann (UBS), Louise Sylvan (Australian Consumers Association), John Symond (Aussie Home Loans), Scott Taylor (ACNielsen.consult), Simon Tennent (Housing Industry Association), Lucy Turnbull (City of Sydney), Nicholas van der Ploeg (Turnbull & Partners), Peter Verwer (Property Council of Australia), Nick Vrondas (JB Were), Colin Whybourne (Resimac), Charles Weiser (RAMS), and Simon Winston Smith (JP Morgan).

Finally, let us consider carefully just a few pages of this Summary report. Doing so should enable thoughtful readers to gain a very clear insight into the kind of Orwellian doublespeak, the guile and cunning, the all-pervasive casuistry, that was and is employed by the Merchants of Debt and their cronies, in seeking to rationalise financial innovation, supposedly as a means to help would-be homeowners “benefit from a lower cost of home ownership”.

How? By making it easier for them to get into debt, via financing a portion of the total cost of their home through “equity investment”. In other words, a “financial innovation” enabling a transfer of some of the “equity” (ownership) in even more Australian homes, to speculators, through the genius of “investment” bankers.

Hopefully, a careful examination of this report may also enlighten some readers as to where our politico-bankster-housing nexus has its roots.

To set the tone of all that is to come, here is a snippet from chairman Turnbull’s preface to the 2003 Home Ownership Task Force summary report (my bold added):

No part of the Australian dream is more instinctively human than the desire to own our own home. In recent years, however, that worthy ambition has become harder for many Australians to attain. This is not a function of high interest rates; they are at record lows, but rather is due to a combination of other factors including escalating property prices and, so we contend, inflexibilities in housing finance which limit its availability.

So, the basic premise of this report, according to Malcolm himself, was this: Difficulties in obtaining the dream of home ownership are due to limited availability of housing finance + escalating property prices. Ergo, removing the “inflexibilities” in housing finance will take away those limits to its availability, and make the dream more attainable. Riiiiiiiiight.

And now, to the Summary report itself (my bold added):

Page 12

For centuries now, businesses in need of funds have been able to avail themselves of both debt and equity. Yet for households who aspire to expand, mortgage finance has been their one and only option. And so, despite the ever-growing sophistication of corporate capital markets, consumers around the world are forced to use only the crudest of financial instruments.3

3 This begs the question as to the absence of equity finance in the first instance. One answer instantly offers itself: securitisation. In the past, it was not practicable for a single unsponsored entity to go around gobbling up interests in individual properties in the vain hope that they could bundle these contracts into something that would look like a regulated holding. Fortunately, there has been spectacular progress of late in terms of the ability of private sector participants to package otherwise illiquid instruments into marketable securities.

Do you see what they did there? “Sophistication” = good. “Crude” = bad.

Oh dear, those poor, poor consumers; “forced” to use “only the crudest of financial instruments”. Despite “spectacular progress” in “securitisation”. Oh the humanity!!

Apparently the author — like all Merchants of Debt — does not ascribe to Leonardo Da Vinci’s maxim: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Page 13

Spurred on by economic and social ructions of this kind, the State and Federal Governments sought to actively expand the supply of housing finance, and by the mid 1930s mortgage markets had arrived in Australia. Without widespread support for these changes, it is doubtful whether they would have materialized at such great pace. Ironically enough, it was bureaucratic inertia of precisely the opposite ilk that was to stifle the growth of trading in mortgage-backed securities some fifty years later. Thankfully, reason prevailed, and today it is hard to imagine what life would be like without alternative lenders and the pressures they exert on the banks.

Thank God! “Reason prevailed”, and we finally got … “trading in mortgage-backed securities”. Hallelujah and praise the Lord!

In this report, we renew our call for constituents to take the next brave step along the evolutionary housing finance path. It is our belief that there is no longer any need for the household sector to be the poorer cousin of financial markets. That is to say, aspirants should be able to access a suite of debt and equity instruments that is no less rich than that which corporations avail themselves of every day.

Wow! “The next brave step along the evolutionary housing finance path”. How could any responsible, modern politician even think of resisting this natural, evolutionary progression? How awful, how immoral would it be, to deny the household sector the opportunity to no longer be “the poorer cousin of financial markets”?

In what follows, we undertake four main tasks. First, we offer evidence that irresistible economic logic motivates the introduction of ‘equity finance’. Second, we tender a vast array of new information, drawn from, among other things, survey and focus group data, on the profound socio-economic benefits that these markets could deliver. Third, we demonstrate the proposal’s institutional viability, and pinpoint relatively minor adjustments to the legal, fiscal and regulatory structures that would be required in order to guarantee its success. In the fourth and final section of the report, we embark on a detailed appraisal of the ‘supply-side’ in the context of the debate about the rising costs of housing in this country. Just as we contend that it is vital to extend ownership opportunities to as many Australian families as possible, we also think it is critical to remove artificial constraints on the supply of low-cost properties.

All hail, ladies and gentlemen! We have our first oxymoron of the Summary report.

“Irresistable economic logic”.

Snigger.

Oh yes, about that “institutional viability”. That would be Newspeak for, “All the institutional Merchants of Debt featured in the acknowledgements list love my proposed financial innovation … so it’s clearly viable”.

Page 14

The report itself consists of four distinct ‘parts’. Parts One and Two take up the challenge of introducing the economic rationale underpinning our desire to eliminate the ‘indivisibility’ of the housing asset (which, in layperson’s terms, simply means allowing individuals to hold less than 100 percent of the equity in their home).

On the demand side, we conclude that there should be immense interest in securitized pools of enhanced home equity contracts, so much so that it is unlikely that there will be sufficient funds to sate institutional requirements. In fact, our tests indicate that this new asset-category could come to dominate the ‘optimal’ investor portfolio, with conservative participants dedicating at least 20 percent of all their capital to ‘augmented’ housing.

Page 15

Finally, might a liquid secondary market enable other forms of risk sharing and spawn the development of derivative and futures contracts on residential real estate?

Of course! “Other forms of risk sharing”, the development of “derivatives and futures contracts on residential real estate”, that’s sure to be a win-win for everyone, right?

Oh, wait … remind me again, what happened in 2008?

Page 21

It would appear that the prevailing legal and regulatory framework can flex to accommodate the introduction of equity finance. Most exciting though is the revelation that we can fashion these arrangements as either equity or hybrid debt instruments. The latter is an especially attractive alternative since it enables one to circumvent all of the legal and psychological complications implicit in ‘co-ownership’. In particular, under the debt option, occupiers always own 100 percent of the home in which they live. Furthermore, the costs borne by the institution are noticeably reduced (to take but one example, stamp duty is no longer relevant). In this sense, we can have our economic cake, and eat it too!

Yes, sure, just a little bit of “flex” in the legal and regulatory framework. That’s all. Just enough to “circumvent all of the legal and psychological complications”, and so “accommodate the introduction” of my financial innovation.

So where are the much mooted impediments to progress? In the immortal words of George Harrison, “Let me tell you how it will be, there’s one for you, nineteen for me.” Our study of the proposal’s institutional feasibility suggests that over-zealous regulatory authorities have the capacity to tax away the gains from trade. Here it is not so much the imposition of new levies, but rather the rigid interpretation of existing ones.8 This was certainly the case with several small-scale efforts to launch equity-based products overseas. Yet what would make these actions especially perverse is that markets of this type present the Federal Government with unprecedented revenue raising possibilities. That is to say, the advent of equity finance would permit the Commonwealth to tax owner-occupied housing for the very first time. Naturally, these charges would only apply to the investor’s holding. In this vein, we would submit that even the most ruthless of bureaucrats should be incentivized to encourage the promulgation of these products.

Do you see the cunning carrot bribe being offered by the Merchants of Debt here?

“Hey Mr Howard, if you let us have our financial innovations, and clamp down on any ‘over-zealous regulatory authorities’ who might get in the way of our plan, then VOILA! you can introduce more taxes!”

Page 22

Irrespective of what is decided in the post-publication period, we are convinced that the application of both debt and equity finance will eventually become standard industry practice. It is more a matter of whether that day will arrive in the near term or in the far-flung future; and that, truth be known, is a question that only you (i.e., consumers, decision-makers, investors and opinion-shapers) can answer.

Unsurprisingly, it is our belief that Australia is well positioned to push the intellectual envelope and become the very first nation to develop primary and secondary markets in real estate equity. And at $2.5 trillion, that is no small cheese.

You see? It’s that natural, “evolutionary housing finance path”. It is inevitable, like the rising of the sun. So you best get on board now, and give us what we want; we are going to get it anyway, someday, whether you like it or not, so why not enjoy the ego-stroking (and votes) that will come with being a policy leader in “the very first nation” to “push the intellectual envelope”?

Page 24

Readers will become familiar with our argument that it makes no sense whatsoever for the average Australian family to have to tie up over two-thirds of all their wealth in the world in one highly illiquid and very risky asset: viz., the owner-occupied residence. Indeed, in Part Two of the report we find that one in four families lose money (in real terms) when they come to sell the roof over their heads. For roughly one in ten dwellers, the situation is even more dire – these poor souls are subject to real price declines in excess of 13.4 percent! In this context, it is high time that we brought capitalism to the home front and provided all Australians with the option of issuing both debt and equity capital when purchasing their properties.

Bringing “capitalism to the home front”. Now that’s got to be a great idea! Why? Because it makes no sense whatsoever to tie up over two-thirds of all your wealth in one “highly illiquid and very risky asset”.

Er … hang on. If the owner-occupied residence is such a “highly illiquid and very risky asset”, then tell us again why would it would be such a great idea to “securitise” a portion of the “equity” in that “highly illiquid and very risky asset”, and sell it to speculators as an “investment”?

It should be plainly obvious to any thinking reader, that the entire Home Ownership Task Force report in 2003 was little more than sales pitch by the Merchants of Debt –

We have had some expenses for assistance with research, computing services and the like and we have therefore been fortunate in receiving generous and much appreciated support both financial and in kind from a number of organisations, including Wizard Home Loans, the Housing Industry Association, JBWere, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Aussie Home Loans, Resimac, RAMS Home Loans, HomeStart Finance, Clayton Utz, Ebsworth & Ebsworth, Phillips Fox, ACNielsen.consult, and Home Australia.

Screen shot 2013-05-22 at 10.14.07 PM

A sales pitch to the Howard Government, to allow financial innovation in the Australian housing sector. Innovation of the kind that brought us the Global Financial Crisis.

With folks like Goldman Sachs, the Turnbull & Partners merchant bank, and Malcolm Turnbull’s former Goldman Sachs Australia associate, Christopher Joye, leading the bankster cheer squad.

And with Task Force chair and then head of the Menzies Research Centre, Malcolm Turnbull, endorsing it all with his usual eloquence –

The Menzies Research Centre, while affiliated with the Liberal Party, is neither an echo chamber for Government policies nor a substitute for the public service. Our aim is to promote independent, creative and practical ideas on subjects of public importance. Our political perspective is simply that of a commitment to individualism, enterprise and freedom of choice.

We recognise that the most challenging social issues are not susceptible to quick ideological answers. We need constantly to promote new approaches and new ideas in social policy as much as we do in science or technology. We believe that these reports do deliver a wide range of new ideas, many of them worked out in considerable, groundbreaking analytical detail.

The principal author of that report, Christopher Joye, has since gone on to introduce his Equity Finance Mortgage product, and the leading housing spruiker / real estate investment / funds management firm, Rismark International.  He is also a director of Yellow Brick Road (YBR) Funds Management, a company founded by another Merchant of Debt who just happened to feature very prominently in the acknowledgements list of the Howard Government report — Mark Bouris, formerly of Wizard Home Loans.

It was Christopher Joye who told readers of his column two years ago, that “The big fella once said to me, You capitalise on chaos.”

He was speaking of his former Goldman Sachs associate, Malcolm Turnbull.

If lower house prices is something that you want to see in this country, then Malcolm Turnbull MP is not your friend and saviour.

* See also Compassion For Malcolm: He Just Wants His Balls Back

Goldman Sachs Conquers Europe

28 Nov

From the UK’s Independent:

Click to enlarge

What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank’s alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund’s European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as “the Vampire Squid”, and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman’s interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren’t “bought and paid for” by corporations, as in the US, he says. “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.”

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy’s most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman’s bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury’s committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country’s financial policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank’s two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman’s UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country’s financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland’s interest rate this summer.

Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn’t be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

The bank’s traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece’s unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: “It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher.”

When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn’t involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a “voluntary” haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent’s big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

“My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?” says Simon Johnson. “It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same.”

So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm’s money that Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent. Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries’ debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?

And in Australia?

We have the Right Honourable Malcolm Turnbull MP.

I would suggest to readers that independent trader Alessio Rastani wasn’t too far wrong:

A God-given Opportunity To Plunder

5 Aug

Forgive my laziness dear reader.

Your humble blogger did not have time to research and blog anything earth-shattering for your amusement today.

So instead, I give you the following extract from another, far more estimable author’s work, that is on a theme very topical to this blog.

Because it supports exactly the position I have put forward. Naturally, that means it’s brilliant! 😉

Who do you think wrote this?

In June 1988, James Hansen gave evidence to a US Senate committee. Hansen’s star rose and he then became climate adviser to the US President, to Al Gore and many others such as Lehman Brothers, the great financiers, who saw carbon emissions trading as a new unregulated global financial instrument which they could control. Lehman Brothers has now gone broke.

Gore was a director of Lehman Brothers. Gore founded his own “green” corporation, Generation Investment Management. He is a board member of a renewable energy company. In many legal jurisdictions, if Gore made speeches about climate change and did not declare his interests, he would be committing a criminal offence. The whole gravy train gained momentum with the establishment of a single-issue group (IPCC), propaganda via Al Gore’s fictional Hollywood blockbuster movie An Inconvenient Truth and Mann’s infamous “hockey stick”, various partisan economic reports (eg Stern, Garnaut) for populist political leaders and an uncritical media looking for horror stories.

Carbon and emissions trading schemes are a God-given opportunity to plunder. New legislation on pie-in-the-sky emissions will result in the public paying more for everything. Trading schemes will be based on a mythical commodity. Such schemes have not stood the test of time and will require constant amendments. The opportunities for fraud are breathtaking. There will be great profits to make out of chaos and many businesses such as (the late) Lehman Brothers positioned themselves to make a killing. Governments just cannot resist an opportunity to raise more taxes, to increase the bureaucracy and impose more regulations.

Note that line I’ve bolded in the above extract.

“There will be great profits to make out of chaos”.

Remind you of anyone?

Let me give you a gentle hint –

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

Coincidence?

I think not.

All cliques of people tend to hold (and express) similar viewpoints.

For mine, the idea underlying the above expression/s is very telling.

Make of it what you will.

For your interest, the above-quoted extract is from the final chapter of Australian Professor Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth (available here).

Interestingly, Professor Plimer was a Head Professor at the university where my business partner completed his (unrelated) degree back in the late 80’s / early 90’s. Thanks to Plimer’s book (which was loaned to me today), my business partner has during the past week, while bedridden due injury, finally taken the Red Pill, and awoken to The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Thank you, Professor Plimer.

Another one bites the dust.

Monckton Challenges Absolute Banker

23 Jul

h/t to Andrew Bolt:

Challenge to an absolute banker

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, following what the great Alan Jones has described as his “6-0, 6-0, 6-0 victory” over the director of the Australia Institute in a debate about the climate at the National Press Club in Canberra early this week, has today issued the following challenge to Malcolm Turnbull, the former leader of the Liberal/National Coalition, whom his party recycled last year for his naïve belief that “global warming” is some sort of “global crisis” –

Whereas one Malcolm Turnbull, Member of Parliament for Goldman Sachs, self-appointed leader of the Absolute Bankers’ Get-Rich-Quick, Gimme-the-Money, Subsidy-Junkies’, Profiteers’-of-Doom and Rent-Seekers’ Vested-Interest Coalition Against Hard-Working Taxpayers, has this day demonstrated wilful but indubitably profitable ignorance of elementary science by declaring that since all relevant matters of climatology are settled no one should pay any heed to a mere Peer of the Realm who dares to question the imagined (and imaginary) scientific “consensus” to the effect that unless the economies of the West are laid waste and destroyed we are all doomed;

And forasmuch as it is easy to identify the said Turnbull’s aircraft when it arrives at Canberra Airport because when the engines are turned off the whining carries on;

Now therefore I, The Right Honourable Christopher Walter, by the Grace of God and Letters Patent under the Hand and Seal of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (whom God preserve) Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, do by these presents challenge the said Absolute Banker to a Debate on live television, during which each party shall have the opportunity to state his case and to examine the other’s case, with a view to informing Hard-Working Taxpayers and allowing them to decide for themselves whether the truth is being told by me or by the said Member for Goldman Sachs, upon whom I call to take up this challenge, if he dares.

Given under my sign manual this twenty-second day of July in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven,

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

I’d like to see our lazy, useless, compromised mainstream media challenge The Goldman-churian Candidate on his conflict-of-interest (and possible criminality/treason) vis-a-vis international banksters Goldman Sachs.

Malcolm Turnbull – The Goldman-churian Candidate?

20 Jul

h/t to @JamesJohnsonCHR for inspiring the title phrase.

Regular readers of this blog will doubtless not all be Twitter users.

And so, many will not have had opportunity to bear witness to the following example of the intransigence of our politicians, when it comes to transparency concerning possible conflicts-of-interest.

In particular, that of Mr Malcolm Turnbull, who I have written of previously with respect to his past associations and their possible bearing on his long and strident advocacy for an Australian emissions trading scheme (and only an emissions trading scheme) –

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'”

On Thursday 14th July, prompted by another blog article I published that day “Spread The Word – ‘Untouchable’ Turnbull Is A Goldman-Plated Turd” , the following exchange took place on Twitter between myself and Mr Turnbull, along with interjections from Twitter onlookers.

I’ll not comment with my own views as to what – if any – conclusions might be drawn from Mr Turnbull’s responses, or their implications for the present state of political honesty, transparency, and accountability in our nation.

I will simply leave readers to draw their own conclusions.

If you find it too hard to follow, then skip past this Twitter dialogue to the bottom.

There, you will find a very interesting quote from the Royal Commission into the collapse of HIH, which exonerated Mr Turnbull of any wrongdoing … in rather curious circumstances:

* 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

Readers may be interested to consider the following excerpt from an article commenting on the HIH-FAI-Goldman-Turnbull affair.

It is noteworthy that Mr Turnbull’s standard defence when this topic is raised, is to point to his exoneration by the HIH Royal Commission.

Perhaps the following may assist readers who are unfamiliar with just how … questionable … the efficacy of our legal system is, in their own reflections on whether or not Mr Turnbull has anything to hide.

From nineMSN ‘Money’, 23 May 2008 (my emphasis added) –

One question [to Mr Turnbull], though, got a very terse response, suggesting it might have made its target a little uncomfortable. It was badly asked, revealing the questioner’s lack of knowledge about the issue. But the question on Turnbull’s expectations as to the timing of the HIH liquidator’s legal action against him (and a number of other respondents involved not with HIH, but the insurer it acquired in 1998, FAI Insurances) earned the questioner a firm lecture.

The royal commission report into the HIH collapse had found no wrong-doing on his part, Turnbull told the questioner. This is true. The HIH liquidator will struggle in a courtroom to make any case against Turnbull.

Turnbull’s answer at the National Press Club, and the predicament in which he finds himself, must be viewed in the context of the fact that the royal commission spent more time examining the deal in contention – HIH’s 1998 takeover of FAI – than any other transaction. For about three months, anyone even remotely connected with the takeover was grilled intensively.

In the end, the royal commissioner Neville Owen became impatient and ordered his counsel assisting to move on. Owen was obliged to find that the acquisition did, in fact, contribute to the collapse of the merged company.

Turnbull’s role as adviser to FAI in its “defence” against HIH was complicated by the fact that he and Goldman Sachs had considered leading a recapitalisation of FAI a few months before HIH launched its bid, partly using the investment bank’s own money. This proposal was called Project Firelight.

Goldman Sachs’ New York office finally canned the idea in early September 1998 for reasons that were never fully explained, but most likely because of volatile global markets at the time (very similar to recent subprime global liquidity squeeze) caused at the time by the Russian bond crisis and the Asian currency crisis.

In his subsequent role as adviser to the FAI board in relation to the HIH bid, Turnbull made a presentation to FAI directors in support of his recommendation that they accept the HIH offer, which was 47 percent above the previous FAI share price. The presentation covered three scenarios, one of which was similar to the Project Firelight proposal.

The royal commission found that he didn’t directly tell any of the board members about the earlier exercise. Turnbull told the royal commission he assumed that managing director Rodney Adler, who had hired him, had informed the board. Adler said he told John Landerer, the chairman. Landerer denied this. Who do you believe? Is it important?

After three months and millions of dollars of expenditure chasing the line that Turnbull and Goldman Sachs were somehow responsible for the collapse of HIH, this is what the royal commissioner says in his concluding remarks about their role in the FAI takeover:

It would have been of assistance to the directors of FAI to have known that GSA had spent considerable time in the course of 1998 analysing a very similar proposal in which Goldman Sachs might invest its own money but had decided not to proceed with it.

Such information should have been revealed to the FAI board by a financial or corporate adviser, like GSA, because it would have assisted the directors to decide whether to appoint GSA as their financial adviser on the takeover. It would also have assisted the directors in forming their opinions about the viability of the ‘break up and sell clean general insurance company’ proposal, which [was] presented by GSA as a potentially more attractive alternative than the takeover.

The fact that these matters were not revealed to the board of FAI is regrettable. This is particularly so in light of the evidence of some directors that it might have affected their attitude to the appointment of GSA.”

Having heard months of very aggressive evidence from his counsel assisting, designed to build a case against Turnbull and Goldman Sachs, this was all the royal commissioner was prepared to say about their role.

It would be a brave person who would try to predict the outcome of a court case, given the dysfunction of the court system, but this is hardly the basis of a successful $500 million claim. Turnbull’s protests that there is no case against him have merit.

I will leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether they agree with the concluding comment by the author of that piece.

As we know, just over 1 year after that article was written, Goldman Sachs did in fact make a “confidential” settlement on Mr Turnbull’s behalf.  Meaning that he did not have to suffer the embarrassment and indignity of facing up to the charges in the NSW Supreme Court. This occurred in mid-2009.  Right at the time that Mr Turnbull as leader of the Opposition was negotiating the bipartisan agreement with Kevin Rudd to introduce an ETS in Australia (dubbed at that time, the “CPRS”).

The implications of which, given Goldman Sachs’ extremely prominent role in emissions trading and the drive for globalised emissions trading, I leave to readers to ponder for themselves.

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

Gillard: “I Have Always Been Determined To Create An *Emissions Trading Scheme*”

1 Jul

Three days ago, I wrote an article arguing by reference to the Government’s official documentation, that the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance is not proposing a “tax”, but an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price start –

“The Carbon Tax is Not A ‘Tax’ … It Is The Bankster’s CPRS By Another Name”.

Two days ago, prompted by a reader, I wrote a detailed email to the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Mr Greg Hunt MP, arguing the same point –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP”.

Yesterday, I engaged in multiple correspondences with Mr Hunt, continuing to present the same irrefutable point; that the Government’s proposed “pricing carbon” scheme is not a tax, but is, and always has been, planned and intended to be an emissions trading scheme with an initial and temporary “fixed price” period –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP”Updates 2, 3, 4, 5.

In one of these correspondences, Mr Hunt stated the following (emphasis added):

Thur 30/6, 10:30pm –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

I will leave it to those interested to read my detailed critical response to Mr Hunt’s statement.

Remarkably however, just a few short hours later the following was being widely reported in the mainstream media (please note carefully my bold emphasis added):

By Malcolm Farr, National Political Editor | From: news.com.au | June 30, 2011 2:38PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard today said the imposition of a fixed price on carbon pollution will last for the minimum possible of three years before being replaced by whatever the market decides.

The decision will be a bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks as quickly as possible.

“What (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott likes to refer to as a carbon tax, a fixed price period for an emissions trading scheme, is a period I believe should be as short  as possible,” Ms Gillard said in Darwin.

I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme, and I’ve always been determined that the fixed price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme.”

She said her aim “has always been to have an emissions trading scheme.

“That’s an aim I share with (former Liberal Prime Minister) John Howard and (current Liberal front bencher) Malcolm Turnbull – an emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future,” said the Prime Minister.

And then there was this, from the ABC (emphasis added):

Jeremy Thompson, On Thursday 30 June 2011, 16:55 EST

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is determined to introduce an emissions trading scheme as soon as possible, amid reports the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has agreed the transition from a carbon tax to an ETS will take three years.

It is understood the Government, Greens and independents agreed to transition from the carbon tax to an ETS in 2015 – at the early end of the stated aim of three to five years.

The Government wanted to go directly to an ETS, but the minority nature of the Parliament meant the Greens were able to insist on an initial fixed carbon tax.

“I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme and I’ve always been determined that the fixed-price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme,” Ms Gillard told reporters in Darwin.

She sought to change the nature of the rhetoric, rejecting the term “carbon tax” as a description used by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

I’m tempted to end this piece right now, with a triumphant “I rest my case”.

Sadly, there will doubtless be those who are to a greater or lesser degree incapable of critical thinking, who may dismiss Gillard’s remarks as not supporting my argument.

For one reason.

They no longer trust anything she says.

It is not necessary to believe that she is telling the truth now.

It is only necessary to critically examine the facts.

And the facts are these*.

The Rudd-Gillard government has always officially (ie, in written documentation) referred to their “carbon pricing” proposal as an “emissions trading scheme”.

Always.

Never as a “carbon tax“.

If those who oppose the introduction of a carbon “tax” wish to succeed in preventing it, they need to start using their brains.

It is better for everyone in the community to clearly understand that it IS an emissions trading scheme.

We should all encourage and applaud Gillard and Co in their new “bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks”.

Why?

Because the people we need to convince are not those who already oppose the carbon “X”.

The people we need to convince – the people we need on our side against the carbon “X” – are the lefties, green cargo-culters, and others like them who go along with most every popular delusion, and are too thick to critically think for themselves.

Now believe it or not, those of us who understand the grave threat of a carbon “X” actually do share one very important thing in common with the lefties, et al.

We all – broadly speaking – HATE BANKERS.

It is vital for “righties” to understand, that “lefties” generally think that taxes aren’t such a bad thing – especially if the wise and compassionate, caring Big Government is going to “save the planet” by taxing “only” those big bad “polluters”.

But … if just once these poor deluded fools could glimpse the reality – that the governments plan is NOT a wise and benevolent Robin Hood “tax” as they imagine, but is in truth, nothing more than a grandiose scheme that is designed by, and for, the benefit of BANKERS – then we have a chance.

Then, there is hope that we can all become one.

“Leftard” and “Rightard” alike.

United in opposition  … to the banksters’ ETS.

So I say … Go for it JuLiar!

You’re on the right track now 😉

Tell it like it is.

Keep telling the world that it ‘aint no “tax”.

Keep telling us all that it is what you have always been determined to create”.

An emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future

And We The People will drive home the patently obvious “bankster” connection in this grand scam for you.

________

* The Facts

References:

Garnaut Review 2011, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Multi-Party Climate Change Committee

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Publications

CPRS White Paper:

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Letter to Greg Hunt MP

29 Jun

* Shortcuts to Update 2 , Update 3 , Update 4 , and Update 5 below.

Prompted by a reader, this afternoon the following email sent to the Federal Opposition’s Shadow Environment Minister, Greg Hunt MP.

Cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce.

*****************************

Subject:  Why Are You Calling It A “Tax”, When It Is NOT?

Dear Mr Hunt,

I am writing to you pursuant to a recent communication between yourself and a follower of my Twitter feed – @BarnabyisRight and blog BarnabyIsRight.com

I understand that this lady questioned you concerning my recent article, which affirms that the “carbon tax” is NOT a tax, but rather, an “emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price period”.  Exactly as per the Rudd Government’s proposed CPRS.

I also understand that your response contradicted this, instead arguing that “In fact the tax will actually morph into a tradeable right after 3 years”.

Mr Hunt, you are wrong. And I firmly believe that both yourself, and the Federal Opposition more broadly, are guilty of doing the electorate a grave disservice by continuing to falsely attach the moniker “tax” to the government’s proposed scheme.

In proof of this, I refer you to the following quotations and links. They are all from this blog article that I published recently, which has attracted considerable attention. The lady in question advises me that she did not feel comfortable sending you a link to the article, given that it contains some “florid” descriptors.

All but one of these quotes and links are from the government’s own handpicked sources.

I would ask that you please respond to my email, by specific reference to these evidences –

Julian Turecek of Cleantech Ventures, writing for MacroBusiness in May 2011 (emphasis added):

The current government has not yet give its policy a formal name. So the Opposition has obliged* and chosen one for them: a carbon tax.

Now this has got a lot of people, mainly tax advisers and accountants, barking up the wrong tree. It’s not actually a tax…

The current proposal is not a tax, but a fixed price emissions trading scheme. This is exactly the same as the CPRS, which also had a fixed price at the start.

[* Please think back carefully. When Gillard announced that she would introduce a “price on carbUon” after all, she and the government initially denied the Opposition’s “great big new tax” claim. But they have since allowed, and encouraged, this false meme to become entrenched into the public psyche. I believe that is because calling it a “tax” sounds more simple and less threatening, and most importantly, it does not so clearly highlight the banker-driven “trading” aspect than if they had instead called it what it is, and always was ultimately intended to be right from the beginning … an Emissions Trading Scheme.]

Garnaut Review, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

The government’s own climate change website on the topic (emphasis added):

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

Note very carefully what it says under Transition Arrangements (emphasis added):

Transition Arrangements

At the end of the fixed price period, the clear intent would be that the scheme convert to a flexible price cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. In relation to the transition to a flexible price, it would be important to design the arrangements so as to promote business certainty and a smooth transition from the fixed to flexible price.

Ross Garnaut also reiterates the importance of the initial design promoting a “smooth transition” to a fully-floating price ETS, in his final Garnaut Review:

Investors need clarity about when and the conditions under which the transition to a floating price will occur. To support a smooth transition, the necessary institutions and supporting infrastructure should be established from the beginning of the scheme. It is important to specify rules for the scheme as soon as possible, including arrangements for auctioning permits and for acceptance of offsets and international permits.

Mr Hunt, this is where we come to the critical matter pertaining to whether there is any remotely possible justification for calling the government’s proposed “pricing mechanism”, a “tax”.

How exactly do you design a scheme to promote a “smooth transition”?

By giving those initial “fixed price” permits an expiry date that is far enough away to ensure that they can be traded when the emissions trading scheme transitions to a “floating” price. In this way, the “property rights” of those forced to purchase the initial “fixed” (and rising over “3-5 years”) price permits are safeguarded (ie, thus, “business certainty”) – they can “bank” their permits and trade them later, when the transition to a floating price occurs.

Of course, an even simpler way would be to give these permits to “pollute” an unlimited expiry date.

Which is exactly what the government’s official Policy position was under the original Rudd-Garnaut CPRS White Paper.  Which the Gillard-Garnaut “carbon pricing” mechanism aims to replicate – because that is what the bankers want (emphasis added):

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Mr Hunt, in calling this a “tax”, you are misleading the Australian public.

You are focussing (diverting?) attention on to the quite unimportant details of the initial “fixed price” period, and failing to draw attention to the true end game. The Big Picture.

The Government’s plan has never changed.  They have always been pursuing a CPRS – an emissions trading scheme – with an initial fixed price period.

I should also mention that I am fully aware of the key role played by your colleague Mr Turnbull, going back to 2004 and his entry into Parliament, in the banker-driven push to include Australia in a global CO2-derivatives trading market (casino).

I am especially aware of the fact that Mr Turnbull is effectively “owned” by international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs, by virtue of their “confidential settlement” on Mr Turnbull’s behalf, to keep him out of court when Opposition Leader, in the 1/2 billion dollar HIH lawsuit in which Mr Turnbull was a named defendant.  I have documented this fact on my blog as well.

This is a matter of clear conflict-of-interest / corruption of our democratic processes. One that, some day, will become widespread public knowledge. I would suggest to you that it would be very wise – for numerous reasons – for the Federal Opposition to ensure that the matter of Mr Turnbull’s highly dubious associations and obligations does indeed become widely known.

Sooner, rather than later.

I (and the rapidly growing readership of my blog and Twitter feed) look forward with considerable interest to your responses on these matters.

Sincerely,

*********

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE:

I should mention, it is my view that the above was a complete waste of my time.

For lots of reasons.

Apart from anything else, has anyone ever seen a politician admit that they are/were wrong about a critical issue? And then, do something proactive about correcting their error?

UPDATE 2:

Mr Hunt responds (Wed 29/6, 5:42pm)-

I respect your views ******** but respectfully disagree.

A tax is a fixed price with floating volume.

That is what is being created.

After three years – five years it will then turn into a tradeable floating price and fixed volume system.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Wed 29/6, 6:42pm) –

(cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce … I note that Mr Hunt did not cc Senator Joyce with his response)

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you for your prompt response.

You have stated that – “A tax is a fixed price with floating volume. That is what is being created.

This is a wholly unsatisfactory response to the concerns raised at length in my previous communication.

It is not a question of our holding differing views or interpretations, Mr Hunt. It is a simple question of very clear facts and evidence, which you appear to be wilfully ignoring.

Your response is misleading and deceptive by omission.

With respect, your response suggests either a culpable ignorance, or complicity, on your part.

Your statement wilfully ignores the perfectly clear statements of the CPRS White Paper, the Garnaut Review 2011, and the government’s climate change website description of the “Broad Architecture” of the proposed “mechanism” for “pricing carbon” that I have quoted and referenced for your due consideration.

It also ignores, most importantly, the key point detailed in and evidenced by the government’s sources in my previous communication.

Mr Hunt, that key point is this.

The government’s openly professed intention, and the Garnaut Review’s consistent recommendation, is to issue carbon permits at a fixed price only for a temporary initial period, with said permits having the following key characteristics, specifically in order to “smooth the transition” to the ultimately intended fully-floating cap-and-trade scheme:

(a) Unlimited expiry date;
(b) Unlimited bankability, from Scheme commencement.

The implications of these parameters – stated previously as formal Policy Positions by Prof Garnaut and the ALP – are perfectly clear:

1. A “polluter” forced to purchase the initial “fixed price” carbon permits will be empowered to “bank” said permits, “from Scheme commencement”.

2. Due to their unlimited expiration date, the “polluters” will be enabled to trade said permits, after the temporary initial period has passed.

3. The “price” of carbon permits issued during the temporary, initial “fixed price” period, will be legislated to rise incrementally over that interim period.

Thus, it is patently obvious to any thinking person, that “polluters” forced to purchase carbon permits at (eg) the Year 1 “fixed price”, having been enabled to “bank” said permits, will be able to on-sell them after the temporary initial “fixed price” period trading restriction has passed, at the then going market rate.

Furthermore, as the price of permits will have been forced to rise by government decree during the initial period, this means that, absent a collapse in the market price upon the “floating” of the Australian carbon permit market, “polluters” will be granted opportunity to profit from the sale of carbon permits that they were forced to purchase – at lower prices – during the initial temporary period!

Indeed, those “polluters” who will be granted “free” permits will effectively be granted a free profit-making opportunity, directly arising from the nature of the proposed “initial fixed price” carbon pricing mechanism.

Mr Hunt, it is specious, an insult to intelligence, and clear cause for questioning your own integrity and motives in this matter, for you to suggest that a scheme such as that proposed – one which will guarantee an enhanced profit-making opportunity for at least some so-called “polluters (as described above) – could by any logic or rational measure be deemed a “tax”!

Sadly, I am confident that there is little to be gained in my extending on this point, by defining what a “tax” actually is, by way of reference to any external authoritative source/s.

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

Once again, despite the wholly unsatisfactory (and revealing) nature of your limited response, I do thank you for at least having taken the time to respond promptly to my and my readers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

******************

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 3:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 10:30pm) –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 11:14pm) –

(cc’d to Senator Barnaby Joyce … I note that, once again, Mr Hunt did not cc Senator Joyce with his response)

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you again for your prompt response.

It is wholly unsatisfactory – and once again, thoroughly misleading and deceptive – for you to downplay / brush off the detailed concerns that I and my readers have raised, and/or for you to ignore the numerous government-published official documents that I/we have referenced, by merely stating that “the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax. As has the Treasurer“.

The citizens of Australia all know that the PM lies. As does the Treasurer.

The issue at hand, however, is your and your colleagues’ continued complicity in doing the same on this particular issue.

I refer your attention to the specifically stated concern that was first raised with you in my prior communication – which abundantly clear from the Subject description in these communiques:

Why are you calling it a “tax”, when it is NOT?

“I firmly believe that both yourself, and the Federal Opposition more broadly, are guilty of doing the electorate a grave disservice by continuing to falsely attach the moniker “tax” to the government’s proposed scheme.”

Mr Hunt, the concern raised directly references your and your Federal Opposition colleagues’ misleading and deceptive descriptions of the proposed policy.

Whether or not the PM – or indeed any other politician, media commentator, or individual – employs the use of the same misleading and deceptive description, does not exonerate either yourself or your Federal Opposition colleagues, for your continued use of the same.

I should not need to remind you, Mr Hunt, that both you and your Federal Opposition colleagues are elected representatives of the citizens of this nation.  You are being paid via our taxes, to represent our expressed interests, and properly and thoroughly heed our concerns.

You have failed to do so. Despite now repeated specific and detailed requests.

It is my and my readers’ expressed interest and concern, that both the Federal Opposition generally, and yourself as the responsible Shadow Climate Change portfolio spokesperson particularly, should:

(1) Formally and publicly correct the misleading and deceptive description of the government’s proposed “carbon pricing” policy; and

(2) Henceforth discontinue referring to the policy as a “carbon tax“, and instead refer to the proposed policy exclusively by way of the specific description consistently published by the Federal Government in its public policy documentation, as displayed on its climatechange.gov website and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

I am now directly asking you, Mr Hunt, on behalf of myself and my readers, whether or not you will undertake to both heed, and act upon, this specific request from your electors.

I also note that, once again, that you have pointedly failed to respond in any way to my direct and specific request for comment on the directly associated matter of your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs. I would repeat this request by direct quotation from my previous correspondence:

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

Thank you in advance, for your choice to finally and directly address – and act upon – the specifically stated and repeated substance of my and my readers’ concerns.

Sincerely,

***************

Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 4:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 12:03pm) –

Many thanks and I respect your views but think and believe that this is a tax ands in fact the country believes it.

Cheers,

greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 1:10pm) –

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

Thank you once again for responding so promptly.

Your response to my and my readers’ concerns – and direct and specific requests – continues to be appalling unsatisfactory.

Indeed, in your continuing to ignore the specific points of reference and direct requests that have been made repeatedly to you, your communications to me on these matters represent a wilful dereliction of your Parliamentary responsibilities to the citizens of this nation, to whom you directly owe your position, title, income, and power of influence.

Mr Hunt, in your latest response to me you have once again ignored all of the evidences and information that have been repeatedly submitted to you, and instead resorted to argumentum ad populum

I … think and believe that this is a tax ands in fact the country believes it.

Argumentum ad populum is authoritatively recognised as being a fallacious argument. Your resorting to it as a singular response to the evidences presented to you, as direct quotations from the government-published official documentation on this issue, represents a (further) wilful act of misleading and deceptive conduct.

As you have once again failed to respond to any of the specific matters that I have references, I will now again repeat my previous requests to you below:

Item 1.

It is my and my readers’ expressed interest and concern, that both the Federal Opposition generally, and yourself as the responsible Shadow Climate Change portfolio spokesperson particularly, should:

(1) Formally and publicly correct the misleading and deceptive description of the government’s proposed “carbon pricing” policy; and

(2) Henceforth discontinue referring to the policy as a “carbon tax”, and instead refer to the proposed policy exclusively by way of the specific description consistently published by the Federal Government in its public policy documentation, as displayed on its climatechange.gov website and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

I am now directly asking you, Mr Hunt, on behalf of myself and my readers, whether or not you will undertake to both heed, and act upon, this specific request from your electors.

Item 2.

Mr Hunt, it is also both insulting, and revealing, that you have pointedly failed to address in any way the arguably far graver matter raised in my earlier communication to you, vis-a-vis the conflict-of-interest / corruption of democracy evidenced by your colleague Mr Turnbull’s associations and manifest obligations to international bankers and CO2-trading pushers, Goldman Sachs.

Therefore, I am now directly requesting your comment on that specific matter, and refer your particular attention to the publicly available evidences linked in my previous communication to you.

In closing, I would ask you to please explain for the benefit of myself and my readers, exactly how it is that a scheme which proposes to grant a selected subset of the total population a new “property right” (a “carbon permit”) – a property right that has an initially fixed and then subsequently a tradeable monetary value – in exchange for a government-mandated surcharge / levy / fee for the acquisition of that same property right – can be plausibly deemed a “tax”.

My readers and I look forward to receiving your direct, relevant, on-topic response to each of the aforementioned matters.

Sincerely,

*********
Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 5:

Mr Hunt responds again (Thur 30/6, 1:24pm) –

Hi ************,

I receive over 300 emails a day- really…and I have endeavoured to be both fast and respectful.

I have to say that you are the first person I have encountered who does not accept that the levying of a fixed rate figure on the production of a floating volume of emissions is not a tax.

This is the economic definition of a tax.

You do not have to accept this of course.  But I also accept that nothing I say will change your opinion and while I disagree with that I stand for your freedom to take a different view yourself.

Regards,
greg

My subsequent response to Mr Hunt (Thur 30/6, 2:13pm ) –

**********************************

Dear Mr Hunt,

I do thank you once again for your promptness in responding to my and my readers’ concerns.

Your statement of definition in your most recent communique is, once again, misleading and deceptive, by reason of its representing (1) a blatant “red herring” fallacy, and (2) a blatant “straw man” fallacy:

(1) “you are the first person I have encountered who does not accept that” –

Mr Hunt, this is a red herring fallacy. Whether I am, or am not, “the first person you have encountered who does not accept that” the government’s proposed scheme is not a “tax”, is irrelevant to the facts and evidence as have been demonstrated to you by way of reference to the government’s official documentation.

(2) “the levying of a fixed rate figure on the production of a floating volume of emissions is … the economic definition of a tax” –

Mr Hunt, your statement is factually untrue.

This is not the economic definition of a “tax”.

A “tax” is typically described as follows: “A fee charged (“levied”) by a government on a product, income, or activity… The purpose of taxation is to finance government expenditure”

Furthermore, the “definition” that you have stated is irrelevant, and constitutes a blatant “straw man” fallacy.

I have repeatedly drawn your specific attention to the definition of the government’s proposed scheme, as published on its official climatechange.gov website, and in the 2011 Garnaut Review.

The only definition that is relevant to the matter, is the government’s definition as published in its official documentation. And it is manifest that this does not in any way, shape, or form, define the proposed scheme as a “tax”.  Instead, it clearly and repeatedly identifies the proposed scheme as being an emissions trading scheme with an initial fixed price period”.

Mr Hunt, your continued obfuscation, resorting to rhetorical fallacies, and above all, your refusal to directly respond to each of the points of reference and concern, and also to the direct requests that I have repeatedly submitted to you, only further evidences that you are persisting in acting in a thoroughly misleading and deceptive manner.

This is wholly unacceptable for any law-abiding citizen in right community standing, and the more especially for an elected representative of the citizens of this nation.

So much so, that I am now considering the option of enlisting the support of the several barristers and lawyers within my blog readership and Twitter following, in the potential pursuit of legal redress against you and/or your Federal Opposition colleagues, pertaining directly to the matters I have repeatedly detailed to you.

I now repeat – again – my previous, itemised requests for your direct response and action.

Sincerely,

***************
Barnabyisright.com

UPDATE 5A:

Correction – I inadvertently neglected to cc Senator Joyce on the last two (2) of my responses above (at Updates 4 and 5). Post edited to remove references.

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

28 May

Leading property industry spruiker Christopher Joye has written an insightful blog post today concerning Malcolm Turnbull, and the present media focus on possible divisions within the Liberal Party.

It’s worth taking close note of Chris’ view on this.

Chris Joye is in a very good position to know something of the way Malcolm Turnbull thinks. The pair go back a long way. They were former associates at Goldman Sachs Australia. Turnbull later chaired the Howard Government’s Home Ownership Task Force, alongside lead author Chris Joye.

After Malcolm Turnbull lost the leadership of the Liberal Party, in December 2009 it was Chris Joye singing Turnbull’s praises in offering support for the idea of a Turnbull-led third party to split the Liberal vote:

Chris Joye, a leading investment banker and former professional colleague of Mr Turnbull’s who also worked with him at Goldman Sachs and sat with him on the previous government’s Home Ownership Task Force, this week used his blog to promote the new party idea.

He said Mr Turnbull moved into politics for the right reasons and possesses “more care, love and passion for this country in his pinky than most of his political peers exude through their entire being”.

“Perhaps following this fracas the big fella will throw caution to the wind and found his own political party,” he said.

“I am thinking of the Australian Republican Party with an unconditional commitment to combating climate change and reinvigorating the dormant republican movement.

“Now that would be sure to split the Liberal Party vote.”

Today Chris has detailed his thoughts on Turnbull’s actions and involvement in the current political fracas:

First, we take as given that Malcolm is very smart and highly strategic. The shenanigans in recent weeks were not just a random bull-in-a-china-shop episode. There was method to the supposed madness.

Chris goes on to outline what might be Malcolm’s assessment of his own political position, before moving on to considering his incentives for his present actions.

Which brings us to the key point in which I strongly disagree with Chris’s base premise:

Next, consider Malcolm’s incentives, which help shed light on his actions. Unlike almost all other politicians, Malcolm currently has nothing to lose. He is extremely wealthy, and can opt out of politics and pursue a life of leisure at his choosing.

Au contraire!

As we have seen (Compassion For Malcolm – He Just Wants His Balls Back), Malcolm Turnbull has something very important to lose indeed.

Goldman Sachs’ “confidential settlement” made on Malcolm’s behalf, to save his hide in the $500 million HIH lawsuit, is the greatest incentive driving Malcolm Turnbull’s political career.

Chris Joye argues convincingly that what we are seeing now, with an ascendant Abbott and the Coalition outpolling the Labor/Greens on an anti-carbon trading policy platform, is Malcolm Turnbull embarking on a “kamikaze” run:

If he truly believes that it is in the best interests of both the nation and himself to lead the party, and have a shot at running the country, he has to create a catalysing event. It is too late for him to stealthily build support with the backbench. Most are now a lost cause. But time and human self-interest are on his side. It is over two years before the next election.

Malcolm’s most powerful solution is to go into Kamikaze mode and compel a ‘survivalist’ partyroom response. This is a risky strategy, but then Malcolm has what is known in financial markets as a “call-option-like” payoff function. He has a helluva lot of upside if he can pull it off. And if he does not, he has little to lose.

The Kamikaze strategy involves blowing up both Abbott and Hockey

Chris’ most telling comment of all comes in closing:

An objective analysis would conclude that there is risk that the polling does not get much better than this. That, surprise, surprise, the party, with Malcolm’s prodding, cannibalises itself. The big fella once said to me, You capitalise on chaos.

A remarkably similar motto to the infamous Ordo Ab Chao.

Order out of Chaos.

Gillard’s Carbon Bank For Carbon Banksters

26 May

From the Australian:

The Gillard government is examining the creation of a multi-billion-dollar carbon bank to drive renewable energy technologies as the Greens demand “complementary measures” to cut emissions in return for accepting a lower starting price for the carbon tax.

If you needed a little more evidence that “carbon pricing” was all about banksters like Goldman Sachs making profits, then the Labor/Green “live” consideration of economist and “investor” Ross Garnaut’s proposal (backed by leading green lobby groups) for a “carbon bank” is it.

For more, see Our ‘Squeeze Pop’ Carbon Bank.

For the connection between rising cost-of-living due to carbon (dioxide) derivatives trading, and the banksters’ latest profit-making invention, ‘Death Derivatives’, see Doing God’s Work – Turnbull An Angel Of Death Derivatives.

%d bloggers like this: