hapless SAPs, and the user pays - and pays and pays ...
[neoliberalism/globalisation, Greece++]

.. as always ...

  .. it's not what they say - lies? ...

    .. but what actually they *do* - that counts

[This post may evolve; update 1.]

Preamble: IMHO, the biggest problem by far, is liars and their lies. They lie only to deceive; nothing at all worthwhile needs a cloak of deception. "All politicians lie!" - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to JWHoward. But not just him; consider so-called 'professional' economists as a class; we the sheople, pretty-much the world over, are being thrown ever deeper into the financial shit, partly due to economists' lies. And it's not even them lying on their own behalf; although many economists may be 'comfortably off,' it's the already obscenely rich - the idle rich, the utterly useless rich - who have been the main beneficiaries of the economists' lies.

The main lies are well coordinated, the worst involve money and war and are spruiked by politicians and other nasty patsies; the lies are channelled to us via, and actively augmented by the (Western) world's media, aka the MSM. We can term the lie-cloud as the pushed-propaganda paradigm, and qualify the media as corrupt and venal. Sadly, some public broadcasters are up to their bottom lips in this filthy lie-lake. Say "Et tu?" to aunty AusBC, for example.

The 2nd biggest problem by far, is that far too many believe the lies. Belief is what some people do in the absence of facts; no person can satisfactorily run their own life, let alone a democracy, based on a lack of facts and/or a belief in lies.

Disclosure: Some people are less well-off, and others outright poor; my circumstances are other. Some people may claim that complaining about the disgusting depredations of the already filthy-rich is 'wealth-envy,' but that's not my impetus. I complain - mainly, bitterly - about injustice. End of preamble.


Discourse; war: Lies relating to war are many and nefarious. Consider only three current wars, the ostensible reason(s) given are lies and mask the actual purpose (briefly):

1. Alien invasion and brutal occupation of Palestine, 1947+.

Ostensible reasons: a) some Js lived there before & b) some g*d promised it to them.

Actual purpose: a vile grab for Lebensraum, aka murder for soil.

2. Alien invasion and brutal occupation of Afghanistan, 2001+.

Ostensible reason: Bin Laden, alleged plotter of 9/11 lived there.

Actual purposes: murder for pipeline routes, US hegemony.

3. Alien invasion and brutal occupation of Iraq, 2003+.

Ostensible reasons: a) disarm & b) tyrant, etc..

Actual purposes: 'help' Zs, murder for oil.

That's almost enough on war for now; suffice it to say that IF any so-called 'leader(s)' act beyond their remit, i.e. without fully and honestly informing their electorate and receiving informed consent in return, THEN that is tyranny (... arbitrary use of authority [POD]). The regimes of the Anglo/Judaic bloc, aided by the NATO sell-outs tell us, we the sheople, their warmongering lies. IF we support the warmongers THEN we are responsible for the deaths of the victims in the targeted lands. If we do *not* support the warmongers then those warmongers are murdering tyrants - all on their own. Well? How do *you* vote? Is *your* chosen party at war? (Tip: Under Aus' preferential voting, everyone putting Lib/Lab last would *guarantee* some 3rd party candidate with the most #1 votes being elected. A parliament full of non Lib/Labs *could not do worse*.) The final war-words here are these: What of the hapless victims? How on earth did they ever 'deserve' to be plundered if not murdered?


Discourse; money: We resume where my "sensible, reasonable approach" left off, namely from «... a religious cult [of] Friedmanite/Randian voodoo economics... they have to be stopped before they destroy the earth and everything on it, including us.»

The topic is neoliberalism/globalisation (aka economic rationalism; such fine, high-sounding words...) with accent on Greece at the moment; the other PIIGS could be next and then any country, Germany or Aus, say... even the US (we could be so lucky...)


Interlude: The first signs of trouble that I personally experienced were during the Whitlam interregnum (of course that's a v.strange word, 'interregnum', but that's how it now feels, seen 'from here.') On the one hand, Whitlam made a stupendous breakthrough, and had (as far as I knew) all the correct policies. At the very least, far, far better than the stodgy, dodgy pro-war, anti-worker Liberals (they never changed, except for the worse), then there were wonders such as Medibank. But on the other hand, the 'establishment' went absolutely *mad*, 'led' by (expletive redacted) Murdoch's theAus and the bratty 'born to rules' both. We'll never know how good it could have all been (for us, we the sheople) - but it was savaged, sabotaged, torpedoed, destroyed. Destroyed by people who were mostly well-off, secure and under no real threat; again, nothing much has changed, except for the worse. Medibank still exists although split and mutilated, but not for much longer if Abbott gets in. Trying not to anticipate the next section, we can see exactly the same sort of spoiled-little-rich-kid behaviour by the Libs and miners vis-à-vis Lab's currently proposed minerals resource rent tax (MRRT - after PRRT, also Resource Super Profits Tax, RSPT). Swan has already explained the situation; Aus' return on minerals has fallen from about 1/3 to 1/7. Q: Whose bloody resources are they, the fat-cats' or ours, we the sheople? End of interlude.


Trigger article:

May 21, 2010
Greek tragedy
By Henry C K Liu
  «Following misguided neoliberal market fundamentalist advice, Greece abandoned its national currency, the drachma, in favor of the euro in 2002. This critically consequential move enabled the Greek government to benefit from the strength of the euro, albeit not derived exclusively from the strength of the Greek economy, but from the strength of the economies of the stronger eurozone member states, and to borrow at lower interest rates collateralized by Greek assets denominated in euros.» 

Comment: The article is long, and is only part 8 of a series not yet complete. Obviously, I can't do Liu justice by quoting 'snips;' as usual, one should read the lot. However, long-story-short; if we just take a few secs to 'look out the window,' we can see that across the world, 'the system' is failing. The lies they told us are becoming *self-evident* lies; the 'rising tide lifting all boats' isn't, and 'a smaller slice of a larger pie' is *not* bigger than what we had before. Evidence: all these governments 'falling' deeper into in debt, all those privatised utilities now costing us *more* - with lower 'performance metrics' to boot. Apart from that, the sheople almost everywhere are poorer, sadder & far more fearful about their economic security. How can this possibly be called progress; is this really the best these effing economists can conjure?


Terminology: The Washington consensus; neoliberalism/globalisation, economic rationalisation. World Bank, IMF, WTO. All associated, all 'leading' us to disaster; significantly, any 'social compact' has all but been abandoned to so-called 'market forces.' What it did and is still doing, is giving licence to the crooks, the rip-off merchants. Here from wiki:

  «Neoliberalism is an ideology favoured by establishment politicians and financial sector economists[1], ... [from] A Neoliberal’s Manifesto, Neoliberalism is an ideology that asserts social progress can occur as a result of economic liberalism.[4] ... Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from public to the private sector,[7] under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic health of the nation.[8] ...» 

Comment: This and others in this wiki-group are growing 'obtuse,' aka over-complicated. Possibly, they've become yet anther 'victim' to the economist 'pros' - who seek, so it seems, primarily to obfuscate.

So back to Liu:

Greek tragedy (cont.)
  «Financial capital growth is to be served at the expense of human capital growth. Sound money, undiluted by inflation, is to be achieved by keeping wages low through structural unemployment. Pockets of poverty in the periphery are deemed as the necessary price for the prosperous center. Such dogmas grant unemployment and poverty, conditions of economic disaster, undeserved conceptual respectability. State intervention has come to focus mainly on reducing the market power of labor in favor of capital in a blatantly predatory market mechanism.» 
[atimes/Liu, ibid.]

For a list of the 10 neoliberal points, see [1].
[Any white space preceding the table is due to a blogger HTML bug.]

Now, Occam's razor: We can see that many parts of neoliberalism do not work - *for* us, we the sheople - in dismal fact, quite the opposite. In my "sensible, reasonable approach", I discussed 'Natural' monopolies vis-à-vis utilities such as water, elec. & 'phone, etc.. Handing these over to the private sector - privatising, flogging off functioning services built up using the people's money, sold for peanuts and then squeezed for profits by radically down-sizing the work force, out-sourcing, sub-contracting; all the sleazy, anti-worker tricks, has not brought us better or less expensive services - and then note the imported Telstra management complaining that they couldn't 'leverage the monopoly.' Decoded, this means that the government disallowed some proposed rip-off of us, we the customers. Neoliberalism's deregulation is designed to free such crooks from all control. Why? Everywhere one looks, one can find shonks; it's why we yearn for honest cops.

Then, consider #3; "tax reform to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base." In practice, this means new, regressive taxation directly enabling the transfer of tax liability from the richer to the poorer. How filthily iniquitous??! And the people were 'convinced' (but misinformed, aka allow themselves to be deluded) to vote for the Libs' GST. Offered 1st, note, by Lab - see note below about no choice, aka bipartisan. We can see the results in Greece, try this from Hudson: "The wealthy won’t pay their taxes, so labor must do so."

We hardly need to list the squillion ways globalisation/neoliberalism is failing, then recall Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." The IMF *forced* neoliberalism onto 3rd world countries tricked/trapped into deficits. Some governments (like in Aus, *both* Lib & Lab) have *voluntarily* applied, *are still* applying neoliberalism - a system now seen to be a failure. Then along comes Merkel & the EU + IMF - forcing a SAP (structural adjustment program) on Greece. Despair!

The questions are becoming increasingly critical:

Q: Why aren't we the (voting) sheople a) properly informed then b) given the chance to reject being subjected to neoliberalism? Voters simply cannot fulfil their democratic obligations if misinformed. Further, IF both parties in a two-party system pursue the same policies (bipartisanship) THEN that gives us no choice at all; no choice = un- and anti-democratic = tyranny.

Q: Did the originators of neoliberalism a) know what they were doing all along and therefore lied to us (moral failure) - or were they b) genuinely mistaken (intellectual failure), and whatever the answer to those two, c) when will they admit their error, and allow us to begin the roll-back (i.e. correct all failures)?


Fazit: TINA vs. Einstein. We should have known, when we heard it from Thatcher, then came Reagan; the newest Merkel: "There is no alternative!"

Oh, but of course there is.

Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Repeating misguided neoliberal market fundamentalist policies will only give more of what we're already getting: economic disaster.

The alternative is quite obvious: Return to a properly progressive taxation system (Q: Why do crooks rob banks? A: Because that's where the money is.) Sooo, we all know who to properly tax - for the slower ones, start taxing the rich. Squeeze them almost dry - that's exactly what neoliberalism has been doing to us, we the sheople; so sauce for the (golden) geese.

When do we start preferring Einstein to erring, rip-off TINA?


PS Note neoliberalism's "secure private-property rights." How (and when!) should this be applied to the hapless ELO/Os (erstwhile legal owner/occupiers) of Palestine?

[Update 1; 23May'10.]

Supporting article:

Obama pledges new era of cooperation
Posted May 23, 2010 14:30:00
  «Though he did not explicitly revoke the Bush Doctrine, he emphasised the need to prevent attacks through multilateral cooperation with intelligence agencies "working seamlessly with their counterparts to unravel plots".
He also asserted that the only reason US forces continued fighting in Afghanistan was because "plotting persists to this day" there by Al Qaeda militants behind the September 11 attacks on the United States.»

Comment: 'The only reason ... 9/11 ... Al Qaeda ... plots,' eh? No pipeline wishes? No hegemony? Tell it to the dumbed-down sheople.

Supporting article:

May 21 - 23, 2010
What Happens When Deficit Hawks Set Policy
Meltdown in the EU
  «Deficit cutting during a downturn creates bigger deficits, higher unemployment, greater economic contraction, and more suffering. Every country that follows the IMF's prescription for belt-tightening, undergoes a mini-Depression. That's because it’s bad economics (or, rather) politically-driven economics. By weakening the state, private industry and speculators hope to grab public assets on the cheap and force privatization of public services. These are the real objectives behind the austerity measures.» 
[counterpunch/Mike Whitney]

Comment: The IMF&Co, plus Merkel here, are economic vandal/vultures.


[A table follows; any white space preceding it is due to a blogger HTML bug.]

Neoliberal '10 commandments;'
according to Liuaccording to wiki
1) fiscal discipline;
1 Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can only have a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes.
2) redirection of public-expenditure priorities toward fields offering high economic returns;
2 Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call "indiscriminate subsidies" and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment[*]
3) tax reform to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base;
3 Tax reform– broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;
Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
4) interest-rate liberalization;
0 Financialization of capital.
5) competitive exchange rates;
4 Floating exchange rates;
6) trade liberalization;
5 Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth
7) liberalization of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows;
6 Liberalization of the "capital account" of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country
8) privatization;
7 Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government can not provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.
9) deregulation;
8 Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
10) secure private-property rights.
9 Legal security for property rights.

[*] Comment: Note that the numbers don't match (specifically at/from #4), and I had to 'correct' wiki's #2. Note also wiki's long-windedness - I suppose nothing can be nice and simple, eh? Given the seriousness of the matter, you'd think there'd be an accepted 'standard' version (St. Wall's perhaps?)



a sensible, reasonable & equitable approach to the world

(This post may evolve; updates [1, 2, 3, 4.])

Prime assumption: We're all in this together; every child should be planned - but then *only* if there exists sufficient resources. No man is an island - and disunity, even 'mere' disharmony - is death.


'Essential' description:

land, fertiliser, machines, fuel, workers -> farmer -> food

deposits, machines, fuel, workers -> miner -> ore, coal, oil

raw inputs, fuel, workers -> refiner -> metals, fuel, fertiliser

metals, fuel, workers -> manufacturer -> machines

supplies, workers -> retailer -> distribution

?, workers -> banker -> finances


Not shown are any non-essentials; wide/flat-screen TVs, say.

(TVs are notional entertainment but are actually mind-control.)

Also not shown are 'incidentals' like building, other infrastructure and transport, then 'wastes;' CO2, pollution, used-up/worn-outs etc.

All workers are people; some workers *do* things, others organise. All people continually need food, early-on education and finally pensions.

All people need 'services,' i.e. Drs & haircuts.

Organisers demand higher rewards(?)

Accumulators demand profits(?)


Intermezzo: Obviously, "?" mark especially questionable aspects.



The absolute priority (AP) is a) sustainability and b) that all people get enough food and adequate services. Anything else is utterly stupid (Oh! Sorry! Try: Not compatible with 'enlightened altruism') - and implies a total failure of the organisers.

In a 'money' economy, it means a dignified (= no slur) and adequate minimum 'living' income, whether working or not. Unemployment should (properly!) be seen a) as a wasted resource & worse b) as a failure of organization. There are sooo many things that could be done, should be done...

Nothing need - nor should it - be 'gifted;' any 'welfare' is provided by the system as a whole to *responsibly* fulfil the AP.

This (i.e. nothing should be 'gifted') also applies to profit; all unearned, super or simply excess profit should be reserved for down-the-track AP (i.e. tax all fat-cats down to 'reasonable' excess.)

IF some are starving THEN a) improve distribution or b) reduce population (by natural attrition!)


Fazit: We can tell by simple inspection that the current system is failing. We must change for the better, soonest - the current trend looks horribly like becoming catastrophically terminal.


Update 1; 15:59. Money is the root of all evil...

Money is both a medium of exchange and a store of value (if you can set some aside, extra to & beyond personal survival, say). It used to be that money was 'real,' i.e. lumps (or coins) of gold, silver etc.. No very fair; people could walk around & stub their toe on a lump of metal - and become instantly rich (via 'unearned income.') Also not too practical for the filthy-rich, carrying all that heavy stuff around. 'Luckily,' after Nixon bankrupted the US around Aug'71, we all moved to 'fiat' currencies, but as usual inequalities were 'built in;' like the US demanding that oil be denominated only in *their* currency. Paraphrasing, some fiats were more fiat than others. ( 'oily aside' below.) Long story short, money is now created by computer key-stroke - then lent out, *at interest*. IF one carries this too far - i.e. creates too much, THEN the inevitable result is inflation (too many $s chasing too few goods.) Consider the permanently rising stock-exchanges; prices (but *not* necessarily values) of stocks, houses & commodities all going up, up, up - whilst wages are going down, down... (if one has a job). Then, there are the rent-seeking speculators. IF the RBA can target an inflation-rate of 2-3%, THEN why not target 0%? (V.good Q.) Back to 'at interest,' who gets it? - i.e. Q: Who gets the interest? A: Firstly, the banks; Q2: Why that? Q3: Did they actually do any 'work?' A: If so, then not much. Interest is raised, so some say, to 'ration' money, and the fact that interest is charged allows 'entrepreneurs' to say "Well, 1st of all we have to make enough to pay off our loans, then just a wee bit for ourselves." ("A wee bit" is always good, especially since the rich are getting ever richer.) Another long-story-short, Q: IF creating/lending $s is done at some profit THEN who should get it? A: The sheople, that's who (otherwise known as the commonwealth; a good name for a people's bank, eh?) Money is a *perfect* 'natural' monopoly, see below. Nothing against 'fair reward for effort' mind, just against 'unearned income.' Also see 'debate' on 'resource rent,' and returning some value to the sovereign resource owners (that's us, we the sheople.)



(Oily aside: IF you need oil THEN you need $US. Sooo, make a widget (Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, V-dub ... electronics, etc. etc.); send it to the US, get $US back. Buy oil, burn it. Ooops! ... IF you need oil THEN you need $US, make *another* widget ... meanwhile, over there; print, print, print. More fool you - actually fooling all of us, we having *no* choice, let alone no democratic choice ... we slave, they print - *huge* deficits! And then far too many drive ghastly, over-gross gas-guzzlers, the worst being Hummer-type SUV/4WDs. Less than 5% of the world's pop. consume about 25% of resources = cause 25% of world's pollution, 25% of world's CO2 emmissions.)



Update 2; 14:51. 'Natural' monopolies; water, roads, electricity etc. - aka democratic utilities vs. 'user pays.'

This one is a snack: without water, we'd all die. Without roads, we'd be stuck - especially out in the sticks. These are 'single occurrence' utilities. Same for electricity & fixed 'phones. Even for mobile 'phones, what possible sense is there in building duplicate systems - which must then cross-communicate, by definition and in practice involving losses? Yet the erring neoliberal ideology demands that all such be 'privatised.' Fools. IF we demand competition THEN it should occur on the 'input' side; i.e. 1) who can provide the best (i.e. most cost-effective) equipment and 2) who can install it most efficiently? Governments can finance such projects best, since they have the lowest 'borrowing' costs. After that, 3) who can run these 'natural monopolies' best? Perhaps 'some contractor(s)' may be the answer to these 3 Qs, but no 'profits' need be considered (beyond the curly interest charges, see 'money' above); the users, we the sheople, were and should again simultaneously be the (egalitarian) owners. How did such neoliberal privatisation, toll-booth insanity ever get suggested, let alone implemented? Tip: another total failure of the organisers... aka anti- and un-democratically, assisted by corruptly erring economists. Among other organiser-crimes and not only on this theme, we were lied to = deliberately, cynically deceived, also via and actively augmented by 'our' public broadcaster, the AusBC.



Update 3; 21:21. For what it's worth (voodoo economics):

  «When you turn an economic system into a religious cult as has happened with Friedmanite/Randian voodoo economics the consequences are completely predictable: and we’ve seen those consequences again and again. When is someone going to say ‘All of this is bullshit. Let’s start over. Let’s stop these people plundering the economy for the profit of 1% of the population and starting wars to feed the amoral corporate monster they’re part of’? The values of the corporate state and the economic rationalists are not human values and that’s why they pollute everything they cannot kill and deliberately create a human underclass as economic cannon fodder. It’s blindingly obvious to me that they have to be stopped before they destroy the earth and everything on it, including us.» 
[comment by diamond, May 17 at 5:43 am #]



Update 4; 25May. Rush update, will itself be updated:

May 24, 2010
What Would Jesus Say?
The Chicago Boys' Free Market Theology
  «... once at a party, Milton Friedman replied to her suggestion of better public welfare and medical care, “Mrs. Kahn, why do you want to subsidize the production of orphans and sick people?”» 

Comment #1: Contrast Hudson's MF quote to my 'prime assumption.'

Comment #2: I omitted 'FIRE' in my 'essential' description.

Comment #3: [more to come]



the golden goose grazes on the Greek grass
 - and the government is strangled

A 'primary' principle of neo-liberalism is 'starve the beast;' government is said to be useless, so starve it in steps - by cutting taxes (mostly off the rich.)

Yair, yair; the rich get ever richer, as services are withdrawn from the 'stupid & undeserving' (serves 'em right for being poor.) Public servants are also useless, so get rid of 'em too.

Like in Greece; they privatised things like airports, cut taxes but forgot to sack the public servants. Needing money to pay them, the (previous, conservative) government mortgaged the future income from the airports, both 'advised' and then 'aided' by the "giant bloodsucking squid on the face of humanity."

Long story short: (partly?) implementing neo-liberalism drove Greece broke.

IF one keeps cutting taxes THEN Q: Which services to cut? A: Hospitals? (Oh! Already under-funded.)

Lab in NSW & qld are neo-liberalising, as have Lib governments (note: bipartisanship, by offering the voters *NO* choice, is both un-representative and anti-democratic.)

If we talk about golden geese, none would be more golden than the NSW lottery business; a licence to print $s. But sold off it will be, like the electricity suppliers. Q: How does that bring the so-called 'advantages' of competition to the people? A: It just doesn't.

One can build a toll-booth economy, but if so, it's gotta function. France has a) Autoroute tolls and b) Autoroutes from top to bottom, left to right (but tolls cost more than fuel!) Going pro-rata based on the Sydney cross-city, or the latest Brisbane bypass, no-one could afford to drive any long distance - assuming they ever pulled their fingers out and built Sydney-Brisbane 4-lane as a tollway, say. One can only get so much blood out of a stone.

Taxes have to come from somewhere; a mining resource rent tax - based on *SUPER PROFITS* is one of the best places to start.

etc., especially the latter.


erring ideology ...
(that resisting resource rent taxes, say)

.. is at the root ...

  .. of *lots* of sheer evil ...

    .. time to dump all such error


Musing: Before opining, start by self-informing/refreshing.

From my archives, 1st 'other' mention:

Ross Gittins
March 26 2003
  « ... comes from the Government's little-noticed "petroleum resource rent tax", imposed on Bass Strait and other oil. The cost of extracting Australian oil from the ground doesn't change when the world price of oil rises so, since the oil really belongs to all Australians, the feds have long used their resource rent tax to grab 40 per cent of any windfall gains.» 
[smh/Gittins, no URL]

Comment: It's not only the AusBC who deploys inappropriate language; note 'grab' and 'windfall.' IF we need taxes THEN they have to come from somewhere; taxes are levied. Under a properly functioning democracy with an honestly informed and fully engaged electorate etc., tax sources would be democratically determined. Further, taxing resource rent is not a 'windfall gain,' it is a *necessary* justice.

From my archives, 1st blog mention:

Monday, 19 July 2004
  « ... Economics distinguishes between two types of profit. The first is normal profit, defined as the opportunity cost of a business, the minimum amount necessary to attract a business to an activity, and to induce the business to remain in it. Normal profit is defined ... as the level of profit (giving some 'acceptable' return on capital.) Any profit over that amount is defined as excess profit, or economic rent.» 
[quoted by self; possibly some wiki at time of writing]

Comment: An alternate name for 'excess' profit is 'super,' yet another: 'abnormal,' finally 'unearned income.'

Now, some recently reviewed wikis (aka some DIY activity):

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_rent
2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal_profit
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_profits_tax
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits
6. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_economics
7. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartwick's_rule
8. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_Tax
9. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_constraint

A good way to illustrate 'resource rent' is to look at Iraq; it has long been accepted, that the 'production cost' of a barrel of Iraqi oil is about $US1, and one assumes that that's the all-up cost including exploration, drilling, pumping & a 'reasonable' profit on the whole lot. In contrast, the current selling price for oil being (say) $US81, the 'resource rent' is 81 - 1 = 80. *It's a lot*, and by definition, all 'unearned' income. (n. income from investments etc. rather than from working [POD]) Q: What 'investment,' here? A: War, aka US, UK & Aus illegal invasion, now morphed into brutal occupation.

One question is Q: Whose (bloody!) oil is it; one A: It's Iraq's 'patrimony' (GWBush, aka the devil himself). Sooo, if all are agreed - and that is the thrust of all the above 'theory' - that (now in general), IF any minerals belong to the sovereign people (they do), THEN next Q: Who should benefit from the resulting resource rent?

A: Silly question, but if any doubt still remains:

  «Hartwick's rule - often abbreviated as "invest resource rents" - requires that a nation invest all rent earned from exhaustible resources currently extracted, where "rent" is defined along paths that maximize returns to owners of the resource stock. ... A positive value for a nation's genuine savings has been linked to the possibility of long-run economic sustainability.» 
[wiki/Hartwick's rule]

Comment: Note that if dividends arising from resource rent somehow go missing and/or o/s, then Hartwick's rule will have to be satisfied by some other source/process (yet *another* tax?)


Two other items of interest:

Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) and Crude Oil Excise and Royalties; note the target audience those items were constructed for.

A penultimate quote:

  «"I am prepared to concede that all taxes, with the exception of those on economic rent have some [adverse] effects on employment and economic growth." John Howard, 10/12/1991 – p15 AFR» 
[(.pdf) URL is (almost) irrelevant; the quote is 'real.']

Comment: My own archive copy does not have the [square brackets] around 'adverse.' Whatever and in any case, for 'pedantic accuracy,' note that Howard effectively said:

  "taxes ... on economic rent have *NO* effects on employment and economic growth."

Now, for something completely different:

  «Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says he cannot see how the Coalition could back the Government's move to put a 40 per cent tax on mining profits.
Mr Abbott has given his strongest indication so far that the Opposition will block the tax after meeting with senior mining executives in Canberra today.»

Comment: The reader may evaluate the 'master/apprentice' collision.


Fazit: Of course most miners and some shareholders will squeal. But both might reflect that a) there's no such thing as a 'free lunch,' and b) the Aussie people should benefit 101% from their own resources - Oh, always assuming we're interested in justice, that is.


PS As a take it or leave it BTW; disclosure: I am *not* a professional economist (nor am I a paedophile priest; the statements could be considered in some ways equivalent...)


does this article remind you of ...
[keywords: lying propaganda]

.. a publicly financed ...

  .. broadcaster ...

    .. near you?

Subtitle: Take our taxes, tell us lies?


Trigger article:

National Public Radio's (NPR) Pro-Israeli Bias
By Stephen Lendman
29 April, 2010
  «Since [being] established in 1970, NPR ignored its public trust in favor of privilege, corporatism, militarism, imperial wars, and Israel's vilest crimes, including collective punishment, illegal occupation, targeted killings, land theft, dispossessions, home demolitions, crop destruction, mass incarcerations, torture, violence, and the 2008-09 Gaza war inflicting mass deaths, permanent injuries, vast devastation, and human misery against defenseless civilians, imprisoned under siege since June 2007, and afflicted by a dire humanitarian crisis as a result - exacerbated by conflict and intermittent attacks, issues NPR ignores or understates.

It's notorious for its biased, shoddy reporting, pseudo-journalism, creeping commercialism, distracting non-news, and deceiving listeners [that] it's public, non-profit, and impartial. Savvy media consumers know better and tune them out for delivering the same slanted coverage found on major networks and in broadsheets like The New York Times, Washington Post, and others - grossly favoring power, and when it comes to Israel [only] its [Israel's] interests matter. Palestinian ones don't, so news is carefully filtered to distort facts, and report lies that when repeated enough become truths.»

Comment 1: I suspect that Lendman was a bit angry when he wrote the above; my (helpful) insertions are marked [like this]. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that you, dear reader, will easily (and sadly) see the obvious answer to my quasi-rhetorical headline query.

Comment 2: The US so-called 'democracy' is filthily crippled by the "Israel Lobby;" a tiny minority which by dint of dollars (campaign contributions) plus emotional blackmail (any/all opponents get screamed at: "Anti-semitic!" or (if Jewish): "Self-hater!") - that Israel Lobby seems to effectively control the US govt.. (The Lobby likes to say: "The US congress is Israeli territory.") Properly functioning democracy is *supposed* to be government for the majority (by, of the people), whilst respecting minorities. Since this particular (ugly! Criminal!) minority is actually alien to both the US and the ME killing-grounds they have invaded and now brutally occupy, one can hardly understand why so many gutless US politicians (traitorously!) cave in. So what's Aus' miserable excuse?