Archive for October 13th, 2006

The sort of movie that should be made in Australia, but never will be ( for obvious reasons).

October 13, 2006

rather many who count themsleves as good and true, defenders of freedom, even sanity, would never make a movie like this because, they can’t even fight their way out of a paper bag equipped with a self-propelled chain-saw ( just push the green button). So, someone else, somehwere, had the pick up and go to do something right, in, above all places, Canada! I aks you,Canada.

It’s about a destitute Romanian miner who, fed up, is using his pick against greenies.

An unemployed Romanian miner who is flown across the globe to confront environmental activists is the unlikely star of a Michael Moore-style film, aimed at debunking the militant green movement.

Gheorghe Lucian, 23, is a plain-speaking resident of an impoverished village where an opencast gold mine is planned…

 where unemployment is 70 per cent, is being blocked by environmentalists.

Among them is the actress Vanessa Redgrave, who used a film festival awards ceremony in June to denounce the mine project

During the hour-long film, Françoise Heidebroek, a Belgian opponent of the Rosia Montana mine, says Romanian villagers prefer to use horses rather than cars, and to rely on “traditional cattle raising, small agriculture, wood processing” to live.

Locals retort that their land is too poor for farming, that they all want cars and that they are desperate for the investment the mine would bring. The film had its first screening last week at a conference of gold-mining companies in Denver, Colorado. Alan Hill, president of Gabriel Resources, which did not control the film’s content, said: “Before, the environmentalists would lob mortars at us and we would keep our heads down. Now, there is a big push back.”

Back home again, Mr Lucian is living with his parents and four siblings in a dilapidated one-bedroom flat. “Rosia Montana is very interesting for everybody like Greenpeace and NGOs,” he said. “But these people do not ask what we need. People here have no food, no money.”

This, on  a day when a nature worshipping Melbourne outer urbs Council spent a fortune littering a suburb with water guzzling ‘native’ tree sapplings, to arrest man changing the climate by exuding a bit of harmless, and very good for all things, Co2.  What should be done is a permanent ‘exhange programme, those ‘councilors’ put on a plane to exchange all they have, never to return,  for the delights of living in a village called destitution and the residants of the village take over those moron’s high life. Come to that, so can Bracks and his greenie cabinet, and, as it turns out, many who style themsleves Liberals”.

In the meantime, thanks to the cult of Nature politicians have imposed, most of us can look forward to dying of thirst.

Advertisements

Michael Kroger and His “Brains Trust” – The H. R. Nicholls Society. (2)

October 13, 2006

Why do union officials smile and giggle at the names, Des Moore, Ray Evans, et al. (Kroger’s ‘brains trust’), and call them “clowns” and pompous asses? Why would an executive, rolling his eyeballs and giggling, say, their economic advice is “instant ruination”? Why could Bellchamber write a mushy article dedicated to trampling all over Des Moore? Why, a female journalist told me, does the media refer to the HRNS as Des Moore’s “pr. agency”? Reading only 3 articles on the HRNS website told me why.

The HRNS failed in mounting the public case for freeing labour markets. The reasons why are in the open: flawed economics. Flaws, it emerges, are only defects, because they have only conceded the entire ACTU false case. The flaws underpin why they have, such as:

The price of labour is indeterminate;

The definition of pay is nominal pay only – not total effective pay, inclusive of, e.g., payroll tax and other non-cash components.

Not even mentioned is the theory of the marginal productivity of labour, and thus missed is: it explains labour receives the full value of its product (a truth the ACTU won’t touch it in public if it can avoid it).

No hint of, capital accumulation raises pay to labour, and the ratio of capital to labour sets minimum wages in a free market.

The HRNS’ own novel contribution to economic theory: ‘ratio of the minimum wage to the median wage’: when it is too high, unemployment ensues (positive correlation). The ‘ratio’ is their solution to the (false) dilemma of indeterminacy, and why unemployment. It concedes all the above points.

They are oblivious to: it is not the height of the minimum wage that is decisive, it is the effective minimum wage that counts. For a minimum rate to be effective, it must be above the market rate, and it is the effective rate that causes unemployment. That a minimum wage is no more than equal to the minimum wage is not effective, it is ineffective. The HRNS “ratio” is nonsense.

There are other thorns such as, free markets continuously recalculates wage rates, so what, in a nutshell, the market rate is, and what is or is not an effective minimum rate cannot be determined unless as subjects actually engaged in factor markets buying/selling.

It is totally lost upon that lot; a minimum pay rate is of no interest to the ACTU. What interests them is imposition of effective minimum wage rates, and in securing them make the Liberal Party and businessmen take the blame for ensuing unemployment rates. They want the public to agree to effective minimum rates, by convincing the public with false arguments. This does not gel at all with that lot in the HRNS, – Hugh Morgan, Des Moore, Ray Evans, and et al.

It doesn’t gel with them because, devoid of economic theory, unlike the ACTU, they don’t have a clue as to what the ACTU Unioncrats are about and what they seek. Neither, unfortunately, do they have a clue as to how to engage those who genuinely believe the ACTU case and for reasonable reasons such as:

They might have been mislead;

Trust in those who are paid to do the actual work in economics are doing it. The ACTU is not doing all of that. It engages the public, but it is not telling the truth. The HRNS neither tells truth nor engages the public ( the public being, as the left hold, irritants to thick hides ).

Besides, the HRNS have conceded the ground to not merely the ACTU but also to its hired advisers, Bellchamber and Gregory.

What is disgusting is, Moore and Evans have been made very wealthy men to do the work they do not at all do. Even more disgusting is, for all the money poured into the HRNS and affiliates, they are producing nothing of interest, only amusement and service for the opponents to freeing labour markets. It could be someone’s idea of a joke, but it is not a joke.

In contrast, there is someone in Australia doing the work single handedly, without the buckets of funding, Mr. Gerard Jackson. Jackson is simultaneously explaining economics for general readers, engaging them, attacking opponents of market liberalisation, and, on top of that, correcting the appalling errors committed by the sorts who stuff the HRNS, and who are stuffing up the case.

Evans and Moore have only been busy living off a gravy train; their “work” is immediate evidence of the fact. The next three items are dedicated to their articles, which demonstrate their conceit, self-satisfaction, laziness, and ignorance.