If you can buy the same product or service from two different suppliers, and one is cheaper than the other, which do you choose?
If you can set up a business in two different states, and one has tax rates and procedures which make it easier and cheaper to run your business, which do you choose?
Increasing business taxes and compliance costs in Australia or in the US (or anywhere else) means businesses will choose to do whatever they can somewhere else.
Punishing people and businesses which are successful (ie, they produce useful goods or services, employ people, make a profit, pay taxes) will encourage them to go away, taking jobs, production and tax revenue with them.
The key to renewing economies is not giving other people’s money away, but making it as easy as possible for businesses to employ people and make a profit.
It is a pretty simple lesson – one Sam Walton learned selling panties.
It really might be so – just not the way Al Gore thinks.
Measurements show that global atmospheric temperature has been static or cooling for the last ten years, despite increasing levels of CO2.
According to anthropogenic (human caused) warming theory, increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases means increasing heat retention in the atmosphere. So how can the world be getting cooler when CO2 levels are increasing?
In 2005 James Hansen, global warming guru, along with a number of other NASA scientists, proposed that the oceans formed a reservoir for heat, and that ocean temperatures would continue to increase, even in the face of temporary (as they thought) blips in average global atmospheric temperature.
“Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy”
Put simply, increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases meant more heat was being retained. If that extra heat could not be found in the atmosphere, it must be being stored somewhere else. The only other place it could be stored was in the oceans.
So even when atmospheric temperature appeared to fluctuate in the short term (and they were confident any leveling or declines could only be short-term), ocean temperatures would continue to rise.
If this was not so, global warming theory was false.
The following graph shows predicted ocean temperatures if global warming theory is correct, compared with observed ocean temperatures.
If the oceans have not warmed despite increases in levels of atmospheric CO2, then additional CO2 is not causing any additional heat retention.
If additional CO2 is not causing additional heat retention, global warming theory is false.
The oceans are not warming. Global warming theory is false.
From the Beaufort Observer.
Is he for releasing Guantanamo prisoners, or not?
Is he for higher taxes, or not?
Is he for Israel, or not?
This excerpt is a good summary of why higher taxes and ‘stimulus’ spending just don’t work:
Also, he said that Obama has plans to raise taxes on US companies by $190 billion. And there’s when I quit, just gave up. If Obama raises corporate taxes, who does he think will pay them? Big companies don’t pay taxes. They just add them to the product they manufacture and pass it on down the line, When Wal-Mart receives that product, they add on a bit for profit and an extra bit to cover the higher cost and then stack it on the shelves. Then Susie Shopper comes along and buys it, paying the accumulated taxes along with the store’s profit. Or maybe Susie doesn’t buy it ’cause the extra few cents make it too expensive for her budget.
When gas was so high last year, the price of Georgia peaches went up. The price went up because the price for the gas to run the truck to bring the peaches to the grocery store went up. I knew the reason – all of us shoppers knew it. Raising prices at one end of the process simply raises the cost of the product when it gets to the consumer. It doesn’t take a math genius to realize that raising taxes on companies will raise the price of the end product and consumers will have to pay that price to get the product. Maybe the President just never shopped for groceries. Maybe the President just doesn’t understand how things work after all.
I would add that there are two other things companies can do in response to higher taxes (and therefore less cash available to run their business).
1. They can reduce the number of employess, which creates more unemployment. Which means a greater burden on the tax payer.
2. They can reduce profits, which means less income for superannuation funds, which means more need for government support for retired people. Which means a greater burden on the tax payer.
The same observations apply equally in Australia.
My advice to President Obama and Kevin Rudd, and Gordon Brown: If you don’t understand something, leave it alone.
Ill-planned tinkering in the financial system caused this crisis to start with. More ill-informed tinkering is not going to get us out of it.
Another boat load of illegal immigrants has been interecpted of the coast of Australia – the 12th boat this year.
According to Home Affairs Minister Bob Doofus, all the passengers are male, and all are from Afghanistan.
As usual, these are not the people most in need, the people a compassionate immigration and refugee policy would be focussing on. They are simply those with enough money or influence to push themselves ahead of anyone else, and pay to travel half way around the world.
Rudd’s new ‘softer’ approach is making things worse for the people who most need our help, and endangering the lives of those who don’t, but turn up anyway.
But of course.
Australian treasurer Wayne Swan says that tough measures to be introduced in tomorrow’s federal budget, are the fault of John Howard’s big spending policies.
When John Howard and Peter Costello’s government left office there was zero public debt, a substantial surplus (about $22 billion) lower taxes, record low unemployment, and higher real wages.
But it’s not our fault, say Rudd and Swan. It’s the wrong trousers. And they’ve gone wrong.
According to Swan ‘The opposition does not understand that the planned deficit is not a consequence of government spending.’ Ah. Right. OK then.
In February Peter Costello predicted the Labor government would never deliver a surplus budget. And of course was told he was a dinosaur, out of touch.
I agree with some of the measures to be introduced in tomorrow’s budget. The government shouldn’t be handing out money to people who don’t need it.
There is no reason why people on substantial incomes of $120,000 or more need me to subsidise their health care, or insurance, or home purchase, or baby clothes. Welfare and government support should be kept for those who really need it.
The Labor government is right to limit that kind of pointless spending – even though doing so is a breach of campaign promises.
But the savings will be minimal in terms of the overall budget. As will the increase in revenue from increasing the tax paid by the small percentage of successful people who already pay most, both in dollar terms and as a proportion of total taxes paid.
The real problem is massive and counter-productive ‘stimulus’ spending which will saddle ordinary Australian families with a debt amounting to between $10 and $15 thousand for every person living in this country.
If figures from the UK apply here, there will be another $10 to $15 thousand per person to meet Kyoto and ETS costs.
Rudd, Swan and their honchos are hopelessly divorced from reality.
One can only hope that some sort of cognitive dissonance will set in, and changes be made, before the Australian economy becomes a mess to rival the Augean Stables.
And more people, possibly millions, will die as a result.
Every 30 seconds someone dies from Malaria. The same number as were killed in the 9/11 attacks every day and a half.
Most of these deaths – millions over the last 30 years – could have been avoided, and Malaria largely eradicated, through consistent and careful spraying with DDT, along with other protective measures.
At the UN’s Stockholm Convention in 2001, 12 chemicals were banned, including DDT. The convention declaration permitted limited use of DDT for Malaria control.
DDT has actually been banned in a number of countries including the US, since the early seventies. A de facto ban has effectively been enforced in developing countries since then because foreign aid, including food and medical aid has been provisional on the non-use of DDT.
Some environmental activists and others have claimed that no ban, de facto or otherwise, ever existed. JF Beck has answered some of those claims.
There has never been any recorded case of DDT causing harm to any person, and no evidence that it causes any harm to anything other than insects.
Despite efforts to find alternatives, there is nothing as fast and as effective in controling malarial parasite carrying mosquitoes as DDT.
Spokesmen for Greenpeace and the World Wildife Fund have agreed that where there are no alternatives, DDT should be used.
But now another UN conference of over 150 nations has agreed that DDT must be phased out over the next few years, despite the fact that there are no effective alternatives to the use of DDT.
UN agencies’ virtual ban on DDT for mosquito control and their stultifying regulation of agricultural biotechnology are lamentable examples. The result is a more precarious, more dangerous and less resilient world. Why is there such relentless incompetence within the sprawling organization?
For more information, I recommend Paul Driessen’s book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death which catalogues in detail the hunger, sickness and death which are the frequent result in developing countries of ill-informed western environmental activism.
Or see this earlier post for another book recommendation on a similar subject.
Possible good outcomes for everyone except the bad guys, that is.
There is strong local support for the government’s attack on islamic extremists in the North West Frontier province of Pakistan.
Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani said last week the army was aware of the gravity of the threat and would “employ requisite resources to ensure a decisive ascendancy over the militants”.
A quick defeat of the Taliban in Swat would allow the army to move on to tackle militant strongholds on the Afghan border, such as North and South Waziristan, part of a region from where the Taliban orchestrate their Afghan war and where al Qaeda plots violence. Public opinion is generally behind the offensive and quick success would reassure the many who are sceptical about the alliance with the United States. It would also bolster support for unpopular President Asif Ali Zardari.
But all depends on the willingness and ability of the government and military to move with sufficient force and determination to eradicate the Taliban before costs in life and cash, and strains on infrastructure to support refugees, become too great to sustain.
The problem, even now, is that many Pakistanis believe India (or Jews) to be a greater threat than the Taliban.
The Australia Federal Opposition (The Liberals, which means the conservatives, or would do if they had any backbone) is planning to offer an alternative to the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme.
Unless their proposed alternative is to scrap the whole stupid idea, they all deserve a kick in the pants, and we would be better off if the Wiggles were running the country.
We would definitely be better off if Chuck Norris was running the country, but he is probably too busy kicking someone else in the pants.
If you were trying to come up with another scheme as pointless and expensive as the ETS, you would have to imagine something like the government deciding that in order to save a newly discovered worm from extinction, it would completely fill in the Sydney Harbour with large concrete blocks.
The Liberals proposed alternative is like someone saying: ‘Hey no, concrete is the wrong colour, you should be filling up the harbour with shiny plastic blocks instead.’
This wouldn’t be funny if the guy had been hurt. But he wasn’t, so it is:
When a shark began to chew on the boat’s outboard motor, the man tried to fend it off with an oar. The man dropped the oar into the water and then fell in while trying to retrieve it.
“So he’s now in the water, his boat’s in gear and it’s heading off.”
Fortunately the shark, a Great White, merely circled the man a couple of times before heading off itself.
An entirely unrelated and probably photoshopped image of a Great White Shark and some divers somewhere in Australia:
She caught it overseas, didn’t know she had it, and was better by the time she got back to Australia.
Of course the headline is ‘Health Chief Warns of More Swine Flu’
A six year old girl was listed as a ‘suspected case,’ the Herald Sun article tells us, to squeeze out the maximum scariness, just before admitting that in fact the girl doesn’t have anything at all.
Sorry guys, we’re not buying it any more. Time to go back to global warming.
Andrew Bolt points out that three times as many people (183) have died in the last six months in the Australian state of Victoria from medical blunders, than have died from Swine Flu in total, everywhere in the world.
Just home from church, and about to go out fishing with a friend, so posting will be light to non-existent for the rest of the day.
Happy Mothers’ Day!
This graphic from GlobeandMail shows the amount of ‘stimulus’ spending in selected G20 countries in dollars and as a proportion of GDP. I have linked to GlobeandMail, but article content is subscription or pay per view.
Australia’s spending is proportionally higher than the US (though not by much), which means the amount of debt incurred for each citizen is higher. Which you would expect to mean a longer recovery.
But in spite of this absurd level of ‘stimulus’ spending, and directionless economic policy by the current Federal government, Australasian Investment Review believes that Australia is better equipped to cope with the global recession than most other advanced nations.
Surely the previous government’s careful economic management and years of surplus budgets wouldn’t have anything to do with that?
And I bet he bites global warming as well. And communism. And terrorists.
Check out these Chuck Norris facts:
There is no ‘ctrl’ button on Chuck Norris’s computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.
Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
But as well as being the ultra toughest guy in the universe ever, Chuck Norris also has a regular column at Town Hall. And guess what? He can write as well as he can punch stuff.
Know-it-all Sir Bob Geldof is the former front man of the Boomtown Rats, a one hit wonder band from the seventies, and therefore qualifies (in his eyes) as an expert on foreign policy and development. Well, Leonardo De Crapio thinks he’s an expert on the science of global warming, so why not?
Two years ago Sir Bob called Australia ‘one of the meanest countries on the planet’ saying our level of foreign aid was amongst the lowest in the world, as a proportion of GDP.
That would be a moral issue worthy of consideration if there was any evidence that foreign aid, other than emergency aid, did the slightest bit of genuine good. If it could be shown, say, that countries which received development aid actually developed more than those that didn’t.
But as Fredrik Erixon, chief economist with Timbro, a Swedish think tank and book publisher, has shown, development aid to developing nations does not work. The more aid a country receives, the more likely it is to be locked into a cycle of increasing poverty. The graph below (taken from the BBC article linked above) shows that when aid received is high, economic growth is at its lowest.
Kenyan economist James Shikawati explains why this is so in an interview with Der Spiegel. In essence, providing free food and clothes undermines any local industry, and encourages corruption and a passive expectation of rescue, which then leads to increasing resentment.
SPEIGEL: The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?
Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
What works to bring nations out of poverty, as South Korea and Taiwan have demonstrated, is open trade, democratic government, and reward for effort and invention.
For related insights see Hal G.P. Colebatch’s article ‘Giving It Away’ in this month’s Quadrant magazine.