This morning The Australian cut and paste segment brought a recent John Quiggin piece to our attention.
The answer, though, is not to tame financial markets through the socialization of equity, but to cut them down to size. A prerequisite for any positive program is a comprehensive attack on the power of financial markets, including the breakup of all “too big to fail” institutions, taxes on high-volume financial transactions, stringent restrictions on the creation of new financial instruments, and reductions in the share of national income going to the profits of financial enterprises. That’s a radical program, but (unlike Ackerman’s) every element of it is on the table right now, and commands support well beyond the Left.
That is a very radical program – who would support such a thing you ask? Well none other than the Australian Research Council.
Looks like the taxpayer will paying out over $2 million for radical ideas that already known and apparently already command support.
Ha ha. Taxpayers are idiots!
Hang on a minute….
H B Bear
13 Mar 13 at 5:35 pm
these questions were answered in the 1980s etc: when a list was drawn up of the 10 economic papers that incoming Reagan administration should read, Kareken and Wallace’s 1978 moral hazard paper on banking crises was at the top.
Kareken and Wallace called for much higher capital reserves for banks and more regulation of their portfolios to avoid future crises. It was Peltzman in the 1960s who found that 1930s U.S. banks halved their capital ratios after the introduction of deposit insurance.
Two polar models of bank crises and what government lender-of-last-resort and deposit insurance do to arrest them or promote them were used to understand the GFC. They are polar models because:
• in the Diamond-Dybvig and Bryant model, deposit insurance and other bailouts are purely a good thing stopping panic induced bank runs; and
• In the Kareken and Wallace model, deposit insurance and lender-of-last-resorts are purely bad because moral hazard encourages risk taking unless there is regulation or there is proper surveillance and pricing of the insurance.
In the Diamond-Dybvig and Bryant model, if you put in government deposit insurance, people don not initiate bank runs because they trust their deposits to be safe. There is no cost to the government for offering the deposit insurance!
Tom Sargent considers the Bryant-Diamond-Dybvig model has been very influential generally, and in particular that it was very influential in 2008 among policymakers. Governments saw Bryant-Diamond-Dybvig bank runs everywhere.
V. V. Chari and Patrick J. Kehoe have written a nice paper Bailouts, Time Inconsistency and Optimal Regulation that says that because of time-inconsistency, the government cannot commit itself to not bailing out firms so a pragmatic approach to policy dictates ex ante regulation of firms is desirable.
Jim Rose
13 Mar 13 at 5:46 pm
Quiggers paraphrasing Lenin:
“The capitalists will provide us the research grants with which we shall develop the evidence-based policy that will empirically prove that we should hang them”.
So much simpler in the old days.
Myrrdin Seren
13 Mar 13 at 6:34 pm
It’s a strange breed of economist that believes markets are an evil that should be severely limited in size, fluidity and, presumably, accessibility.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 6:47 pm
how doe smaking banks less profitable make them more stable. I want my bank to not be making losses.
is the answer going back to the 40,000 banks that were at the start of the US great depression or to the 10 canadian banks that survived the canadian great depression without incidenct.
Jim Rose
13 Mar 13 at 6:51 pm
Indeed. When does an Economist stop being an economist and just start being a revolutionary hack?
brc
13 Mar 13 at 6:59 pm
BRC, stigler pointed out that economics is a broad church. can be a libertarian or a marxist without doing much violence to the canons of economics.
Jim Rose
13 Mar 13 at 7:03 pm
Two million dollars. You have got to be joking. What does this pay for? The ARC is basically corrupt and only left wing tossers get grants.
Judith Sloan
13 Mar 13 at 7:09 pm
And on top of 2 mill he gets fees for the odd consulting gig. What a sweet scam.
Keith
13 Mar 13 at 7:14 pm
The ARCLeftist governments and their appointed agenciesisare always basically corrupt and only left wing tossers get grants.TFTFY
JamesK
13 Mar 13 at 7:29 pm
This represents low hanging budgetary fruit for Abbott and Hockey but they should resist the temptation to take a “salami slice” approach.
They should simply disband whole departments and programs like this to effect the sort of savings we need.
See also Climate Change, Department of;
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 7:37 pm
Kweegs hates the market, particularly the private sector job market. Which all going well is going to be a real bitch for him soon.
Infidel Tiger
13 Mar 13 at 7:38 pm
Dr Quiggin is of course also a board member of the Climate Change Authority (not to be confused with the Climate Institute or the Climate Commission or other Climate Things). He is most certainly a CAGW Believer and at least a supporter of the Australian Fabian Society (with slightly pungent views about a J. Novak and some blog called Catallaxy) if not a actually member.
I’m confused. Does this make him a watermelon (green on the outside and red in the middle) or a jonathan (red on the outside and green in the middle)?
Perhaps he is just a paid up member of the great new progressive-green religion.
Whatever. If we are to believe the academic world is a lily white politically egalitarian bunch then Dr Quiggin must be an anomaly or something.
I am pleased that Dr Quiggin contrubutes to the great pluralistic society that is Australia. However I dislike him fraudulently taxing me for the contents of my breath. When he comes out against the carbon tax I might listen to his views, but meanwhile I will politely decline to read his research papers or his blog.
Bruce
13 Mar 13 at 7:44 pm
If you hypoctitical capitalists would only realize, there should be no such thing as “too big to fail”. Failed companies must be allowed to become bankrupt and all creditors and shareholders should lose all. I totally agree with Quiggin that if any government feels that corporations are too big to fail (because their failure would destroy the whole economy), they must be nationalized and broken up.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 7:46 pm
What like the Soviet Union? You should really use your alternative icon sometimes, Hammy. It would be juicily apposite.
Bruce
13 Mar 13 at 7:58 pm
No brains have you Bruce. You have absolutely no understanding of capitalism, have you?
What is it about you right-wingers that you see it as natural that governments come to the rescue when you or any of your favourite institutions fail?
I know, socialize your failures, appropriate your “profits” for your private benefits, and expect to pay no tax.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 8:08 pm
You tripped up there, hammy. Everyone here will agree with you. No company is “too big to fail”. Pity you can’t edit your post – if it wasn’t already, your cover is now blown.
Nice attempted save though. It really is about time our beloved leader nationalised Toyota & GMH. And every renewable energy tax vortex sucking our dollars from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Nationalise them all so that the evil Abbottmonster can dissolve them in September.
ev425128
13 Mar 13 at 8:09 pm
When he comes out against the carbon tax I might listen to his views, but meanwhile I will politely decline to read his research papers or his blog.
But you can’t decline paying for it!!
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 8:17 pm
Hammy you know as well as I do the banks are too big to fail.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:18 pm
Nice to see you are back from wiping your arse with the Age (I deduce that is what you meant when you said on another thread that you wouldn’t wipe your arse with the Telegraph).
Way to miss the point idiot!
This isn’t fundamentally about corporate governance.
It is about a tame lefty leech picking up a cool $2meg of my money to serve up re-heated leftovers.
And I say my money as distinct from our money because you don’t strike me as a taxpayer.
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 8:18 pm
You’re talking about Banks there Kero.
This proposition is silly for a number of reasons.
1. There is no bank that is too large to fail. All that needs to happen is that the bond holders (and failing that the deposit holders) move to equity. There, presto your too big to fail bullshit goes out the window.
2. The idea the large banks need to be broken up is laughable. Banks got into trouble for basically holding the similar assets that became suspect. You would simply create more banks with similar risks by forcibly breaking them up. The idea that you would be reducing the risks doesn’t bare itself from the available data.
3. Did you support the failure or rescue of GM?
Man up and answer the question Kero boy.
JC
13 Mar 13 at 8:19 pm
What is it about you right-wingers that you see it as natural that governments come to the rescue when you or any of your favourite institutions fail?
You’ve tripped up again. No one here (or any capitalist for that matter) wants the government to come to the ‘rescue’ i.e. misappropriate taxpayers money.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 8:20 pm
Yes I repeat sarcastically in front of JC – of course we all know private banks are the only private institutions that are too big to fail.
They ahve special status you see “by order of the taxpayer dollar – private banks are too big to fail, too big to stop them paying obscene binuses to their execs, too big to understand what finabcial shadiw products they invent, too big to ask them not to sip off their customer by betting against them, too big to ask them how they are robbing super funds…
just too big to fail.
Yeah right. take your money out if you dont like them, vote with your withdrawals.
Consumer sovereignity applies.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:27 pm
If GM couldn’t escape bankruptcy without a grant from the Government of course they shold fail. Isn’t that capitalism JC? “No, of course not”, you say. “I own shares in GM and I want my losses socialised.”
In my experience, no capitalist understands capitalism. They’re all protectionists and expect consumers to support their rent-seeking. I hear Katter today excoriate free-market advocates. What a total hypocrite.
The worst protectionists have always been been Liberals/NP (eg Fraser, McEwan), and the most sincere free-marketeers have been the ALP (Hawke/Keating).
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 8:33 pm
Katter has never claimed to support free markets or defend capitalism. He’s the ‘agrarian socialist’ to the core. He’s an idiot economically but how is that hypocritical?
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 8:37 pm
You know what Hamm\?
Im with Katter excoriating free market advocates. The latter are bloody isiots and the reason we are now drinking permeate filled milk and stuck in traffic for hours is because of them (because the government isnt allowed to spend money and it should be the private road operators only they cant get avreturn and keep failing – this is all bullshit – its a govt cost is infrastructure – I pay taxes for that).
Katter is right and the free market advocates are a branch of sheer stupidity, a cult and a bunch of lunatics.
Unfortunately the Katters as well as the free market idiots belong to the same party and personally I think the Nats should expel the libs and bring Nat politics to town.
Ive had a gutful of both liberal and labor. There is not much difference between them anyway.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:39 pm
Fraser was the worst of the Liberals; he was in the wrong party and a historical embarrassment to the Libs. Hawke was the best Labor has ever had. Hawke was better than the insipid Fraser.
No Lib shies away from this.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 8:40 pm
Katter is an Agrarian Socialist, pure and simple.
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 8:42 pm
BTW Hammy, the White Australia Policy was vastly the product of the labour movement, and mostly dismantled by the Libs with a minor part done by Whitlam. Hypocrites?
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 8:43 pm
Jphn Mc
You can call Katter an agrarian socialist and an idiot economically but really what favours has your brand of smart economics done for the rest of us over the past two decades?
Fuck all. (Oh wait for it – you will say I am SOOOOOOOOOOO lucky I can buy cheaper cheap appliances from Harvey Norman – all imports – but Woolworths is screwing me into the ground)
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:44 pm
Right-wingers claim they support “free enterprise”. They don’t. Their philosophy is the polar opposite. They support rent-seeking, all of them. It’s the working people of Australia who are the philosophical free-enterprisers.
The so-called “Coalition” depends absolutely on what you call “agrian socialists”. They are rent-seekers to a man.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 8:44 pm
and whats so wrong with being an agrarian socialist??
Better than a free market lunatic.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:45 pm
Judith – the ARC has funded me in the past. But not since 2007. Pure coincidence, of course. My last application went from being wait listed to being ranked in the bottom 10 per cent. Amazing how the quality of application rises with a change in government.
Sinclair Davidson
13 Mar 13 at 8:46 pm
Sinc
I can see you are out of favour. The arc process is just rigged isnt it (But then it was rigged under jH too).
Hard to get an unbiased judge. It seems they are incapable of being unaligned.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:50 pm
Hammy you are really stretching it suggesting right wingers are all protectionsist and the working people are all entrepreneur free enterprisers..
Even I who does not sit far right finds you a bit strange.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 8:54 pm
I’m amazed to see you right-winger economists supporting rent-seekers so strongly.
The living standards of Australians has improved immensely since Hawke/Keating liberalized the economy. If our protected industries were still being protected as they were 30 years ago during Fraser years, our supermarket bills would be double in real terms what they are now. We’d be paying triple for our smart-phones and laptops etc., and you can go right through househild budgets and see corresponding disasters.
It was Whitlam who slashed tariffs by 25% in one fell swoop 30+ years ago, not the rent-seekers’ friends, the Nats and Libs.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 8:55 pm
Right-wingers claim they support “free enterprise”. They don’t.
Katter is economically left-wing. He’s a commie but won’t admit it in those terms.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 8:56 pm
You do know that permeate is a natural milk product and the milk processors stupidly thought they could treat customers as fools and use it as a marketing gimmick. Lucky most customers are too smart to twig to the con. Oh, wait, here’s Aliice
Entropy
13 Mar 13 at 8:57 pm
Nonsense John Mc. Katter is a typical far-right-winger in Australian terms.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 8:59 pm
Bullshit Entropy – permeate is a bloody byproduct they used to chuck out and Im NOT drinking it as MILK – so there.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:00 pm
(Oh wait for it – you will say I am SOOOOOOOOOOO lucky I can buy cheaper cheap appliances from Harvey Norman – all imports – but Woolworths is screwing me into the ground)
Yes you are lucky. It’s shed loads better than the days when these things were luxuries that you would scrounge for a couple of years to buy the base model.
Groceries are way to expensive in this country. The solution is more competition and less red tape i.e. more capitalism.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:00 pm
But we aren’t drinking permeate-filled milk. Nor hormone-juiced chooks, or poison tomatoes.
wreckage
13 Mar 13 at 9:00 pm
No Hammy – you are totally wrong. Katter is NOT a typical right winger and for your ignorance you should immediately be enrolled in politics 101.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:01 pm
Pertmeate is what we old-timers in the cheese industry used to call whey. It was a left-over from cheese manufacture and it used to be fed to pigs. Thus you used to eat in your pork and ham. Made excellent pork tucker.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 9:02 pm
Nonsense John Mc. Katter is a typical far-right-winger in Australian terms.
He openly speaks against free markets. He actually says he does not like ‘free market parties’.
He’s the ‘authoritarian right’ which is closer to the ‘authoritarian left’ where you sit, than where the libertarian right, conservative right or neo-conservative right where we sit.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:02 pm
Bull wreckage – we ARE drinking permeate filled milk, hormone filled chickens and a whole lot of other crap unless we are very careful.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:03 pm
And yet another thread gets derailed.
Gab
13 Mar 13 at 9:04 pm
But we aren’t drinking permeate-filled milk. Nor hormone-juiced chooks, or poison tomatoes.
You’ve really got to try to get this stuff. Doing nothing generally means you will avoid it by default.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:05 pm
At least it hasnt been dreailed into “There is plenty more lemmings where they came from” Gab
Quick to eforce the rukes arent you?
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:06 pm
Ilse Koch definitely
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:06 pm
You really are a fuckwit, Alice. What rules am I enforcing and how am I enforcing them, you bellicose buffoon.
Gab
13 Mar 13 at 9:07 pm
Gab – you are a silly girl at times
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:08 pm
Honestly the IQ at the Cat goes negative whenever you comment, Alice.
Gab
13 Mar 13 at 9:08 pm
I don’t have any problem with Catallaxy threads going off like this. Yes, there are higher quality threads, but those threads will ignore the trolls.
When things are boring trolls add value. People who can’t be bothered commenting enjoy reading this stuff.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:09 pm
Gab – I dont see the IQ meter exactly spike whenever you comment either.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:10 pm
For all the hysteria, permeate IS a milk product. There are no non-milk elements in it. Skim milk is a milk product, but has had the butter fat taken out. Cheese is a milk product that’s amended before it’s used, but is not the actual composition straight from the cow. Casein is a milk product, but not straight from the cow. Milk has many components and dairy manufacturers select from it what’s appropriate for their purpose. Actually Cheese and yoghurt have more non-milk additives than supermarket milk (rennett and salt in cheese, and bacteria in youhurt)
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 9:11 pm
It happens on every thread, John mc and it”s always the trolls that do it.
Gab
13 Mar 13 at 9:13 pm
Oh goodness me. Sorry Gab I didnt notice you had self appointed yourself as TQM manager of Cat and can now deign to label any comments you dont personally like as “trolls”.
From my memory I thought you launched a number of rather unprovoked attack on numbers the other night for using his servce number as a name.
From recollection you said there were many “servicemen: here who didnt advertise their numbers.
Im still waiting for those servicemen to confirm your comment (maening you dont know anyone).
I found your attack on a Vietnam vet (no matter how long he did or didnt serve) frankly, rude and ill mannered. He served Gab. You havent.
So now if you dont agree they are “trolls”.
No Gab you are not the total quality manager of the Cat.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:19 pm
Rave on and on, Alice but you still don’t get it. I voiced an opinion contrary to your own and that sent you into yet another incomprehensible rant.
Gab
13 Mar 13 at 9:22 pm
Hammy
Both sides of politics in Australia are free market when compared to the OECD. Even though I detest the current government at least they did sign the FTAs with Malaysia and Chile. Where it breaks down though is the current government with the CO2 tax and subsidies does protect certain industries with other industries tax dollars.
kelly liddle
13 Mar 13 at 9:23 pm
I found your attack on a Vietnam vet (no matter how long he did or didnt serve) frankly, rude and ill mannered.
He’s a fuckwit milking it for all it’s worth and then some. The Vietnam vets have to be the whingiest veterans in history, and numbers would have to be in the top 10% of that lot.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:27 pm
Gab – obfuscate all you like (its called ducking and weaving).
You were rude and ill mannered to Numnbers as you are attempting to be to me without any comment with any substance anywhere from you (a woman who bases her comments solely on put downs and insults), and it hasnt left me with a good impression of you.
You didnt voice any opinion contrary to my own
You posted a few personal comments. Thats all you did. Thats all you do as far as I can see.
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
.
Sigh!
It is so easy to consider the small concentrated group who enjoy protection.
But what about the impost on the masses, which is milk at $5 a carton, bread at $10 a loaf and shoddy cars with no innovative features at $60,000 a copy.
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 9:32 pm
There has been no “hormone filled chickens” in Australia for over 40 years.
Yet another example of the torrent of leftist bullshit absorbed then regurgitated by the dim gamma level leftist class.
twostix
13 Mar 13 at 9:34 pm
John mc – now I am just as disgusted with you as I am with Gab.
Some of you people have no manners and no respect AT ALL. He served and was likely conscripted John Mc.
Have you?
Aliice
13 Mar 13 at 9:34 pm
I have to part company with my socialist friends in respect to Vietnam veterans. They were vilified unjustly when they returned in the seventies in spite of the fact that most of them were compulsorily sent there by the Liberals governments of Menzies, Holt and McMahon. There were treated disgracefully and I have to admit by the left as well as the fascist right.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
There is a memorial in Seymour which was opened only recently listing every service-person who served in ‘nam.
I intend to visit the next time i am passing and see if I can find reference to our resident war hero.
I think I know what I will find,
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
Excellent. Another thread about the still warring vietnam vet. We just haven’t had enough discussions about him here.
Gab
13 Mar 13 at 9:36 pm
No-one is villifying returned soldiers Hammy.
Just exposing the impersonators and blowhards.
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 9:36 pm
Are you claiming war hero status Gab?
Nice uniform!
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 9:38 pm
As a socialist I have to say that I find genuine free marketers far more moral people than rent-seeking protectionists. If we have to have a non-socialist economy, I’d much rather have a free market that enables everyone to benefit, especially the common man and woman, and not just the protectionists at the top of the tree. That’s why I detest men like Dick Smith, who is spite of his wealth, still wants to extract the last dollar from the working man to add to his own obscene wealth. Katter’s in the same league. Ugh!
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 9:41 pm
Katter is old DLP. An economic nationalist full bore
JIm Rose
13 Mar 13 at 9:45 pm
I have to say that I find genuine free marketers far more moral people than rent-seeking protectionists.
Welcome home, brother!
As a socialist I have to say that I find genuine free marketers far more moral people than rent-seeking protectionists.
Oh,………as a socialist you are a rent-seeking protectionist.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:45 pm
Clearly not so, Leigh Lowe. The following is vilification pure and simple:
“The Vietnam vets have to be the whingiest veterans in history”
I do think the true colours of right-wingers have been exposed on this thread tonight. You really are appalling people.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 9:47 pm
Hammy go to bed love
Tal
13 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
That’s why I detest men like Dick Smith, who is spite of his wealth, still wants to extract the last dollar from the working man to add to his own obscene wealth. Katter’s in the same league. Ugh!
They’re both pathetic.
So you like free markets, Hammy? How did you feel about Work Choices (and why)?
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:48 pm
Is it still service if you never stop whinging or seeking rent from doing it?
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 9:50 pm
Work Choices was the Howard government’s means of pandering to rent-seeking capitalists. Unfortunately capitalists give capitalism a worse name than it deserves. If capitalism were truly practiced then there’d be less need for socialists like myself. Capitalists (aka “businessmen”) need to be kept honest.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 9:54 pm
More milk phobia here than a Conroy family reunion.
H B Bear
13 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm
If capitalism were truly practiced then there’d be less need for socialists like myself.
Yeah, yeah. Give us some substance on how capitalism is ‘truly practiced’.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 10:03 pm
This subect started off with a discussion about “too big to fail”. Nothing would be “too big to fail” in a capitalist system. The trouble with Catallaxy right-wingers is that they don’t have the faintest idea of what capitalism is, including you, John Mc.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 10:09 pm
I’d say you don’t a clue what underpins capitalism, let alone whatever you claim is ‘true capitalism’.
If something is too big that it is dysfunctional it will collapse naturally or be undercut by a competitor. There is no example of a non-government-created market monopoly that lasted more than 50 years. Usually much, much less. Something too big is an opportunity for a more agile, creative and efficient competitor.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 10:16 pm
Both major parties in Australia regard the big four banks as “Too Big to Fail”. If by mismanagement (as has nearly been the case with NAB in recent years), and they become financial basket cases, they would intervene to prevent any of them becoming insolvent and thus “fail”. This is not capitalism. It’s nationalism by proxy. I’d rather they be open about it, nationalize the banks and make them operate as non-profits.
hammygar
13 Mar 13 at 10:31 pm
Remember what I said about the authoritarian-left and the authoritarian-right being virtually the same thing? You and Katter have the same approach to banking!!
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 10:35 pm
The NAB close to failing?
Fuck off, Hammy, that is laughable.
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 10:38 pm
Fairs fair. Your comments are the by product of some unnatural milking motion and you expect us to wade through them.
Infidel Tiger
13 Mar 13 at 10:38 pm
Banks should be allowed to fail. This provides the right incentives to manage risk effectively. Socialising risk like your nationalised scheme will do just results in poor risk management. And despite what you say about them being a nationalised not-for-profit for the people blah blah blah, there will be winners and losers. And under your scheme the losers will be the workers, the uninformed, the honest savers. The ones the socialists always claim they are protecting. Just like socialism will always fuck over the workers and always has.
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 10:41 pm
DEAR MERCIFUL GOD! THERE IS NO SYNTHETIC HORMONE IN ANY CHOOK IN AUSTRALIA! WHAT PART OF NONE DO YOU FIND HARD TO AVOID! OH NO I WENT TO THE SUPERMARKET AND I ACCIDENTALLY BOUGHT A CHOOK THAT HAD NO FUCKING SYNTHETIC HORMONES IN IT BECAUSE THEY ALL DON’T ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH
wreckage
13 Mar 13 at 10:42 pm
Thanks for the treatise on dairy products Hammy.
You omitted to describe how Friesian bullshit is made, but.
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 10:43 pm
No hormones in chickens eh?
Riddle me this, Batman.
How do you explain these tits I’m growing then?
Leigh Lowe
13 Mar 13 at 10:45 pm
You funny!
John Mc
13 Mar 13 at 10:47 pm
If GM couldn’t escape bankruptcy without a grant from the Government of course they shold fail. Isn’t that capitalism JC? “No, of course not”, you say. “I own shares in GM and I want my losses socialised.”
Bullshit Kero. I wanted the car business to go down without government protection. I only asked the question because all leftwinger turds supported the rescue of the Carmakers.
Yep, only you do Kero.
Who do I want protected, Kero?
Yep, he sure is.
Not true. On balance the free market supporters have come from the right. However I recognize where you’re coming from in accusing parts of the right to be protectionists historically.
You’ve been too busy staring at the Kero bottle trying to determine when is the good time to call it quits. That’s because if you hadn’t been, you would realize that most people here detest Dick Smith with a vengence for pretty much the same reasons as you do in addition to him being a greenslimer. Even if he wasn’t a slimer we would still detest him.
Don’t over egg the Hawke/Keating thing as they were basically okay, but not as good as you think. They were okay. Hey I voted for them.
No.. take away the implicit guarantee and allow the market in banking to open up. If they fail they fail. No biggie. All that needs to be done is what I explained to you earlier.
But forgive me if I don’t find your comments credible. You have no real interest in allowing the banks to fail. Your real gambit is nationalization. Isn’t it kero boy?
JC
13 Mar 13 at 10:55 pm
Kero
Question, who do you think really benefits from the too big to fail policy?
Not a trick question as I think you like other leftwing turds seem to misunderstand what it actually means.
JC
13 Mar 13 at 10:56 pm
Back to discussing ‘Australian economics rent-seeker Laureate’ John Quiggin:
http://johnquiggin.com/2013/03/13/starting-as-i-mean-to-go-on/
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Trent
14 Mar 13 at 12:31 am
Quiggan’s sure got some mouth-breathers on board over there (from Trent’s link):
Excellent post, Sinc. This is what people who work for a living are up against. While concealing the fact from all but the curious, the left has assembled a tightly controlled network of tax-funded sinecures, such as the ARC, which dole out lavish lifestyle grants to the self-appointed intelligentsia, including uber-radicals like Quiggin. $400,000 p.a. (less some crumbs for the undergraduates) is not a supplement to an academic salary – it is the main game. An incoming government needs to undertake a detailed audit of these rorts. The ARC needs to be subjected to much higher levels of scrutiny.
Tom
14 Mar 13 at 5:13 am
What is this thread? The Muppet show starring Aliice and clammy? Fuck me. Way to derail a thread chumps.
As for banking reform, I’d essentially just convert all debt financing to equity and cease debt financing for financial instititions. Make it so that demand deposits are backed by cash or other extremely safe assets and for all financial instituion portfolios, ensure the components of their balance sheet are adequately disclosed. Put me down in the Karekan and Wallace camp – I’d abolish deposit insurance as it wouldn’t be needed. You don’t need any of the other crap Quiggy advocates.
Skuter
14 Mar 13 at 7:13 am
It’s called obesity. Or else you’re female.
hammygar
14 Mar 13 at 7:33 am
Having some discussions with family in the US in finance and the money on offer seems extrodinary after the problems they have had there. I think all the different forms of government intervention and regulation have stopped a free and fair market operating. Corporate interests have captured the regulators and are wringing every cent out of the system they can. Banks in Aus doing similar. Quiggin’s ideas wouldn’t change this – just more regulation that the vested corporate interests can swing to their advantage.
rebel with cause
14 Mar 13 at 7:43 am
@Aliice
Nearly every time I read one of your posts on this blog I’m continually reminded of a quote from the movie, ‘Billy Madison’.
“
Mr. MadisonAliice, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.tgs
14 Mar 13 at 10:51 am
[...] a few days late to this one, but Catallaxy Files exposes yet another example of how OUR taxes are being used to find radical left wing [...]
More Examples Of Our Taxes Spent For Radical Leftist Propaganda | Australian Taxpayers' Alliance
18 Mar 13 at 11:59 am