Nationals discover cause of financial crisis; me.

“Jim, your views are as near as I can tell at the extreme end of the spectrum and you certainly have been caught up in the free market view of the world. Sadly we have followed your path for much too long and the world is now reconsidering its axioms as a result of excessive freedoms given to huge banks based on your very ideas.” (Comment on Agmates.)

National Party Senator, Barnaby Joyce has a home page on “Agmates,” a social networking site, and has a thread going railing against the dominance of Coles and Woolworth’s in the supermarket business.

Not being a great fan of regulation I got involved, resulting in the above comment from one of the members of the forum.

Barnaby tends to have a fair sort of fan club going for him, probably because he bucks the system and the party line on occasions. Because of these stands he tends to appeal to those who are disillusioned with the current Tweedeldums and Tweedeldumses style of government and opposition. With the major political parties we have in Australia, elections are a case of “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Regrettably I have serious doubts that he will make much of a difference in the long run as while he is more independently minded than most members of his party, his philosophy is rooted in the big government, nanny state camp.

17 thoughts on “Nationals discover cause of financial crisis; me.

  1. “food inflation that’s twice the rate of the Consumer Price Index”
    That just makes me think the CPI is rubbish.

    “once an entity dominates the market place then it extracts a premium in price from you by using its market share”
    Then it doesn’t have its market share for long. The prices Coles & Woolworths offer are incredibly good compared to small businesses. They should expand as far as possible!

  2. I agree Jim. Joyce isn’t the path to capitalism.

    He’s not all bad I suppose. I do admire his honesty and him taking the time to explain himself. (even though his comment shows stupidity IMO).

    “Excessive freedoms” to banks!
    Any moron can see finance is one of the most regulated industries – and that the government controls the money supply.

  3. Barnaby is always good for a laugh. I think he’s generally a good-natured fellow, even if he isnt always well informed.

    I love the way Barnaby warns about ‘centralist domination’ and then goes on to propose centralised market regulation to prevent this happening.

    “You don’t need to have written a PHD on Keynes to understand”

    That raised a chuckle from me.

    Really though, good on Woolworths and Wesfarmers for giving consumers what they want. A quick example: a couple of weeks back I went to a Dan Murphys and bought a dozen bottles of various Belgian abbey ales, lambics, and German wheat beers. That’s a very far cry from the independent bottle shops that I remember from 20 years ago, which gave you the stunning choice of half a dozen different cartons of poor quality domestic beer.

    If you cant give customers what they want, you dont have any right to exist.

  4. Todd; the Nationals have always loved their central marketing authorities, which by some bizarre logic they view as free enterprise. Some of the legislation surrounding these has been totally draconian. Generally when the product was removed from the source, that is, milked from the cow, harvested from the plant, etc. it became the property of the relevant marketing authority.

    Theoretically a farmer taking a billy of milk from the vat to use in the house, or a wheat grower using his grain to feed the chooks was stealing was stealing from the milk or wheat board.

  5. If you cant give customers what they want, you dont have any right to exist.

    Actually the businesses that continue to exist sell stuff rather than give it.

  6. I like Barnaby a lot. His absolutely hopeless attempts at justifying his position as part of a coherent political philosophy and his raw confrontational responses to questions (that even ‘Ironbar’ Tuckey would be proud of) are part of his appeal.

    I remember one of his speeches where he was justifying absurd subsidies to the rural sector (including the grant of a few thousand for the ‘re-stumping’ of a hall in some tiny little rural town, that I’m sure was last used around 1890) on the beautifully agrarian socialist grounds that the parliament was just stupid not to subsidise the ideal of ‘owning the ground that you work’. It’s just beautiful.

    Not as beautiful as federal parliamentarian ‘Ironbar’ Tuckey loudly opening a renewable energy debate with a female academic on national TV with “YOU STUPID WOMAN”, but still beautiful enough.

  7. What makes interesting, though depressing reading, is the guff about fixing the economic system, without changing the fundamental flaws which inherently exist, are unavoidable, in a debit banking system.

    A+B will never equal A, and, if there is to be any hope of correcting our riduculous, self destructing economic gargantuan, we will have to revolutionize the approach we have to control the creation of credit, nationalize the banking system, to stop all their rip offs and rorts, and put control of finances back in the hands of the people, through government.
    Socialist?
    No, sensible. It is the money merchants who are grinding us all into pulp.

    It is time to get back to basics, rectify the cause of the problem, which is a defunct, decadent, destructive concept of economics where money is made, created, out of nothing, loaned to the community, at extortionate cost.
    Who gave banks the right to control, to claim ownership of our, the nation’s wealth?
    This monopoly is what has driven us into the current catastrophe.
    Possibly it would be wise for politicians, and the community, to consider some of the viable alternative concepts of economics which already exist.
    Or are the power brokers too strong for politicians to stand up, on the community’s behalf, against?

  8. Bullshit.

    “Or are the power brokers too strong for politicians to stand up, on the community’s behalf, against?”

    “Who gave banks the right to control, to claim ownership of our, the nation’s wealth?”

    That’s communism. My savings ARE NOT part of your’s or anyone else’s property, nor do they belong to the nebulous “community” which is a spiritual spittoon for thieves who would like to plunder private property.

    Take your grubby hands away from my savings, thank you.

    Social credit fails. There is no rationality in giving out loans. The 1970s all over again with small business support, low growth and massive unemployment.

    No thanks.

    “Possibly it would be wise for politicians, and the community, to consider some of the viable alternative concepts of economics which already exist.”

    Not really, they could deregulate more and let people use whatever system they like, as long as it is voluntary.

  9. No, it is not suggested your money becomes community property, nor that there would be any effect on free trade. The point being offered is that the economic system we have used for so long has, obviously, failed, and it is crucial we look at viable alternatives.
    Nationalization of the banking system would be to control the artificial creation of credit, independent of assets, as witnessed in the recent, ongoing American banking facade, and control the cost of money to the community.
    It would decimate the horrific costs to which we are subject to, for the ability to access our money, and would cut out the greed factor of avaracious share holders.
    If the system is not working, (note national debt,) it may be wise, even intelligent, to look for a more functional way to handle banking and the creation of credit.
    Possibly the re-establishment of a People’s bank, as the Commonwealth originally was, to be run as a not for profit company, controlled by the Commonwealth Govt. would provide some authentic competition for the Money machine and return some form of sanity to credit control and access.

  10. John,

    You are actually very confused. National debt has got nothing to do with private credit.

    Freddie Mac etc were run as “people’s banks”. They are but one reason of many similar reasons why the US had such a calamity.

    On the other hand, can you explain how your system would bring us those benefits you think it would?

  11. Social Credit doesn’t work?
    Does our current economic mess suggest that this system is a raging success?
    It is the creation of credit which is the failure point in all capitalist economic systems, as money is only a representation of labour, with no intrinsic value of its own, not being tied to the gold standard nor any other commodity.
    Yes, we will probably see the re-introduction of the gold standard soon, as the vatican takes over the world economic system, but, surely our politicians and commentators are too smart to allow that to happen, aren’t they?
    The comments previous imply a limited comprehension of mathematics on the part of the critics, and we are looking for them to provide some sane, logical, alternative resolutions to the current international financial mess.
    Socialism is exactly what we are galloping into, at breakneck speed, and you may rest assured, this writer is totally anti-socialism. Remember, it is the Soviet, SOCIALIST republic, and that is exactly where our governments and economists are taking us.
    Our current excuse for governments, both parties, are socialists, inspite of all the rhetoric, and it is possibly advantageous for the smart people to get ready to kiss all their cash goodbye, as we adopt the cashless society and its Orwellian characteristics.
    Barnaby at least has a handle on reality, the concept that it is only through work, getting people off their bums and working for a living, which improves their self-esteem and buying powers, that can get us out of the economic doldrums, but few people seem to comprehend that concept.

  12. “It is the creation of credit which is the failure point in all capitalist economic systems, as money is only a representation of labour, with no intrinsic value of its own, not being tied to the gold standard nor any other commodity.”

    Really? Let’s go back to the labour theory of value?

Comments are closed.