Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Economics

    Home Economics Page 9

    Eye-Opening Dispatches From Vietnam

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    After three long years of covid lockdown-induced solitary confinement, a loyal Liberty Itch subscriber cut loose, left Australia for South-East Asia and found herself in Vietnam.

    Animated by what she saw, I started to receive her much-welcomed dispatches about daily life there.

    Now, if you read any 1960s and 1970s history, you know Vietnam is communist. But what my friend’s streetscape dispatches reveal is that daily life is anything but centrally-controlled. In fact, what she witnessed felt more like the hustle and bustle of enterprise or, as our intrepid adventurer pithily described …

    “official communism, sure,
    yet with a je ne sais quoi libertarian, freewheeling spirit,
    small-scale capitalist at every turn.”

    I’ll step out of the way. These are her words …

    There are no rules, Kenelm. It’s fend for yourself. Even these communists realise capitalism is the way to go. Free markets and small business. It feels like what I imagine 1880s London or 1980s Hong Kong to be. Free. Laissez faire. Taxes are low. 5%+ for residents. 20% flat tax for foreigners. The communists simply don’t have the money for bureaucrats. They’ve taken themselves out of the game and let people live their own lives.

    There’s genuine economic development here. It’s booming.

    There is little of government here to save you. You save yourself or drown, which isn’t an option.

    So, family is very important. Your family takes care of you in your old age, not the government. You know, like we used to do in Australia.

    Prices are so low.

    Petrol is a mere 37 cents a litre. No fuel excise. Can you imagine?

    Food is cheap.

    At the end of a long, hard day, cocktails are $2.50.

    Road rules? The only rule here appears to be there are no rules, almost anarchy. Yet it works. A loose framework exists where thousands stop on a red light. But only when it suits them. Lanes on the road? Only use those if you absolutely must.  It’s better to weave right, left, and even preferrable to pit your life against a semi-trailer coming from the opposite direction, because you absolutely must overtake the vehicle in front of you.

    Pedestrian crossings? A mere piffle, an abstract idea where someone thought stripes of white paint were to beautify the road. The pedestrian who stands at one end expecting the traffic to stop for her, hah! She is the pedestrian who never returns home alive. As one local said to our observer, “If you don’t move, you’ll die. You need to move. Not too fast. Not too slow” … to which I replied, “Oh, you mean the Goldilocks effect”. The harrowed local muttered “Who is Goldilocks?” under his breath. Big tip! It’s best to wait for a small gap in the traffic. Walk whilst praying to God the entire time that He will see you safely to the other side.  

    Footpaths? You know, for human feet? A figment of an idea, I tell you. They are just another lane for bikes to scoot down in the gridlocked peak hour traffic. Footpaths are places to park, to open your front gate, to wheel your dolly-trolly, to sell your wares for the day. All day and every day.  The pedestrians are after-thoughts.

    Did I mention $3 Singapore Slings?

    There aren’t suffocating regulations about, say, straws. Yes, you can get a decent plastic straw in Vietnam!

    Communism, lurking in the background somewhere, OK. But the streetscape looks what I imagine laissez faire to be. It’s a rambunctious, rollicking, throbbing freedom, not that poor imitation back home. It’s every man for himself. As the saying goes, “It’s the quick or the dead” around here. Maybe that’s because the communists simply can’t make central planning work to feed people. Maybe they gave up that aspiration long ago. Everyday people her feed themselves and their families through good old-fashioned free trade.

    This is what Australia is competing with! Enterprising, self-reliant people. Low prices. There’s a lot of manufacturing being exported. They value add. It’s not a big quarry like other economies we’re familiar with!

    The West is on the precipice of losing something incredibly precious. 

    In comparison to Vietnam,
    we need to wrap society in cotton wool
    and legislate for every possible scenario that might make us sick, kill or injure us.

    We’ve left the realm of common sense, we’re stifled and soft-pruned by a socialist bubble bath. Individuals can no longer assess risk with any degree of rationality. Individuals are increasingly absolved of all self-responsibility and that power is being placed into the hands of faceless bureaucrats and legislators who make decisions on our behalf. It’s not needed. It’s not in our best interests. Vietnam proves it.

    Remind my fellow Liberty Itch subscribers, as I often remind my friends, none of us are getting off this planet alive! We need to take back our autonomy, before it’s too late.

    To all of which, I can only say to my friend, hear hear!

    FREE! The Kerry Packer Classical Liberal Masterclass

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    0

    Some thirty plus years ago, a fellow by the name of Kerry Packer appeared before a House of Representatives Inquiry into Print Media. 

    Kerry Packer. Appeared in the House of Reps Inquiry into Print Media in 1991.

    The context of the inquiry was that the owner of the main metropolitan newspapers and classifieds, Fairfax, had gone broke.  And with Fairfax having gone broke, Packer was trying to buy into the re-floated business. 

    This was a time before the Internet, when newspapers actually made money and lots if it from their classifieds business.  Fairfax’s classifieds business was referred to as the ‘rivers of gold’.

    There is a tale to tell here around Malcolm Turnbull who was previously Packer’s in-house lawyer and who, by this stage, had moved on and was representing the junk bond holders of the broke Fairfax.  But that is for another time.

    Businessman Kerry Packer with future Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

    For his masterclass in its entirety, see the video at the end of this article.

    There are some much younger looking folk in it, including one Peter Costello.  However, this is not to delve into the issues of media, but rather the diversion that took place late in the piece when Packer spoke about the risk to Australia from the constant meddling of Australian parliaments and the risk to investments into Australia.  It was a Packer masterclass and should be shown in every school and every parliamentarian induction session. 

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

    Highlight 1 – when Packer says to ALP curmudgeon John Langmore:

    “You seem to be completely unaware of the Constitution of Australia.”

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/82W6RgYwQS4?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Highlight 2 – when Packer points out that in his lifetime, tens of thousands of laws had been passed but that Australia was not a better place for all those new laws.  He also suggested that for every law passed, another law be repealed.  Packer said:

    Every time you pass a law, you take someone’s privileges away from them.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/k9wZk_0n18k?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Highlight 3 – again when Langmore accuses Packer of minimising his tax.  To which Packer replied:

    I don’t know anyone who does not minimise their tax.
    If anyone in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read,
    because as a government, I can tell you that
    you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Dae_lPippGU?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Which brings me to superannuation wars 2023 when Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones flagged yet more changes to superannuation taxes. 

    The proposal is couched in fairness, but the truth is that like drug addicts, the government is in desperate need of more money.

    Let’s be honest here.  There are some serious issues with the taxation treatment of superannuation.  As John Kehoe pointed out in the AFR:

    A retiree earning $100,000 a year in super fund investment returns typically pays no income tax, whereas a wage earner receiving the same amount pays $23,000 tax

    This is neither fair nor just.  But the Government’s problem, as with the same problem for the Coalition, is that they have no credibility when it comes to tax changes and tax reforms. This because they won’t do the work of demonstrating that what is currently being spent is being spent efficiently and effectively.

    Within the last six months, it was reported that some $6 billion per annum is lost to fraud in the NDIS and $8 billion per annum is lost to fraud in Medicare.  That’s $14 billion per annum, and not a word has been said or done about this.  No inquiry.  No policy changes.  No ministerial speeches.  No campaign from the opposition.  No major response from government.  Just business as usual. 

    Instead, piles of money and political capital are being expended to generate what will likely be less than $1 billion per annum of additional taxes.

    Talk about perverted priorities.

    There is much wrong and distortionary with the Australian tax system.  It is a train crash.  But until government does the fundamental and hard work of spending reform, tax reform will be seen for what it is.  Just an attempt to pump more water into a leaky bucket.

    According to the ABS, for the 12 months to June 2021, the 3 tiers of Australian government managed to generate $810 billion of revenue.  But they spent $970 billion or near half of GDP generating a combined deficit of $160 billion.

    Our governments don’t have revenue problem.  They have a spending problem.  Message to Labor, Liberal, National and Greens governments, as Kerry Packer said quite well and clearly:

    “you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!”

    Here’s the Packer masterclass in its entirety.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xOLbbkC1qq0?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Achieving The Elusive Balanced Budget

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Fun facts about Australia’s debt at the end of the following governments …

    • 37th Parliament (Keating, Labor) … $96 billion
    • 41st Parliament (Howard, Coalition) … $58 billion (down 40%)
    • 42nd Parliament (Rudd, Labor) … $147 billion (up 153%)
    • 43rd Parliament (Gillard, Labor) … $257 billion (up 75%)
    • 43rd Parliament (Rudd, Labor) … $257 billion (short period)
    • 44th Parliament (Abbott, Coalition) … $369 billion (up 44%)
    • 45th Parliament (Turnbull, Coalition) … $532 billion (up 44%)
    • 46th Parliament (Morrison, Coalition) … $895 billion (up 68%)
    • 47th Parliament (Albanese, Labor) … $897 billion (up 0.22%).

    During the Australian Government’s covid overreach period, its gross debt increased from $534.4 billion in March 2019 to $885.5 billion in April 2022. This is the highest it’s been relative to GDP since the 1950s when the country was still repaying debts from WWII.

    In 2007, the first Rudd Government introduced a debt ceiling of A$75 billion to demonstrate its supposed economic credentials. A cap on debt. You can’t be more fiscally responsible than that, right?

    What happened next won’t surprise you if you’re a long-time observer of government.

    The same government then increased the debt ceiling to A$200 billion, then to A$250 billion, then A$300 billion. Complete economic vandalism!

    But that’s OK. To the rescue comes the Coalition, right? Wrong. In 2013, the Abbott Government lifted the cap to A$500 billion.

    You get the picture.

    Then, tired of the recurring process of increasing the debt ceiling again, the Liberal Party colluded with the Australian Greens and abolished it altogether.

    Yes. You read that correctly!
    Labor instituted a debt ceiling. Liberals and the Greens removed it.

    So now the Federal Government can rack-up any sized debt it can get away with.

    As Liberty Itch has said here and here, the general modus operandi is that conservatives conserve. They have a tendency to retain what they are given. It takes classical liberal zeal to adopt muscular forward-looking policies.

    In this context, it was actually Labor playing at being fiscal conservatives with the introduction of a debt ceiling but they started the process of increasing the limit, wolves in sheep clothing.

    So what did the conservatives in the Coalition do? They conserved the pattern they inherited and followed suit, lifting the limit too. Up and up it went. They simply conserved the new system they were given.

    We small government Milton Friedman types watched aghast.

    So, what would have been a better solution than a debt ceiling? What would a classical liberal government have actually tried?

    The social welfare statists love a referendum. Let’s fight back and do more than resist …

    Answer: a balanced budget and debt repayment enshrined in the Constitution.

    The provisions would say something like this, with apologies to all the gifted constitutional draftsmen out there:

    The Balanced Budget Provision

    The Commonwealth Government shall prepare its annual appropriations bill for parliamentary approval such that, except in times when a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and Senate has made a Declaration of War, the expenditure shall not exceed taxation receipts.

    Declarations of War Provision

    Declarations of War, which require a two-third majority of the joint siting, shall only be voted on if Australia or its allies are under direct military threat from a foreign power. Declarations of War automatically expire on surrender of the foreign power or 12 months, whichever is the sooner, and may be renewed as required.

    The Debt Repayment Provision

    In the event that the Commonwealth Government has inherited a national debt from previous years, it shall ensure all subsequent annual expenditures are at least 10% less than taxation receipts, and that the difference be applied to extinguish the debt.

    The only time a debt could be incurred is the one inherited when the Constitution is changed and during and after war.

    I’m negotiable on the 10%. It could be 5% or 7% or 2%. I don’t mind.

    However, the principle should remain, which is that government must pay past debts in regular, predictable timeframes and, once that’s done, budgets must balance except in times of existential threat.

    A debt ceiling is now unnecessary. There’s no more ratcheting debt skyward and heading ever further towards mega-sized government.

    Best of all, these provisions are enshrined in the Constitution so are hard to remove.

    ANSWER: The Carlson-Shapiro Question

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    tonkin

    I admit it.

    There I was on 27 February 2023, making a little mischief with my article:

    VOTE NOW! Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro?

    Well, it was mischief-making in the sense that I like to sharply define the line between liberal and conservative and then, with all the goodwill in the world, provoke people to think and explore these differences.

    There is a difference, you see.

    So I posted a video clip between American commentators Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They had opposing views of how to handle inevitable job losses caused by driverless trucks. It illustrated the difference eloquently.

    If you haven’t watched the exchange, click here.

    Then I challenged you to vote whether you agreed with Tucker Carlson or, by inference from his question, Ben Shapiro.

    The results are in:

    • 37% Tucker Carlson; and
    • 63% Ben Shapiro.

    If you agreed with Tucker Carlson, you are a conservative.

    If you agreed with Ben Shapiro, you are a liberal.

    As I repeat ad nauseum, conservatives wish to conserve. Here, Mr. Carlson would be happy to conserve current industry development rather than advance it. He’d be happy to keep truck drivers in jobs for which technology has a more efficient solution, the driverless truck.

    By inference from his question, Mr Shapiro would prefer to let the free market take its course, permit the technology and have truck drivers migrate into related freight work or even redeploy into other industries.

    There’s a big difference in approach.

    Liberals and conservatives are not the same.

    You’re an optimist if you’re a liberal (or if you must, a classical liberal or libertarian, they all mean the same thing!) You believe in people, in their ability to innovate and in their ability to adapt to change. In the case of driverless trucks, you fully embrace this new technology and you want to encourage the creators of that innovation by allowing it to be unleashed on the market. No restrictions. And you have faith truck drivers, given appropriate notice, are more than capable of finding new work. You are confident they aren’t simply going to sit and bemoan the loss of one type of occupation. Rather, you know they’ll have to find other work to feed their families, as we all do.

    You’re a pessimist if you’re a conservative. You believe, as Mr Carlson even said, that you don’t want high school educated men let loose on society without a job. He assumes that high school educated men would suddenly become helpless and even dangerous. That’s the inference.

    Blimey!

    Talk about loss of faith in our fellow citizens. It’s a nanny state attitude. What evidence is there for this? None that I can find. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence high school educated men are adaptable.

    Take 1980s Newcastle. A city bustling with blue collar men busily working the steelworks. Now look at 2020s Newcastle, a lifestyle, health and university town. What happened to these steelworkers? Was Newcastle ravaged by idle high school educated men wreaking havoc across the city? No. Some of these men were due to retire, some moved to the Wollongong works, some stayed in Newcastle moving into value-add niche industrial enterprises, some stayed in the large industrial companies but worked from home as the companies left, some started their own businesses using their skills in new ways, some simply moved into new industries altogether, some retrained, some took early retirement to enjoy life.

    Take my grandfather. He grew up and apprenticed as a wheelwright at the tale-end of the old wooden spoke and hub horse-drawn carts. Then as his career developed, wood gave way to steel spoke and hub wheels. Then steel plates came in. What a transition!

    Further, when a conservative says ‘let’s restrict technology’, what does that signal? It’s the same as saying to every inventor and innovator, every scientist and engineer, to every entrepreneur and free thinker that their fresh, new ways of solving old problems are unwelcome.

    Do we really want that?

    If we took that view, we wouldn’t have made these advances outlined in There Is Hope. Check This Out!

    Further ….

    We’d have no smartphones.

    No Internet.

    No wireless.

    No medical imaging.

    No open heart surgery.

    No computers.

    No electricity.

    No refrigeration.

    No cars.

    No flush toilets.

    No immunisation.

    No fresh, high-quality food.

    No sewerage works.

    No social mobility.

    No flowing, pure water to the bathroom sink.

    No glass.

    No books.

    No steel.

    No iron.

    No bronze.

    No wheel!

    As I say, conservatism’s tendency to oppose change can be helpful. However, if that’s all we on the Right do is oppose and conserve, we end up sliding to the Left. Opposition and conservation are insufficient to fight the Left.

    We must treat our innovators with respect and let them advance society. We must not be conservative and stand in the way.

    We must treat our fellow citizens with respect, have confidence in them that they can cope with change. We should not mollycoddle them.

    Don’t be a conservative like Mr. Carlson.

    Be a classical liberal like Mr. Shapiro in this debate.

    This is the way forward.

    VOTE NOW! Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro?

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    lol

    Let’s do something different today, yes?

    I’m normally beavering away, sharing my opinions with you.

    Today, though, you’re in the driver’s seat. I’d like to hear from you.

    Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro exploring their philosophical differences.

    So this is what we’re going to do together …

    1. I’ll give you a short video to watch. It’s only 1:54 minutes long;
    2. You watch it. It’s a discussion between Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They talk about the impact of technology on jobs, taking two very different approaches;
    3. I’ll ask you a question about it;
    4. You then answer that question in the poll below; and
    5. Next week, I’ll let you know what your answer says about your political philosophy.

    Here’s the short video … watch now.

    Should government restrict technology to protect jobs? #auspol

    Right. Did you watch it?

    Good.

    So here’s the question and the poll …

    Thanks for playing.

    Next Monday, I’ll interpret your answer for you and reveal what political philosophy you’re expressing.

    Don’t forget to leave your comments below. I’ll respond to those too.

    Like, share, subscribe.

    Why 26 January Matters

    By
    Lionel Orellana
    -
    0
    gfd

    I put it to you that the story of Henry Kable and Susannah Holmes is reason enough to celebrate Australia Day on 26 January.

    Henry and Susannah arrived in Australia, an unmarried couple of convicts with an infant son, on 26 January 1788. They sailed on board of the Friendship as part of the First Fleet. Both had been sentenced to death for burglary some years before in Norfolk, England. They met and started their relationship in jail where Susannah gave birth to their first son. Their sentences were commuted to transportation to the Americas but the destination was later changed to the newly proposed colony of New South Wales.

    After the long voyage, as the ships unpacked onto the shore, Henry and Susannah received but a few of their scarce personal belongings. Somewhere along the way, their luggage had gone missing.

    By July 1788, the first case of civil law in Australian history was being heard in a court. Even more remarkably, the Kables, now married, were awarded £15 in compensation. In England, and just about everywhere else in the world, convicted felons didn’t enjoy such rights and all their possessions were simply ceded to the state.

    The Kable court case was not a fluke. It was a direct consequence of the thoughtful planning of Lord Sydney, Thomas Townsend who, as Home Secretary just months before the First Fleet set sail, rejected the idea of using martial law in the penal colony as it was originally intended.

    Lord Sydney, Thomas Townsend, after whom Australian city Sydney is named

    Lord Sydney was not about to send hundreds of prisoners to a remote gulag but instead had a vision for a free society based on
    separation of powers, property rights and the rule of law.

    He entrusted Governor Captain Arthur Phillip with the task of implementing his vision on the ground. It was Governor Phillip who responded to the complaint by our convicted couple Henry and Susannah Kable about their missing luggage.

    The broader challenge for Phillip was enormous. Putting Lord Sydney’s seemingly fanciful ideals into practice was no easy feat. After all, it took thousands of years for these ideas to develop and mature. It was only during The Enlightenment period that they were framed in a way that could be adopted as the basis of government.

    Captain and later Admiral Arthur Phillip, 1st Governor of New South Wales

    It is a childish characterisation of human history to pretend that we could have arrived at our modern understanding of universal rights with a sudden stroke of virtue.

    Arthur Phillip himself believed that Aboriginal people had the same rights as everyone else.

    Chances are, put in that same position, you wouldn’t have. In any other time in history, you would have had slaves if you could. If you think you are simply better than that, then you understand very little about the human condition.

    We take the ideas of individual property rights and an impartial rule of law to enforce them for granted today but they are not the natural way of things. These ideas had to be envisioned, explained, understood, misunderstood, questioned, tried, rejected and envisioned again. It took brave and critical thinkers like Sydney and Phillip to set them into motion.

    A free society for all, with all its flaws and contradictions, was part of the fabric of Australia from the very first moments of the Nation.

    That is what arrived in Australia, together with Henry Kable, Susannah Holmes and Arthur Phillip, one 26th of January 1788.

    FREEDOM! The Daughter of Davos Resigns.

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Two extraordinary things happened yesterday.

    First, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation effective, at the latest, early in February 2023. (Yes, New Zealanders need to endure her for a few weeks more!)

    Second, I put out this short tweet yesterday together with a video of the Prime Minister, and it went viral. In a mere 180 minutes, it was seen by 67,400 people and was still swishing around the globe as I wrote this. After 8 hours, 165,000+!

    You have to ask ‘WHY?’

    https://twitter.com/KenelmTonkin/status/1615875921638219778?s=20

    Jacinda Ardern set a couple of records. She was the youngest female prime minister ever in 2017. Further, she gave birth whilst in office.

    Of course, neither of these have anything to do with political achievement.

    To be fair, we can probably agree that Jacinda Ardern is expressive.

    Some went so far as to say she showed great empathy.

    I think it more accurate to say any apparent empathy was self-consciously dispensed and exclusively to beneficiaries of her bias.

    Any praise for expressiveness and empathy needs much closer scrutiny. It’s what she expresses that so confounds civil libertarians like you and me. And, if you don’t mind me expressing myself here dear reader, she showed a distinct lack of empathy for many during covid lockdowns, victims of which are generations not yet born as you’ll see. So read on.

    Instead, what we observed was a smiling socialist, a Daughter of Davos, instinct over intellect, all feeling and no financial finesse. In short, she was a classical liberal’s nightmare.

    Just look at the legacy she leaves after six reckless years in office:

    • Frequent meddling with the free market. The results: distortions in housing prices and a generation of first home buyers shut-out of their ownership aspirations;
    • A backlash against over-zealous covid restrictions and loss of personal freedoms, including creating a medical-apartheid defined by vaccination-status. See the video tweet above;
    • Conscientious objectors and the vaccine-hesitant were shunned socially, denied mobility, prevented from earning a living and targeted by government in ways the Stasi would have relished in Soviet-era East Germany;
    • Consequential increasing crime rates in the island nation;
    • Inflation sitting at 7.2%;
    • Food prices spiking 8.3% compared with the same time a year earlier;
    • Successive interest rate increases from New Zealand’s central bank;
    • A monstrous public debt! When she took office, the public debt was approximately $60 billion USD. Projections are that, based on all data currently available reflecting the decisions of her government, that the national debt will balloon to $151 billion USD by 2027. If the figure proves higher or lower than that, it will be the result of her successor’s policies, but you can see the economic vandalism on her watch. Put it this way, she led a government which racked-up triple the debt of all previous New Zealand governments combined. She went way over the credit card limit and left someone else to pick up the bill. Funny, right?;
    • For a country with a population the size of Boston, it will take three generations at least to bring that debt to heel. We are talking inter-generational theft which will crush Zoomer Kiwis’ standard of living, their children and their grandchildren. That is to say, on the day after you, I and Jacinda Ardern meet our Lord and Maker, New Zealanders will be dealing with the Ardern Economic Catastrophe for another two generations thereafter;
    • Many of them will flee New Zealand and hollow this beautiful jewel of the South Pacific. They have been emigrating anyway, mainly to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States;
    • A strategic flirtation with the Chinese Communist Party. Her Labour Party has long shunned our liberal democratic ally, America. It was a natural progression from that to openly calling for greater integration with the communists, a weak-kneed strategy in favour of firebrand authoritarianism with a chequebook over the cleansing-balm of liberty;
    • Consistent with that predisposition towards authoritarianism, civil liberties in New Zealand were shattered under her Governments. Emergency powers poised to be invoked again at any time are left in place;
    • Chinese Communist Party infiltration of New Zealand consulates and banks;
    • She openly lied about the efficacy of covid vaccines. “If you take the vaccine, you’ll still get covid but you won’t get sick and you won’t die” was a claim she made during the height of an hysteria of her own making, and contradicted by the science and the manufacturer. Don’t believe me? Watch this …

      https://twitter.com/KenelmTonkin/status/1616211090882592768?s=20


    • More government restrictions on the access and use of water;
    • Crushing regulations on agricultural emissions;
    • Further shifting of the goal posts with hate speech laws without any safeguards as to who adjudicates what ‘hate speech’ actually is.

    The adulation and applause had faded about a year ago. The shadowy World Economic Forum’s simping seemed impossibly distant now. Jacinda Ardern had to face the people of New Zealand imminently and the prospects weren’t promising.

    With polling numbers in decline and the sparkle now tarnished, the Prime Minister did what all faithful authoritarians and central-planners do when their number is up. She spoke sweetly, smiled nervously, then scurried to the nearest exit hoping that the rule of law she undermined holds firm for her.

    I was shocked my tweet went viral. I shouldn’t have been. Countless everyday people across the West, people like you and I, have had a gutful.

    The Daughter of Davos was a symbol of all that has gone wrong over the last 3 years. So of course you cheered her departure.

    I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before she re-emerges with an ostentatious job title and global brief somewhere in the world. “Poverty Ambassador-At-Large, World Economic Forum”, on $820,000 per annum, Davos chalet and chauffeur the obligatory perks on top sounds about right.

    And when that happens, you and I can both smile knowingly that at least here she won’t have harmed anyone further. On her departure from the Land of the Long White Cloud, she will increase the average IQ of New Zealand, and not decrease that of the World Economic Forum.

    Pardon me if I shed not a solitary tear.

    The Shrinking Forest

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    ‘Itch’ (noun) “… an irritating sensation on the skin that makes one want to scratch the affected part”.

    What may have started as ‘an irritating sensation on the skin’, regrettably has developed into a full-blown cancer affecting the nation’s vital organs.

    I am talking about authoritarianism.

    Shortly after World War II, George Orwell published his novel ‘1984’. The story was set in a country ruled by ‘Big Brother’, a supreme dictator in an all-powerful, one-party state. The central character, Winston Smith, whose job it was to re-write the nation’s history books to fit the current narrative of the state, was continually tormented by his task. The department in which he worked was called ‘The Ministry of Truth’.

    Orwell’s novel exposed the true nature of authoritarian governments which hold on to power by generating fear, distorting facts and censoring alternative views. For a book published in 1949, his description of surveillance technology to track and trace citizens is downright spooky.

    “Know everything in order to control everyone,” said Adam Weishaupt.

    Technology and mass surveillance allow governments to do just that – know everything.

    ‘The long march through the institutions’ is nearing completion.

    More government, more spending, more taxes, more regulation, more state power, more state control. Income tax, payroll tax, land tax, petrol tax, the goods & services tax, stamp duty, excise duty on alcohol and tobacco, power company dividends, water company dividends, the River Murray Levy, the Emergency Services Levy, the Regional Landscape Levy, the Solid Waste Levy, the Medicare Levy, Council Rates and many, many more. Local, state and federal governments taxing us at every turn.

    And of course, that most pernicious of all taxes – inflation tax. Pernicious because it so disproportionately affects those who spend a higher percentage of their income on food, petrol, electricity and gas, which are more susceptible to price rises.

    Naturally, the government blames everyone else for the price rises – greedy businesses, supply chains, Vladimir Putin … anyone but themselves.

    As US economist Peter Schiff puts it, “Inflation is caused by governments spending money they don’t have, accompanied by compliant central banks who not only forsake their mandates to keep inflation under control by putting up interest rates and punishing governments who overspend, they instead indulge governments by printing the money for them!”

    Following the 1980s excesses, the Reserve Bank of Australia increased interest rates to 17.5% and the Hawke-Keating government copped a mountain of pain. Yet, despite massive deficit spending over the past three years – the highest in the nation’s history – the RBA last month lifted interest rates to just 3.1%.

    So, what happens when spending is not accompanied by revenue measures to pay for it? Where does the money come from? Inflation. Instead of higher taxes, consumers pay higher prices.

    The bad news is it is going to get worse.

    And when it does, the Albanese government will again try to blame greedy businesses and introduce more price controls on them – like the recent coal price cap. Not good times ahead.

    Then there’s the government’s bagmen accomplices, the rent-seekers – companies that base their business models on providing goods and services to consumers that are either paid for by the government or the government prevents or limits competition. It is another layer of taxation which disproportionately affects low-income families – those who can’t afford to install solar panels on their roofs, for example.

    These rent-seekers are now everywhere – energy, superannuation, pharmaceuticals, higher education, land development, indigenous groups, public transport, manufacturing – you name it. They are a scourge. They tarnish the political process, distort the market and in the case of so-called ‘renewable energy’, distort the entire economy.

    Renewable energy rent-seekers have leapt onto the climate change bandwagon with unbridled zeal and are raking in billions of dollars gaming the system, raising energy prices, impoverishing consumers, destroying jobs, and fleecing taxpayers.

    Along with unions and industry superfunds, these new Australian oligarchs have limitless amounts of money to both shore up their own positions and resist anyone who might try to challenge them.

    Previously, entrepreneurs went to the marketplace to make their fortunes.

    Today the public purse is the mother lode.

    When the NDIS was announced in 2012, it was forecast to cost $14bn a year. In April 2022, actuary firm Taylor Fry estimated that by 2030 the cost will blow out to $64bn a year– a $50bn a year increase.

    How was this allowed to happen in such a short period of time? Simple – professionalised politics and sophisticated rent-seeking.

    The story is told of a forest that was continually shrinking – but the trees kept voting for the axe. The axe, you see, was very clever; it was able to convince the trees that because its handle was made of wood, it was one of them.

    In my next instalment for Liberty Itch, I’ll share what’s going on with our fellow citizens at the moment and take you back to a great battle on the floor of the Senate led by Senator David Leyonhjelm and me.

    Mr. Adams and his ‘RWNJ’ Slur against an Icon

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Federation University’s Verity Archer discovered a letter written in 1975 by Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest cricket batsman ever to play with an unparalleled average of 99.94, to newly elected Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.

    The 1975 federal election was undoubtedly a fiercely contested battle. Emotions were high. As any citizen was and is entitled to do, Bradman took a side and wrote:

    “A marvellous victory in which your personal conduct and dignity stood out against the background of arrogance and propaganda indulged in by your opponents.”

    Bradman next makes a prediction, which you would have to say history shows to be prescient:

    “Now you may have to travel a long and difficult road along which your enemies will seek to destroy you.”

    Cricket was a sport for amateurs in The Don’s day. Big money had not yet influenced the sport. Players therefore had to develop a career independent their sporting masters. They were tough men on long, self-funded tours, most unlike some knee-bending virtue-signalers and sandpaper betting-agency grubs you are more familiar with from more recent periods. In Sir Donald’s case, he was an accomplished and successful stockbroker in his own right with an advanced understanding of the regulatory framework of his time. Writing about regulations on capital, Bradman consequently wrote:

    “What the people need are clearly defined rules which they can read and understand so that they can get on with their affairs.”

    Seems fair enough. Sounds like Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) rules decades later. He then adds:

    “The public must be re-educated to believe that private enterprise is entitled to rewards as long as it obeys fair and reasonable rules laid down by government. Maybe you can influence leaders of the press to a better understanding of this necessity of presentation.”

    There are four points in that paragraph:

    1. Belief in private enterprise. This is straightforward enough of an idea. It’s the basis of our Western, capitalist liberal democracy;
    2. Gaining the rewards of its initiative. Yes. Private enterprise offers goods and services to the public in return for a profit. This is basic economics. Got it;
    3. Some fair and reasonable rules. Well, let’s not have any rules if possible but, if we must, light-touch and easy-the-understand, sure;
    4. Explain this to the media. Not a bad idea for a government to share with the press the direction it would like to take the country. All good.

    What’s to disagree with here?

    Yet, out come the socialists and 1975 ancient historians with an axe to grind:

    Broadcaster Phillip Adams wrote, “Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ.”

    Phillip Adams @PhillipAdams_1

    Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ9:59 PM ∙ Dec 25, 20222,112Likes259Retweets

    Unaccustomed to shorthand slurs from journalists, I had to find what RWNJ meant: right-wing nut-job, apparently.

    To some boomer-era, battle-axe activists-come-journalists, supporting free-enterprise, light-touch regulation and transparency with the media is radical. Apparently these positions are extreme, wild enough to be branded a right-wing nut-job!

    At what point in Australian progress did free enterprise become a dirty word?

    Or can we say Mr. Adams is the radical one for slandering a long-deceased Australian sporting icon because he believed in free enterprise.

    Or …

    … maybe, just maybe, Mr. Adams has another axe to grind. Perhaps he just hates supporters of Malcolm Fraser over the Political Crisis of 1975.

    All Liberty Itch says in response is:

    • Mr. Fraser won in a record landslide still not bettered today. Mr. Adams is surely not saying the vast majority of Australians including Sir Donald were RWNJs, is he?
    • Mr. Fraser’s successor, Bob Hawke, thought highly enough of Mr. Fraser to appoint him to the Eminent Persons Group to tackle racism in Apartheid-era South Africa. Mr. Adams is surely not saying Bob Hawke was a right-wing nut-job as well for supporting Mr. Fraser, is he?

    Like you, dear reader, I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.

    It seems Mr. Adams wasn’t.

    Long after Mr. Adams meets the Lord, free enterprise and Western liberal democracy will prevail.

    I do hope though that the practice of throwing mud at men long dead and unable to defend their reputations will cease, for Mr. Adams’ sake you understand, dear reader.

    For Mr. Adams’ sake.

    The Long, Long, Long Long List of Taxes!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    1

    Have you ever wondered how many taxes there are in Australia?

    The answer might shock you!

    Here’s the list. (If I’ve missed some, please let me know in the comments below):

    • (Federal) Personal Income Tax (aka PAYG Withholding Taxes)
    • (Federal) Company Tax
    • (Federal) Capital Gains Tax
    • (Federal) Goods and Services Tax
    • (Federal) Fringe Benefits Tax
    • (Federal) Medicare Levy
    • (Federal) Medicare Levy Surcharge
    • (Federal) Superannuation Guarantee
    • (Federal) Superannuation Guarantee Charge
    • (Federal) Luxury Car Tax
    • (Federal) Customs Duty
    • (State) Payroll Tax
    • (State) Land Tax
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Transfer of Real Estate
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Motor Vehicle Registration
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Motor Vehicle Transfer
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Leases
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Mortgages
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Hire Purchase Agreements
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Transfer of Business
    • (State) Stamp Duty on Transfer of Shares
    • (State) Excise Duty on Fuel
    • (State) Excise Duty on Alcohol
    • (State) Excise Duty on Tobacco
    • (Local) Council Rates

    To my count, that is twenty-six different taxes.

    What have I missed?

    1...8910Page 9 of 10
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv