The left's remarkable lack of knowledge of history

I tell you something that constantly surprises me - the lack of knowledge of history of those on the left with whom I discuss political matters.

Take Martin Luther King Day as an example.

The left write articles and make speeches and send tweets containing one or other of MLK's profundities in an attempt to cloak themselves in moral rectitude. MLK was the leading figure in the Civil Rights movement and is quite rightly regarded as the man who brought to an end the last vestiges of racial discrimination in the United States.

What these people don't seem to be aware of is that the entire reason there had to be a civil rights movement in the first place was due to the racist policies of the Democrats! From Jim Crow to miscegenation laws to lack of voting rights these were all policies introduced and supported by the Democrats.

Since the time of Lincoln the Republican party has been at the forefront of the equality argument. It's ironic that to now argue that white and black are equal and that there should be no racial preferences for work or university placement is guaranteed to attract a charge of racism. MLK would certainly be shocked at the blatant racism of these policies.

But it's not just the civil rights movement that those who claim to be the defenders of equality are ignorant about.

The eugenics movement of the early twentieth century had as one of its primary objectives the restriction of having children of those who were less educated. It was an almost entirely race based policy.

The union movement is one of the worst racial offenders going. The minimum wage was introduced entirely to deal with the 'problem' of cheap, black labour which would threaten the jobs of a unionised, white workforce. As Thomas Hazlett points out in this terrific article, this policy led to apartheid in South Africa. The great Tom Sowell calls the minimum wage the most racist legislation ever to be introduced.

A lefty will learn more in the three minute discussion between Williams and Sowell than they will in a lifetime of watching the ABC or SBS or reading The Age or Canberra Times or in the USA the New York Times etc.

In fact, while I'm linking to Tom Sowell here's another short lesson for the world's ignorant left.

But it doesn't stop there. The original purpose of Planned Parenthood was to create an environment in which young, pregnant, black women would have abortions on the grounds that they were not able to look after the children.

And there's more! Gun control in the United States south was introduced (by Democrats) entirely because they didn't want newly freed slaves having firearms. They feared, probably correctly, that a number of them might want to exact some vengeance before settling down.

Somehow or other history has been turned completely upside down and it's the historically race-blind party - the Republicans - who are tarred with the racist slur while the historically racist party - the Democrats - have been given a free pass.

I guess that's what happens when the mainstream media and universities and others in the chattering class overwhelmingly inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.

Ron Paul. Loser.

With the result of the Iowa caucus  to be decided narrowly in favour of either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney it's clear that the biggest loser in the field was the one whose hopes were pinned most firmly on victory - Ron Paul.


Make no mistake about it, this is a devastating loss. Paul was all-in in Iowa having a massive ground game, coupled with lax rules for participation and the most fervent activists on the right side of the political spectrum, and got his butt handed to him with his not even close third place finish.


This should come as no surprise. At the end of the day Ron Paul is a loser and is a prime example of the notion that when you're a one trick pony you can't attract anything approaching a majority of the vote.


The problems with Paul as a presidential candidate are many.


While he attracts most of his support for his position on the economy and government spending, quite rightly pointing out that the spending is unsustainable, he has failed miserably over a long period to garner support within Congress even from his Republican colleagues. And it's that last point that really highlights his failure. How could he possibly be a president that gets things done?


His isolationism is problematic. The position that America should withdraw its forces from the world and close most of its bases is no different to that held by such notable lunatics as Noam Chomsky. This is not the position of a serious person. I have written before that the United States has a moral obligation to use its unique power to make the world a safer place and Paul's insensitivity to the suffering of a large part of humanity does not speak well about the orientation of his moral compass.


Over the years Ron Paul's responses to the rank racism and homophobia  published in his name have the same ring of authenticity about them as did Bill Clinton's original statements regarding Monica Lewinsky. I don't believe him and neither do the majority of the American public.


It is also odd that someone that takes themselves remotely seriously could make such wishy washy statements when responding to the 9/11 Truther nutjobs. I wonder whether he's read the 9/11 Commission Report (which I commend to all, as it's a great read) or checked out the Popular Mechanics destruction of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Obviously not.


Unfortunately, I doubt his setback in Iowa will lead to a withdrawal from the race any time soon, though there is some suggestion that he doesn't want to get the mainstream Republican base too far offside, as that will hurt his son Rand's chances in the future.

Predictions for 2012

With Europe on the brink of financial collapse, the USA spending itself into perdition, China's manufacturing contracting and the rest of the emerging economies in various stages of expansion and contracting what can we look forward to in 2012?


Here are my predictions for 2012. Some are big, bold and brave and some are a bit obvious. We'll see how I go in a year's time.


Europe


The pressure on the banking system is now so great that it's hard to see how they can get through 2012 without some sort of financial ruction. The ECB has recently introduced a scheme in which it will lend money at around 2% to banks that are having trouble raising capital. At the same time as it has made 200 billion Euro available European banks have actually deposited 250 billion Euro with the ECB at a 0.5% rate. What does that tell you? That interbank lending is completely broken and they'd rather get near zero interest rates from the ECB than much higher rates by lending to other banks, which they don't trust. Part of the problem is that banks are not forced to mark assets to market so their balance sheets are completely false. If forced to mark to market a large number of banks would be insolvent.


Prediction 1: A number of large, well known European banks will go belly up in 2012. Their governments will engineer mergers with other banks in the same way that Lehman Bros was.


The infamous PIIGS are in even worse shape now than they were a year ago so the outlook for them is somewhat grim. Whether the technocrats that have been installed in Italy and Greece by the Euro elites can undo the rot remains to be seen. What is clear, though, is that there is a major attempt by European politicians to avoid the situation in which any country leaves, or can leave, the EU. Greece's problems are simply a matter of social and political corruption. People have come to expect an easy ride paid for by the government lavishing wages and entitlements on them that they have not earned. For its part the government has simply borrowed and borrowed - especially once it joined the EU and could borrow at the same rate as Germany - and paid off its constituents and cronies. There are no innocent parties in Greece in that regard. Spain is simply suffering from the excesses of democratic socialism taken to their logical conclusion. Government borrowing in order to pay for a plethora of social programs has really killed their economy. Youth unemployment is something like 50% and their housing market crash makes what happened in the US look like a walk in the park. Italy, on the other hand, can get its house back in order with some reasonably simple financial discipline. I was listening to John Mauldin a few weeks back and he highlighted that in France there are around 35,000 drivers (chauffeurs) for public officials in a population of 65 million. With a few million less people that number in Italy is 160,000 and that if they simply got rid of 75% of them then it would take care of 25% of their deficit. Which is pretty amazing when you think about it.


Prediction 2: No country will leave the EU in 2012.


USA


Given that it's an election year Mr Obama will pull out all stops to get re-elected including doing things that will boost his standing in the short term but hurt the United States subsequently. The Republican field of presidential contenders is probably up to the normal standard of years gone by but because we live in such difficult times people are looking for a strong Reagan-like figure and there simply isn't one there. It's odds on that Mitt Romney will take the nomination and enter what will be one of the most contentious, negative election races in US history.


The US Fed will respond to any quantitative easing by rolling out another round themselves in order to maintain an exchange rate of around 1.3 to the Euro. QE3 could happen in 2012 but it's not a prediction.


Prediction 3: In one of the closest races in US history Mr Obama will be elected to a second term.


The validity of the election result will be questionable given the Democrats' penchant for voter fraud and there may be grounds for appeal in certain electorates.


Prediction 4: Republicans won't have learned to correct the type of fraud that saw Al Franken steal his seat in Minnesota and we'll see repeats in 2012.


Prediction 5: The stock market will end 2012 up 20% so the Dow at around 14,500.


China


Chinese manufacturing is in a contraction at present due to demand for their products from Europe and the USA falling. Inflation, which has been a problem (and was exported to China from the US), is now coming under control so the government will need to look at ways of keeping their export machine going.


Prediction 6: The Chinese will re-peg the Yuan to the US dollar. This will increase their export competitiveness but will force the US to consider countermeasures in the form of quantitative easing and that will lead to an inflation problem again down the track.


Australia


Australia will continue to look like it's doing well while at the same time the foundational strength of our economy is stripped away by the most incompetent government in our history. Fair Work legislation will really bite in 2012, industrial disputes will hit a 10 year high, business investment will slow in the 2nd half due to the dual impacts of the insane Carbon Tax and Mining Tax, and the government debt will top $250B (a staggering number when you consider it was zero in 2007 and is due nearly 100% to ill-disciplined spending).  The Reserve Bank will be forced to reduce interest rates in order to keep our dollar from appreciating too much against those other countries that are in the process of money printing. In an environment of rising inflation that could spell trouble for the Australian economy in 2013. All of which makes the next prediction pretty simple.


Prediction 7: The next election will be called early, probably in the last quarter of the year.


Other Comments


With many governments increasingly unable to fund themselves they will turn to the only source of funds left that they can access - pension funds. This will be a disaster, of course, but I expect that governments will force pension funds to invest a percentage of their assets - say 25% - in government bonds. If this happens then make sure you have many, many assets to fund your retirement, as you won't be able to rely on your pension maintaining its purchasing power.


Precious metals will continue their volatility in 2012. Gold is heading up and now is a good time to be buying. The current drop in prices is a result of raising cash to meet margin calls and, while there might be some slight downside still to go, I expect gold to top $2000 by year's end. Silver is a bit more problematic but I think that there's at least 10% in it and maybe more so I'll call $35 and see how I go.


Hope everyone has a terrific 2012. Remember to focus on your health and happiness first, as without that you're nothing!


Update: Prediction 8: Nothing will change in Syria. Assad will not be forced out now or anytime soon.


Update 2: Prediction 9: There's a fair chance that if any other regime is going to fall in the Middle East this year then it'll be Iran.

Earth Hour flops again

In typical fashion Big Environment is yet again ignoring the utter failure of Earth Hour by heralding the puny participation rate as a huge success.

I was privileged enough to receive an email from Earth Hour Australia with all of the details (I think one of my asshat lefty mates signed me up to wwf.org.au as a bit of a lark coz I never did).

Here's the first paragraph, along with some analysis:

Wow, what a night!

It sure was! I invited a few mates around, had all of the lights on, turned on the BBQ (well, we did have an assortment of bits from farmyard animals to cook), all of the hot plates, the oven (admittedly, it was also used for cooking roast veggies) and the microwave (also admittedly, one of my mates suggested we heat up cups of water for no good reason other than we could; the man's a veritable genius).

We hope that you enjoyed being part of the biggest Earth Hour ever.

It was that good I'm still recovering.

Earth Hour continues to be embraced by the global community, transcending race, culture and age.

Breathing and eating are also embraced by the global community and, funnily enough, also transcend race, culture and age.

A record 134 countries and territories on all 7 continents registered, with a whole host of countries officially joining for the first time (including Lebanon, Jamaica, Iran, Uganda, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Chad, Azerbaijan, Gibraltar, Palestine, Suriname, Uzbekistan, Trinidad & Tobago and Lesotho).

OK, I'll play your silly game. Which country in Antarctica registered for Earth Hour? And what are the 62 countries that didn't participate? That's actually quite a few when you think about how easy it is to be involved in this pointless piece of environmental onanism.

Across Australia, over 300 schools, 152 councils, almost 2000 businesses, and 220 government departments across Australia officially signed up to take part, as well as thousands of individual Australians.

Wow! That's amazing! What terrific penetration into society! Let's run a few numbers, shall we?

There are, according to the ABS, 9468 schools in Australia so Earth Hour organisers did a sterling job to sign up a whopping 300. That's 3% or, in IPCC terms, a consensus.

There are around 700 councils so 152 represents a mind blowing 22%. Given that councils are mostly run be leftist nitwits and are a haven for Green activists and the Climate Taliban I'm going to suggest that getting only 22% is actually a crap effort.

How many businesses are there in Australia? A heap. Over 2 million. To get a piddling 2000 of them to come on board, a microscopic 0.1%, doesn't seem too spectacular to me. But hang on, you say, aren't most of those small businesses and sole contractors? By jingo, you're right, 80% of them are in that category so it's really 2000 (assuming none are small businesses) out of 400,000 or 0.5%. Thanks for pointing that out!

I've got no idea how many government departments there are in Australia. Thousands, probably. But that's a bit irrelevant because organisers could pick up 100 simply by having the federal government on board, which in these days of Carbon Tax wars is a dead certainty so no points for the Earth Hour people from that, either.

As I said, I complete joke. Tim Blair linked to a report that over 10 million Australians had participated. He correctly described it as a lie.

What a fantastic display of care and commitment to this planet we call home. Thank you for being part of it.

Hey, pal, let me tell you something. I care more for the environment than your entire cohort of envirofascists combined.

The command and control policies you support led to the greatest environmental destruction the world has ever seen. And, embarrassingly for your side, it took free market capitalism to clean it up. Not that you'd ever even admit to that even if you could understand how it did (and continues to do so to this very day).

But thanks for the comedy. Keep it coming.

(Nothing Follows)

Japan's nuclear non-story

On 11 March a once in a lifetime magnitude 9.1 earthquake sent a wall of water hurtling towards Japan that would destroys hundreds of thousands of homes and take tens of thousands of lives.

By any definition, it's a calamity.

What has also been a calamity has been the reporting. From the time it was announced that the nuclear power plant at Fukushima had been damaged the focus of the media turned from the massive human tragedy to overblown hysteria about the possibility of a nuclear meltdown and radiation throughout the world.

Even the normally reliable The Australian newspaper has fallen for the anti-nuclear agitprop:



People are in dire need and yet this is the sort of drivel we get.

To be clear: there is zero, zip, zilch, nada, nil, none, no problem for anyone living anywhere in the world outside of the perimeter of the compound itself. None.

I happened to have dinner with a scientist who is expert on these matters and helps oversee nuclear safety in Australia a week or so after the tsunami in Japan and he was even more apoplectic than I was (which I didn't think was possible) about the media's reporting.

Even my old mum asked me about what was going to happen when I was driving her home one day. She was genuinely surprised that I said it was all hooey and no problem for anyone other than the plant operators and, politically, the government.

Such is the media hype and scaremongering that even the most senior Japanese politicians have to be seen to be on top of the nuclear plant issue and 'doing something' to protect the citizens. To 'do nothing', even though nothing needs to be done, is to commit political harakiri.

The tragedy is twofold.

Firstly, the Japanese government's attention is taken away, even for a short time, from the real task at hand and that is helping the people affected by the tsunami.

Secondly, those people who need help most from all over the world are not getting it due to the blanket media coverage of the nuclear non-event.

I agree with those who reckon that Fukushima will put back the nuclear debate in Australia by 10 years, such is the public's lack of understanding of the reality of nuclear power.

However, what a fantastic example of the true safety of nuclear power we have seen. Faced with an earthquake of much higher magnitude than engineers ever anticipated and a tsunami nearly twice as high (10m vs 5.5m or so) as what the plant was designed for the thing still shut down in an orderly manner, minimising the possibility of a large problem. Certainly, there have been problems that have needed dealing with. Given the scale of the problem that hit them it's hardly surprising.

But does the media tell us how remarkable a story this is of nuclear safety? No. Instead we get hysteria that radiation levels are 100,000 times normal while at the same time ignoring the fact that it's still many orders of magnitude below the level needed to cause a problem.

It's yet another example of how deeply the left's messages and propaganda have seeped into society that normally rational people would be so concerned by what is only a serious local issue.

(Nothing Follows)

Socialism - before and after

In the pictures tell a thousand stories category come some examples of the differences between countries before and after socialism was implemented.

After World War II Germany ended up being split in two with West Germany a free and democratic state and East Germany falling behind the Iron Curtain and into the control of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - the commies.

This allowed an interesting experiment to play out. Which country would prosper the most given they both had the same starting point in terms of ability of the population?

In 1991 the Berlin Wall fell and, for the first time, the West got a close up look at what had happened in the previous 45 years.

There are many examples of the differences between the two states but this is the most glaring to me.

Here's the height of East German automotive engineering, the Trabant:



'Powered' by a thundering 1L motor that developed a mighty 19kW (26hp) it could race from 0-100km/h in 21 seconds before topping out at 112km/h. According to the Wikipedia entry:

There were two main problems with the engine: the smoky exhaust and the pollution it produced—nine times the amount of hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007. The fuel consumption was 7 L/100 km (40 mpg-imp; 34 mpg-US). Since the engine does not have an oil injection system, two-stroke oil has to be added to the 24-litre (6.3 U.S. gal; 5.3 imp gal) fuel tank every time the car was filled up, at a 50:1 or 33:1 ratio of fuel to oil. Gas stations of the time in countries where two-stroke engines were common served premixed gas-oil mixture from the pump. Today, owners normally carry a container of two-stroke oil in the car for this purpose. The earlier models have no fuel gauge; a dipstick is inserted into the tank to determine how much fuel remains.

How completely awesome.

By contrast, here's a highlight from the West German 1991 motor industry, the Mercedes 560SEC:



With a 32 valve 5.6L donk pumping out 235kW this beautiful beast could thunder to 100km/h in 5.8 seconds on the way to a top speed of 280km/h.

How could this happen? How could people start from the same point but end up so far apart?

The answer is clear. Socialist - and other command and control - economies lack the feedback loop required to create the continuous improvement that comes from good, old fashioned competition.

There are so many examples where this has happened that it's surprising anyone can still believe government intervention in the economy can be a good thing. Hello, Mr Krugman? Time for your reality check.

You'll probably have seen this shocking photo of North and South Korea taken from an orbiting satellite that shows the difference between the two states in terms of electricity use, which is a proxy for economic development.



What's remarkable is that it's only 50-odd years since the end of the Korean War. In the South you see prosperity at a level never before experienced in that country while in the North you see poverty and depravity that has probably never before been experienced even under the cruelest of Chinese despots from days of yore.

These are extreme examples of the negative impact that governments can have on the lives of their citizens, which has given rise to the Tea Party in the United States and is driving a lot of the anti-government protests in Australia.

The point is that people understand that relationship. They can see the pernicious effects of the welfare state. They understand that redistribution of income ends up hurting everyone in the end as jobs evaporate and government debt starts to cause services to be reduced and interest rates to rise.

It's not just socialist ideology that is the problem. Take, for example, the development of Pakistan and India. Created at a similar time to many other countries after World War II and starting with the same abilities of the people, Pakistan has turned into an economic basket case while India - once it started to unshackle itself from the anchor of socialism, which is an important point to note - has accelerated at a massive pace lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty. In Pakistan, like in many nations in Africa, corruption by government officials has a similar effect as having a socialist economy. When you combine the two, such as in Zimbabwe, then you simply hasten the collapse.

And let's not mention the economic miracle in Israel, a country literally carved out of dirt, that makes its Arab neighbours look like something from the Stone Age.

It really does give one pause for thought.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor's Carbon Tax is really a redistribution of income scam

Julia Gillard's freakish political contortion, the likes of which have probably never before been seen in Australian politics, of breaking an election promise to not introduce a carbon tax, bowing to the radical Greens and then introducing a carbon tax can have no other outcome than increase the size of the Australian deficit and reduce employment.

Let's assume that the amount raised from power companies by the carbon tax each year is $10 billion.

There are a number of groups that will be especially hurt by an increase in power prices - those at the low end of the income spectrum, trade exposed industries whose position against overseas competition will be damaged and small business, which seems to be a forgotten factor in the conversation so far.

It's clear that the government can't compensate all groups affected so let's assume that they distribute the money to low income earners. Note that they are on record as saying that the money will not simply go into Treasury coffers so let's also assume that it joins the short list of promises kept by this government since being elected in 2007.

The tax is introduced in 2011 and low income workers rejoice as they see the effects in their bank balances. They then feel the pain when they get their utilities bills but, being conscientious with their money and in no way tempted to buy more grog or smokes or stick it in the pokies or back something to beat Black Caviar*, they pay what they owe. So there's no impact on them.

Power companies now have an incentive to reduce the amount of CO2 they produce, which is the whole point of the exercise and so they invest in clean technologies that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions to zero thus fulfilling the government's ambition.

Can you see the problem?

At this point the government will raise no money at all from taxing so-called 'carbon pollution', the cost of power will not be reduced due the investment made by power companies that needs to be paid for meaning that low income households will still need financial support to meet their utilities bills.

So the government now has a $10 billion hole in its budget. Is it going to fill the void by raising taxes or by increasing the deficit? Either way, the impact on employment is negative.

And while all that has been going on our trade exposed industries have been shedding jobs at a terrific rate to countries that are not bound by the onanistic impulses of the climate brigade.

So let's give all of the money to trade exposed industries instead of low income workers.

The government gets stuck in the same cycle. When the power companies clean up their act the government will need to maintain support for trade exposed industries otherwise there'll be a massive loss of jobs in a short time frame to overseas competitors. Not a palatable outcome for any politician.

And all the while small business is getting hammered and is shedding jobs.

So here's Labor's dirty, little secret. I'm going to shout it at you so that you can take it in.

Labor's carbon tax CAN ONLY WORK IF POWER COMPANIES NEVER REDUCE THEIR CO2 OUTPUT.

The government knows this, of course, which is why it's just a great, big, redistributionist scam but it also knows that its allies in the mainstream media won't point it out to the voting public any time soon.

The result will be that the tax will be in place before an emissions trading scheme is introduced, which the government expects will continue to provide the revenue it needs.

And bad luck to the people who lose their jobs because of it.

* I don't live in this world, either, but the good folk who create government budgets surely must.

(Nothing Follows)

Why does the left wet its pants at the slightest hint of trouble?

Remember the Bird Flu epidemic that was going to wipe out vast numbers of people, especially in Asia?

Remember the dire warnings about Swine Flu from the World Health Organisation and Joe Biden's classic "I wouldn't go anywhere in confined spaces..." line?

How did that whole heterosexual AIDS thing work out?

What about silicone breast implants? The most negative effect was to the aesthetic appeal of the bodies of those women who chose to get them.

From the population bomb leading to mass starvation to peak oil to the hysteria du jour, global warming, we have had no shortage of end of days scenarios to contend with.

Now we can add to the list the massive overreaction to what has essentially been a serious local problem at the site of the Fukushima nuclear plant that the Japanese have had pretty much under control from the start. That people in the US and Asia were running out and buying iodide tablets shows the massive influence of the mainstream media to panic the masses (or, at least, those masses prone to panic). I wonder what the result of a survey of the political affiliation of those buying the tablets would be.

US radio talk show host Dennis Prager constantly reminds people that the hysterics, who are mainly on the left, are wrong 99% of the time.

How can this be? What drives people to so badly overreact at the slightest whiff of difficulty? Why is the left so much more likely to get things so badly wrong than the right?

I presume it relates to the left's tendency to seek to exert more and more influence over people's lives and nothing provides more control than a potential extinction event.

While that might explain the political advantage the left seeks to gain from upheaval it doesn't tell us why people get so genuinely frightened when there's no rational reason to be so. It doesn't explain why they get so angry and abusive when they're called out on their poor judgements.

I don't know what the answer is, either. What I do know is that there's a high correlation between those who believe in global warming and those who thought that Fukushima was an existential threat to life everywhere.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

(Nothing Follows)

Spot the inconsistency

Can you spot the inconsistency between the two short descriptions below?



I'll give you some time before posting the answer.

UPDATE: Only one is described as "unelected".

(Nothing Follows)

Putting the US deficit into perspective

Need to raise revenue for the government?

That's easy, simply tax the rich.

The United States, like the majority of Western nations, is spending itself into oblivion at worst and massive civil strife at best.

There is some good economic news. The red ink the US is swimming in is not as bad as projected in February. Yes, at $1.471 trillion, it's still huge – 10 percent of the nation's gross domestic product – but an improvement of $84 billion from earlier estimates.

But bad news still looms large. In the next fiscal year, according to the mid-season review released by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Friday, the US deficit will be $150 billion more than earlier projections. It is expected to come in at $1.416 trillion, or 9.2 percent of GDP.

The White House, which released the change in budget estimates, was careful not to overplay the changing numbers.

“These are not substantial changes and nothing we want to make too big a deal about,” said Peter Orszag, director of the OMB in a press call with reporters. “The economy remains weaker than we would like and the unemployment rate higher than we would like.”

So, how the heck much is 1.4 trillion dollars?

Is it actually possible to increase taxes on the rich and deal with the debt (assuming that there's no impact on employment or investment)?

I thought, why not simply confiscate all of the wealth that the rich have? That ought to solve all of the problems. Right?

I looked up the Forbes list of world's billionaires that are domiciled in the United States and are doing business and paying taxes there.

The richest person on the 395 name list is Bill Gates with $53B, followed by Warren Buffett with $47B and a gap back to Larry Ellinson at $28B.

Now, here's the kicker - and the sobering reality check for the soak-the-rich left - if you confiscated ALL of the wealth of these 395 people in order to fund the debt (which means it would need to be sold to overseas interests, of course, as there'd be nobody rich enough in the US to buy it anymore) then how much would you raise?

Ready?

1.328 trillion dollars.

You'd still need to find another $143B to break even for the year! And your wealth creators have now got nothing! Good luck with that...

Here's another way of looking at that $1.471 trillion deficit.

Consider the following: there are 113,146,000 households in the US, which means that in just one year each household now has an extra $13,000 added to its debt. No wonder the Congressional Budget Office describes the debt situation as unsustainable.

Competition from emerging economies in China, India and Brazil, coupled with declining birth rates, undermine the modern Western (immoral) indulgence of giving people money who haven't earned it while putting the bill onto the next generation...and the one after that...in a gigantic, populate or perish, Ponzi scheme.

2010 is a momentous year in world history, I believe, as history will mark it down as the year that the welfare state, in its current form, ended.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor "moving forward" to victory

If there's been a more banal political slogan in Australian history than Labor's "moving forward" then please let me know.

The first poll published after the calling of the August 21 election comes from Galaxy and shows that the government holds on to its 52-48 lead.

I commented recently that before the last election, which Labor won with a 53-47 margin, their Betfair odds were $1.31.

The current odds are as follows:



The odds support the 52-48 poll so, unless one side or the other puts their foot in it big time, then we've got another three years of Labor government to look forward to. How much more debt will they be able to pile onto our kids? It's remarkable that the modern, "progressive" left has no care for the financial health of the economies of which they're supposed to be custodians.

(Nothing Follows)

The A-Z of the Labor government's incompetence

This one is doing the rounds of the Internet and highlights the absolute disaster that our Labor government has inflicted upon the poor, old taxpayer for the next umpteen years.

Rarely has a government promised so much, spent so much, said so much, and launched so many nationwide programs, and delivered so little value for money and expectation. Two years of Kevin Rudd has produced 20 years of debt, and most of it cannot be blamed on the global financial crisis. This alphabet soup is self-inflicted.

Asylum seekers. Unless the government can show otherwise, it appears that about 98 per cent of asylum-seekers are getting Australian residency. In contrast, the latest figures from the United Nations refugee agency show most asylum applications worldwide are rejected. The bulging Christmas Island detention centre has become a grossly expensive sham and a mockery of a core election promise.

Beijing. Supposedly Rudd's strong point, the relationship with China deteriorated badly last year after a series of serious missteps with Beijing.

Computers in schools. A million computers promised to schools, one for every student. This turned out to be much harder than it sounded.

Debt and deficit. The Rudd government inherited a massive $90 billion financial firewall when it came to office, via a federal budget surplus, the Future Fund and two infrastructure funds. In two years the budget has gone from $20 billion in surplus to $58 billion in deficit. Net federal debt has gone from zero to a projection of between $130 billion and $180 billion. It took the previous government 10 years to dismantle the $96 billion debt mountain that it inherited. It took Rudd one year to build it back up again.

ETS. The Copenhagen climate conference was a disaster. Rudd's emissions trading scheme is abstract, complex, expensive and polls show about 80 per cent of Australians do not understand or trust it. A T-shirt produced by Newcastle steelworkers distils the political problem: "Rudd's ETS: Higher Prices. Lost Jobs. 0.001 degrees cooler."

Fuelwatch. Big promise, empty outcome.

Grocerywatch. Ditto.

Hospitals. Ditto.

India disaster. Last year Australia degraded relations with the two emerging Asian superpowers.

Juvenile justice. The plight of young Aborigines is worse than ever, with ideology trumping pragmatism. Children are shipped off to violent foster families while government exhibits a mesmerised inertia in the face of pockets of endemic violence.

Kaiser. The aptly named Mike Kaiser, former ALP Queensland state secretary and state MP, became the umpteenth poster boy for the Labor patronage machine this month by landing a $450,000-a-year lobbying job with the national broadband network. The job was not advertised.

League tables. The government's one-size-fits-all league tables for schools, plagued by glitches and misleading data, is another centralised scheme that serves as a substitute for tackling the union-imposed rigidities on teacher performance.

Migration. Permanent migration to Australia surged 550,000 during the first two years of the Rudd government, the highest two-year increase in history. This is at odds with the government's rhetoric on reducing Australia's carbon footprint. It was also never mentioned before the election.

National broadband network. Last year the Rudd government spent $17 million looking for a private partner to co-build the network. The process yielded nothing. The government will now build and operate the network itself at a cost of $43 billion. A money sink.

Opposition theft. The Rudd government inherited the strongest budget position and banking sector of any major Western economy, which protected Australia from the global financial crisis. The government pretends this was all its own work.

Power. The national solar power rebate is a political debacle. The GreenPower scheme has failed. The renewable energy trading certificates scheme is in disarray.

Question time. Question time has blown out by 50 per cent over its traditional running time because of long ministerial answers and incessant points of order, while the time devoted to answering real questions, rather than Dorothy Dixers, has shrunk to less than 30 per cent of question time; a blatant corruption of the process.

Roof insulation. Send in the fraud squad. A good idea gone bad. Rampant false billing and over-charging. Cowboys everywhere. People dead. Houses unsafe. Systemic overspending. A hapless bureaucracy detached from the realities of the building industry.

School spending. The $16 billion Building the Education Revolution scheme is bloated with systemic overspending and over-charging. The problems were encapsulated by a builder who told me: "My company is involved in the BER work and it involves mismanagement, overcharging, schools being railroaded into decisions not in their interests, all hidden behind a smokescreen. It is the country's most expensive political stunt ever." Another money sink.

Tax increases. The federal budget in May will begin to reveal the consequences of panic, hubris, overspending and waste as the government seeks to offset its profligacy with higher fees and taxes. Superannuation was just the start.

Union power. The unions, having bankrolled Labor's election campaign in 2007, have received their payback, with an increase in union rights and powers. Union muscle-flexing is back, from the mining sector to small business. Endemic corruption, blackmail and violence in the building industry was finally curbed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Julia Gillard is shutting it down.

Vanity. See B, K, O, Q and U.
Whitlamesque. Spendthrift programs. Empty rhetoric. Self-congratulation. Deficit spending. Debt blowout. Two years of the Rudd government produces 20 years of debt and poses the question: worse than Whitlam?

X Y Z Generations X, Y and Z They will be stuck with the bill.

What amazes me is that Labor voters can read through this list and still manage to find positive things to say about the government such as the "Sorry" to the (non existent) Stolen Generations and, supposedly, keeping us out of recession.

All they've done is to ensure that we will have a weaker economy over the next couple of decades than we otherwise would have. They have guaranteed higher interest rates and higher unemployment, though the effects of those are still to hit.

China's growth is said to be slowing. How much debt is this government going to have? $100B? $200B is probably closer.

It took 10 years to pay off Labor's previous $100B debt. How long will it take to pay it off this time around?

The implementation of left wing policies can only lead to unwelcome, bordering on immoral, outcomes.

(Nothing Follows)

Ongoing collapse of the UK

Yet another example of the societal collapse in the UK:

A BBC commentator has apologised to a 16-year-old British tennis star after saying she had "puppy fat" on live television.

David Mercer made the remark while discussing Laura Robson's weight as she played her second round juniors match at Wimbledon, The Sun newspaper reports.

"I suppose the one thing that I have at the back of my mind at the moment, is Laura mobile enough around the court?," Mercer said.

"Perhaps a little puppy fat at the moment, the sort of thing you'd expect her to lose as she concentrates on tennis full-time."

Robon said she was not fazed by the comments.

I've spoken to the guy who said it. It's not a big deal," Robson said.

"It's just his opinion. You know, I don't really care."

Since when has it become politically incorrect to use the term 'puppy fat'???

These people are crazy and the UK is doomed.

Good to see that the kid herself is not in the least bit offended by it all, which must annoy those self-appointed overseers of society who make a living by being offended on behalf of everybody else.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor will win the next election handily

Anyone on the conservative side of politics that thinks we're a chance of winning the next Federal election is, pretty much, dreaming.

And the election will be held soonish.

Here's the Betfair market on the election date:



Now, there's only $700 in the pool and the reason is that nobody wants to put any money into betting against an election date that has already been decided by the government. Sportingbet has a market on the exact date of the election. August 28 is at $2.50, which is pretty short.

Supporting the government's decision to go early is internal polling that shows they've got a strong, election winning lead.

That's reflected in the Betfair market:



Prior to the last election Labor had a healthy lead in the opinion polls and the price available was only a little bit shorter than what it's currently at, which seems to suggest similar polling numbers.

Therefore, my prediction is that the election will be on August 28 and the government will be returned with a 52-48 result.

Friday 2/7/10 UPDATE:

All of the money on the betting markets has been for an August 14 election. Sportingbet has that data at $2.10 and August 28 at $2.75 so I predict that the election will be called this weekend for one of those two dates.

(Nothing Follows)

Expunging Brand Kevin

During the 2007 election a large number of ALP supporters chose to wear Kevin07 paraphernalia.

They looked like donkeys.

Now, Brand Kevin is being expunged from the ALP corporate memory. I just got on the ALP website and searched the site for "Kevin07".

Here's the response:


(click to embiggen)

Just four?

There used to be pooloads of Kevin07 information.

By comparison, I searched for "minimum wage" and got 12 responses. "Tony Abbott" returns pages and pages and pages of responses. To be fair there are still many responses to "Rudd".

There really are no more vicious politics than when the left executes one of its own.

(Nothing Follows)

Labor finally jettisons the worst PM ever

The worst prime minister in Australia's history has been jettisoned by the Australian Labor Party allowing our first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, to take the reins.

Congratulations to Julia Gillard.



Will she be a good PM? Who knows? As I write every time there's a change of leadership, either in government or opposition, we will have to wait some time to see how a person grows into the role. I suspect that she will be up to the task.

There does seem to be some schizophrenia in the market regarding Labor's electoral chances. Last week ninemsn ran a poll asking whether people would vote for Julia Gillard if she became leader. The vote was 60-40 against her.

ninemsn has repeated the poll after the vote this morning:



Even with only 7000 votes there's still a big no vote against her.

However, the betting market is the one to follow:



The price before the leadership spill was pretty much the same as it is now so the government is still a strong favourite to win the next election.

One poll goes one way while the other goes the other:

UPDATE: From the ninemsn website:

ninemsn readers have cast doubt on Julia Gillard's future as prime minister, with almost two-thirds declaring they will not vote for her in the looming election.

At 3pm today our homepage poll showed that more than 50,000 readers would not vote for Ms Gillard in the coming federal election, compared to about 23,000 who said they would.

The ninemsn homepage is visited by more than ten million people each month — 70 percent of Australians online.

In addition to the vote, more than a thousand readers have posted comments — revealing a vast mix of reactions — since Ms Gillard was chosen to replace Kevin Rudd in the top job earlier today.

Many readers who said they might have voted for Mr Rudd have hit out at the Labor caucus vote that put his former deputy in power.

"We the Australian people voted in Kevin Rudd as our Prime Minister … who is the group, a handful, of faceless people who can just come in and change our democratically elected Prime Minister???" wrote Holcars from Cranbourne.

"The people elected Kevin07 for PM not Julia-010," agreed Tony G, from Maroubra.

"No one has heard of these Labor factional powerbrokers and the people certainly did not vote for them."

(Nothing Follows)

The left's score on Economics 101 - FAIL

Every so often a study comes along that so profoundly confirms common sense and the real world that it takes one's breath away.

Zeljka Buturovic and Daniel Klein of Econ Journal Watch will make no friends on the left with the publication of the results of a 2008 Zogby poll on 'economic enlightenment'.

From Klein's article in the Wall Street Journal:

Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The questions were:

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services
2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago
3) Rent control leads to housing shortages
4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly
5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited
6) Free trade leads to unemployment
7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment
8) Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.

Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

We all have good friends on the left, people that we love, like and respect for their decency and humanity. However, we all know that when it comes to matters of economics they're dim bulbs. Their views are not only not part of the solution to the world's problems they are the root cause of most of the issues we face today. Not that the left would ever admit to that basic truth. As Dennis Prager likes to say, being on the left means never having to say you're sorry.

The full study is available here and makes great reading.

There are some interesting tables in the study. Firstly, correlation between education level and response (and they give some reasons for the results):



Here's the most amusing table in the whole study:



I must admit that I am truly astonished by the disparity in understanding of economics between the left and right. Given I got all 8 correct - they're hardly difficult - I also admit to being a bit surprised that the results weren't a lot better across all groups.

Naturally, the left will deal with this study in its usual manner: criticise the qualifications of those undertaking the research; impugn their motives for doing so; and accuse them of being in the pay of Big Left Wing Enemy du Jour. So much easier than refuting the results.

Seriously, though, wouldn't it be great if 16 year olds were taught the basics of economics so that they could answer all of these questions correctly? Perhaps the next generation of politicians would be more careful with the nation's economy than the current lot of left wing incompetents.

As an aside, it's ironic that in the West left wing governments are only ever elected when they campaign on conservative, 'responsible' economic grounds when the reality is that they really don't understand economics at all well. Once they're in power, however, the inner Keynesian pops out, they spend whatever surpluses the previous government has left and then make a good, solid attempt to spend the wealth of the next generation, and the one after that, before being turfed out amidst massive financial upheaval, as has just happened in the UK.

I'll have another post on why 2010 will be marked down in history as one of the most important years in modern history. Needless to say, ignorance of economics will be a major theme.

(Nothing Follows)

It's all George Bush's fault

This really is an awesome dissection of the Obama administration's continually pinning the blame for their actions on George W Bush.

Chuck Green is a lifelong lefty and registered Democrat.


When people like Green are sick of the spin then it spells trouble for the Democrats, as where are the Independents going to be?

(Nothing Follows)

How will history view Rudd?

People are starting to wake up to the empty nothingness that is Kevin Rudd's prime ministership.

Regular readers will know that I've been banging on about his clear incompetence and lack of vision for nearly two years.

The question that we can now start pondering is this; how will history view Kevin Rudd?

Here's my prediction:

1) Worst prime minister in history

Rudd has one thing going against him that his Labor predecessors do not and that is that he is reviled within the Labor Party as the vicious, petty, non-substance tyrant that he really is. Therefore, those people who write history - the left significantly outnumbers the right in this area - will be happy to smash Rudd in order to rehabilitate the reputation of one of their heroes, Gough Whitlam, hitherto Australia's worst ever prime minister.

2) Lost opportunities

Left wing, revisionist historians such as Henry Reynolds and Robert Manne etc regularly attack the right for the so-called 'lost opportunities' of their governments. These lost opportunities are almost exclusively made up of large infrastructure projects that the left deems necessary. The Howard government chose to give back surpluses by way of tax reductions, as they should. This is anathema to the left, which believes that government spending is by definition good, as it stimulates the economy. Keynes really does have a lot to answer for. However, Rudd has been the master of left wing 'lost opportunities' and most recently when he chose to abandon the current Holy Grail of left wing government control of the economy - the emissions trading scheme. Historians will not forgive him for not doing a deal with the Greens.

3) Cast out and outcast

In the same way that former Labor leader Mark Latham is now an outcast from the party, Kevin Rudd will first be cast out by his senior front benchers and almost immediately become a Labor outcast. There are already rumblings in that regard. Ministers who have had to take the fall for Rudd's policy incompetence are now leaking information to the media that it's the PM to blame and not, for example, Peter Garrett for the insulation fiasco. Or Gillard for the rorting of the school building fund. The list goes on. Once the next election is over the knives will come out and I predict Rudd will last less than a year as leader. Once defeated, he will resign from parliament in a fit of pique and force a by-election.

4) Failure on the economy

The list of fiscal fiascos is becoming a national embarrassment. In less than two years the Rudd government has managed to munch through the massive surplus left to it and increase Australia's debt from nil to the nearly $100 billion that the Howard government cleared away during its terms in office. Not only that but it has also announced an increased tax on profits from mining companies, which will be used to fund an increase in superannuation. Can you imagine Hawke or Keating coming up with such a negative, economy killing policy? Rudd and his advisers are completely nuts to
increase structural costs by taxing a variable revenue stream. That can only lead to deficits once the Great China Boom becomes an inevitable Bust. Did they learn nothing from the global financial crisis? Other than spending like drunken sailors, obviously not.

I'm sure there are other negative legacies that historians and political commentators will write about. Feel free to add your thoughts in comments.

(Nothing Follows)

Reviewing Rudd

There have been so many backflips by the Australian Labor government lately that I can't tell whether I'm watching politics or Cirque du Soleil.

Prior to Kevin Rudd's election in late 2007 the talking heads in the media were singing his praises as an economic conservative and having the right policies on climate change, labour laws, education and immigration etc. Now that the media is questioning the ETS abandonment, Andrew Bolt is quite rightly calling them out on it.

So who was wise enough to write the following on 22 October 2007:

I have likened his (Rudd's) understanding of economics to that other disastrous Labor leader of the past, Gough Whitlam, and nothing I have seen subsequent to making that judgement has changed my mind.

And this on 7 November 2007:

The Australian's Paul Kelly is hardly someone that could be called alarmist. His balanced, thoughtful commentary on the ABC's Insiders is the highlight of the program.

In this opinion piece he describes how Kevin Rudd intends to increase his power as Prime Minister should Labor be elected on November 24. This should come as no surprise. Rudd is fundamentally a policy wonk meaning he must have processes that involve him. He has no idea about what makes the economy tick or what drives the average citizen so he intends to have more of a micro-management role in Australia's affairs than any government since the disastrous Whitlam.

That's right, it was your erstwhile correspondent who saw through Kevin Rudd prior to his election in a way that the mainstream media couldn't - or wouldn't.

In less than 6 months in government Rudd's much vaunted FuelWatch program was thrown under the bus in what was to pretty much define this government's modus operandi and on 30 May 2008 I wrote:

There are two types of control freak: in-control and under-control.

An in-control freak has to be involved in every decision being made. An under-control freak has to be sure that his management team is on top of things and executing policy effectively.

Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, is an in-control freak and the latest example is the mess that he has created with the government's FuelWatch policy.

...Which leads me to articulate for the first time my view of the man. As I've posted previously, leadership changes people. Sometimes they surprise people, step up to the mark and become real leaders in the way that Howard did. Sometimes they crash and burn, as Mark Latham did, though that was much more predictable. Therefore, it's always wise to let some time pass before making a judgement.

Six months into his term I think I've seen enough to have a clear view of Kevin Rudd.

Leadership: As a leader, Rudd is more Custer than Patton; more Whitlam than Hawke or Keating. He is a manager, not a leader. Australia is in a terrific position economically, small inflation worries notwithstanding, and so it's possible that a competent manager can be successful. The job of prime minister at the moment and for the next few years can be done effectively in management mode so Rudd's lack of leadership ability may not work against him - as long as things don't go pear-shaped in the world economy and we don't otherwise face a major crisis.

Competence: Here's a big statement that I think people will come to reflect on the wisdom of in years to come - Kevin Rudd is profoundly incompetent to be prime minister. Profoundly. In fact, I'd go so far to say that when his time has come and gone Rudd will be seen as one of our worst ever PMs. He has Gough Whitlam's understanding of economics and Paul Keating's understanding of the ordinary bloke. I think he will be seen to have squandered a huge opportunity to move Australia forward at a time when international competitiveness is growing ever tougher.

Vision: It is now clear that Rudd has no vision for Australia. His policy of symbolism and populism over outcomes and substance is proof. From the economic disaster of ratifying Kyoto to the Stolen Generations' Apology to a plethora of inquiries into all sorts of issues and to FuelWatch itself Rudd has been focused more on his personal popularity than achieving positive outcomes for Australians. Can you imagine this man taking the tough, unpopular decisions on illegal immigration, workplace relations and even the Iraq war as Howard? Even his most ardent supporters must wonder what he stands for.

Personality: Rudd has no charm and no charisma, traits that are important to hold a leadership team together, especially when times get tough. It can be quite justifiably said that Howard lacked charm and charisma. He turned out to be one of this country's best ever leaders so why can't Rudd follow suit? The fact is that Howard slept the sleep of a leader. Rudd sleeps the sleep of a manager.

Not bad, eh, given it's a nearly two year old assessment. The world economy did indeed go pear shaped and Rudd's incompetence was on immediate display with huge, do nothing spending plans rolled out in too short a time and with minimal effect, other than adding to the national debt and, unfortunately, leading to the deaths of a number of home insulation installers.

In July 2008 I was joined by a few others who were starting to doubt Rudd's abilities:

Australia's go it alone attitude to addressing the non-issue of climate change is a prime example of how far out of touch with community attitudes Rudd is, let alone reality. It seems that he prefers to pander to European and United Nations institutions than do what is right for Australia.

In Kevin Rudd we do not have that strength of leadership. Unfortunately, he does not understand how limited his ability is and that will be to the detriment of all of us.

By January 2009 I passed the baton as Australia's most incompetent prime minister from Gough Whitlam to Kevin Rudd:

I tell you who is sleeping more soundly tonight and that's former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

Why?

Well, Whitlam's government was a shambles that wrought chaos upon Australia's economy that took many years to overcome.

Whitlam himself has long been viewed as the worst PM we've ever had and for good reason.

But with the current Labor PM Kevin Rudd's 8,000+ word socialist screed published in the leftist The Monthly this week Whitlam can let out as big a sigh of relief as his 92 year old body will allow now that the mantle of Australia's worst ever PM has been lifted from him by Rudd's unbelievable incompetence.

And, just for a change, on 4 February 2009 I continued:

I wonder how long it will be before your average Australian voter wakes up to the fact that Kevin Rudd is the new Gough Whitlam?

Of course, there are millions of voters who either weren't born yet or politically aware during Whiltam's reign of chaos and who still think that Rudd is doing a good job by throwing tens of billions of dollars at the economy in order to stimulate it and get past the Global Financial Crisis.

..and on I banged until the end of the year.

With an election looming, which the government is an overwhelming favourite to win, it's worth looking back to see what this government's achievements are.

Are there any?

In fact, in many ways we've gone backwards.

Certainly, our fiscal position has been weakened by Rudd's insane spending spree.

Our foreign relations have been damaged by Rudd's remarkable incompetence in an area touted as his greatest strength.

He signed Kyoto, amid much fanfare by the symbolism-as-policy left, and has now punted the associated economy killing emissions trading scheme down the road to at least 2013. In the meantime, power stations can't raise capital due to the uncertainty over policy. Nice work, Kev.

Again, what have we got to show for having elected Kevin Rudd?

And how much better off would we have been under a Coalition government?

Plenty.

(Nothing Follows)