http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

The greater fool theory (also called survivor investing) is the belief held by one who makes a questionable investment, with the assumption that they will be able to sell it later to "a greater fool"; in other words, buying something not because you believe that it is worth the price, but rather because you believe that you will be able to sell it to someone else at an even higher price.[1]

It is similar in concept to the Keynesian beauty contest principle of stock investing.

Some consider it a valid method of making money in the stock market, particularly momentum investors; however, fundamental investors believe that market participants eventually realize that the price level is too outrageous (too high or too low) and the speculative bubble pops. The greater fool theory relies on market optimism and market momentum concerning a particular stock, an industry, or the market as a whole.

The belief here is Brown does not have to convince everyone in Australia

He just have to convince the next fool who will convince the next TOOL who then convince his MP eg Gillard then we have a carbon tax

But since the Greens vote has decreased from 13% to 7% then maybe these fools have woken up to these tools from the left

I post the following here because it is applicable to this discussion.


perceptions_now wrote on May 17^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Soren wrote on May 17th, 2011 at 11:04am: GREENS leader Bob Brown says the coal mining industry should foot the bill for the Queensland floods because it helped cause them. ”It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now,” he said. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queensland-floods-says-australian-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-fn3dxity-1225988806619 But not even the saucy IPCC head buys it: SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the general observation that climate change was bringing about an increase in extreme weather events was valid but scientists needed to provide much finer detail. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/summer-of-disaster-not-climate-change-rajendra-pachauri/story-fn59niix-1226057100026 Pachauri is a BOB BROWN DENIER!!!! Off with his comb-over!! That would be quite correct! Just as it would be a very large stretch to attribute a specific environmental factor, to the obesity of one specific person. However, as time goes bye, the overall impact of the past & current environment, on human obesity, is becoming more apparent. That analogy, is similar to how I would also view local, short term  weather events and longer term Climate Change! Climate Change, can also be compared (in some ways) to another rare/unique event called Peak Oil. In 1956, Peak Oil was a rare phenomenon, only put up as a "theory" by one person, M. King. Hubbert. Hubbert's Peak Oil theory was derided by most and confirmation of the fist part of that theory was still 14 years in the future, when the USA finally hit the Peak of the Oil Production in 1970 and US Oil Production is still in decline today, some 40 years later. Around 2004-2006, depending on what statistic you believe, we also effectively hit Peak Oil, Globally, as predicted in Hubbert's Theory!   However, Hubbert's theory became much more than theory, well before Global Oil finally Peaked and if governments (local & Global) had moved early enough (say 20 years ago), then we would not be faced with a looming catastrophe, of such a magnitude. The same goes for Climate Change, it has grown from small beginnings, to a point where the majority of Climate scientists are in broad agreement that our climate is heading for undesirable changes and that certain human related issues are contributing to that change. So, again we have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and say they (the scientists) are wrong. We can take our chances and do nothing, like we did with Peak Oil and if we are right this time, then we will save a few $'s, lets say 5-10% of GDP. However, if we do bury our heads, do nothing and it turns out that the majority of scientists were correct after all, then we have a far worse situation, than we currently have with Peak Oil. If the scientists are correct and we do nothing in the way of mitigation, then the day will finally arrive, like Peak Oil, when it becomes obvious the Hubbert & the Climate scientists were correct and because the Climate Change timelines are so long, we will have consigned humanity to an unimaginably difficult future of great hardship. Forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

Neo cons prefer a party like the Nationals who know their place. Keep ya mouth shut, dont rock the boat and sit in your seat for a few decades until you retire on a fat taxpayer funded pension.
Neo cons want pollies that are here for a long time, feathering their own nests..not those that make history and who's achievments for future generations out weigh their need for an easy quiet life at the taxpayers expense.
Courages one term pollies that make a difference are far more important than lazy career pollies who lost their balls at their pre selection meetings.   ;D