http://www.smh.com.au/business/beware-the-oneeyed-budget-brigade-20130428-2imov.html
"Many economists believe the answer to budget deficits is always to cut
spending and never to raise tax collections, because of the libertarian
political ideology implicit in their dominant ''neoclassical'' model."
Tuesday 30 April 2013
Take the Voo Out of the Doo
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4657404.html
"Over the past fortnight, the Gillard Government has arrived at the position that any transition back to budget surpluses in the near, or more likely distant, future must depend upon revenues growing more strongly, rather than significantly reducing expenditures."
Well duh. Can we please expunge all verbiage containing even a hint of the 'voodoo economics' promulgated by the discredited supply-side, fresh-water economists from the public discourse. The idea that reducing taxes on the wealthy, hence increasing vastly their disposable income, inadvertently balances the national budget is so patently absurd that even a scion of right-wing thought such as George H.W. Bush could come up with a descriptor such as 'voodoo'.
The concept is relatively simple. Extra disposable income in the hands of the wealthy, created by reduced taxation of their wealth, inevitably, automatically and absolutely is always expended on innovation of existing wealth-creating endeavors, and creation of new wealth-creating endeavors. This theory therefore assumes that the wealthy elites are in the best position to know where best and most efficiently to allocate this wealth so as to create the greatest increase in the common good. Since when is an increase in the common good even a marginal goal of the wealthy elites? But just for fun let's examine the imbedded assumptions of voodoo economics further, and perhaps to their logical conclusion.
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy and the excess disposable income is expended on innovation of existing wealth-creating endeavors and creation of new ones, government revenues will increase, even at reduced taxation levels, because of the increase in taxable economic activity. Budgets could then be balanced, even pushed into surplus if desirable. This concept was tested in the US economy, by the Dubya administration in the noughties. No rises in government revenues were observed and an offshoot result was the real estate bubble and subsequent GFC.
Why is this verbiage even available for view?
"Over the past fortnight, the Gillard Government has arrived at the position that any transition back to budget surpluses in the near, or more likely distant, future must depend upon revenues growing more strongly, rather than significantly reducing expenditures."
Well duh. Can we please expunge all verbiage containing even a hint of the 'voodoo economics' promulgated by the discredited supply-side, fresh-water economists from the public discourse. The idea that reducing taxes on the wealthy, hence increasing vastly their disposable income, inadvertently balances the national budget is so patently absurd that even a scion of right-wing thought such as George H.W. Bush could come up with a descriptor such as 'voodoo'.
The concept is relatively simple. Extra disposable income in the hands of the wealthy, created by reduced taxation of their wealth, inevitably, automatically and absolutely is always expended on innovation of existing wealth-creating endeavors, and creation of new wealth-creating endeavors. This theory therefore assumes that the wealthy elites are in the best position to know where best and most efficiently to allocate this wealth so as to create the greatest increase in the common good. Since when is an increase in the common good even a marginal goal of the wealthy elites? But just for fun let's examine the imbedded assumptions of voodoo economics further, and perhaps to their logical conclusion.
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy and the excess disposable income is expended on innovation of existing wealth-creating endeavors and creation of new ones, government revenues will increase, even at reduced taxation levels, because of the increase in taxable economic activity. Budgets could then be balanced, even pushed into surplus if desirable. This concept was tested in the US economy, by the Dubya administration in the noughties. No rises in government revenues were observed and an offshoot result was the real estate bubble and subsequent GFC.
Why is this verbiage even available for view?
Saturday 27 April 2013
The Keynesian Capitalist Utopia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/
"Just as you shouldn't run a deficit if the economy is overheating, there's nothing to be gained from running a surplus if the economy is then kneecapped, writes Stephen Koukoulas."
At last a voice of reason beckons in the wilderness of online opinioin.
You really must tone down your verbiage Mr. Grasshopper, the readers might mistakenly believe that you are sane.
It must be a wonderful thing to be as balanced as the drum website is. Others of us are decidedly unbalanced.
It's all really very simple. Fiscally, when in recession rum a deficit; when in boom run a surplus. The former stimulates the economy and requires action and vision by governments; the latter happens spontaneously due to increased tax revenue from booming companies.
This is all part of the Keyesian set of recommended policies which came out of the Great Depression. If applied correctly this set of policies leads directly to a societal state of Keysian Capitalist Utopia.
Unfortunately everyone seams to be confused.
"Just as you shouldn't run a deficit if the economy is overheating, there's nothing to be gained from running a surplus if the economy is then kneecapped, writes Stephen Koukoulas."
At last a voice of reason beckons in the wilderness of online opinioin.
You really must tone down your verbiage Mr. Grasshopper, the readers might mistakenly believe that you are sane.
It must be a wonderful thing to be as balanced as the drum website is. Others of us are decidedly unbalanced.
It's all really very simple. Fiscally, when in recession rum a deficit; when in boom run a surplus. The former stimulates the economy and requires action and vision by governments; the latter happens spontaneously due to increased tax revenue from booming companies.
This is all part of the Keyesian set of recommended policies which came out of the Great Depression. If applied correctly this set of policies leads directly to a societal state of Keysian Capitalist Utopia.
Unfortunately everyone seams to be confused.
The difference is division
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/cassidy-laying-down-the-cudgels-and-debating-the-policy/4650944
"The Opposition embraced of an alternative National Broadband Network. That much publicised event gave the electorate a clear choice. Labor's Rolls Royce version with all the funding implications or the Coalition's more modest improvement on today's standards with a lesser price tag."
I object to this adjective Rolls Royce because it implies opulent over-expenditure for flippant reasons.
The difference between the two policies, which should decide people's choice is that, if you stop the fibre-optic cable at the node and require people to pay for the connection to the home, then there will be those who can afford this expense, most of whom vote Liberal, and those who can't. The Liberal policy is divisive because those who can't afford it simply won't have this necessity.
You can't really expect anything better from a party that absolutely thrives on divisions within society and then runs around screaming about class warfare, deliberately to muddy the waters, in the hopefully vane hope that people will be confused by such oxymoronic utterances into thinking its actually the other mob doing. Not big on intelligence either.
The fact is that Australia is astoundingly prosperous and can easily afford to give all citizens high speed fibre-optic cable based internet access.
"The Opposition embraced of an alternative National Broadband Network. That much publicised event gave the electorate a clear choice. Labor's Rolls Royce version with all the funding implications or the Coalition's more modest improvement on today's standards with a lesser price tag."
I object to this adjective Rolls Royce because it implies opulent over-expenditure for flippant reasons.
The difference between the two policies, which should decide people's choice is that, if you stop the fibre-optic cable at the node and require people to pay for the connection to the home, then there will be those who can afford this expense, most of whom vote Liberal, and those who can't. The Liberal policy is divisive because those who can't afford it simply won't have this necessity.
You can't really expect anything better from a party that absolutely thrives on divisions within society and then runs around screaming about class warfare, deliberately to muddy the waters, in the hopefully vane hope that people will be confused by such oxymoronic utterances into thinking its actually the other mob doing. Not big on intelligence either.
The fact is that Australia is astoundingly prosperous and can easily afford to give all citizens high speed fibre-optic cable based internet access.
Issues. What issues?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-26/cassidy-laying-down-the-cudgels-and-debating-the-policy/4650944
"The issues are once more front and centre, free of the nasty distractions. If this continues, there's plenty of time before September to have a proper debate on policy"
Is politics about issues? Do we live in a functioning democracy? Are we distracted by these distractions and what is so nasty about them? Was the implied state where issues were not front and centre because of these nasty distractions a normal state or an aberration? Do we have a concept or template for shedding sufficient light on these questions to reveal their answer.
Take care Mr. Grasshopper, you are in danger of confusing yourself.
If a functioning democracy consists of an enlightened polity who debate important issues at length, test solutions to problems arrising from these issues and inform leaders how they must proceed, such that optimum courses of action are always pursued and the greater good increases, then there is no way we live in a functioning democracy. In such a system politics can only be about issues.
However, the system we live under is notionally labeled a democracy, with absolutely propagandistic cheek, and should therefore exhibit at least some of the above characteristics. The great fog of nasty distractions which descended on society just after the last federal election had the effect of forcing a deviation from ideal operation of this ponderous system and is now showing signs of lifting and carrying with it this effect, so that the system can now revert to its far-from-perfect ideal behaviour.
"The issues are once more front and centre, free of the nasty distractions. If this continues, there's plenty of time before September to have a proper debate on policy"
Is politics about issues? Do we live in a functioning democracy? Are we distracted by these distractions and what is so nasty about them? Was the implied state where issues were not front and centre because of these nasty distractions a normal state or an aberration? Do we have a concept or template for shedding sufficient light on these questions to reveal their answer.
Take care Mr. Grasshopper, you are in danger of confusing yourself.
If a functioning democracy consists of an enlightened polity who debate important issues at length, test solutions to problems arrising from these issues and inform leaders how they must proceed, such that optimum courses of action are always pursued and the greater good increases, then there is no way we live in a functioning democracy. In such a system politics can only be about issues.
However, the system we live under is notionally labeled a democracy, with absolutely propagandistic cheek, and should therefore exhibit at least some of the above characteristics. The great fog of nasty distractions which descended on society just after the last federal election had the effect of forcing a deviation from ideal operation of this ponderous system and is now showing signs of lifting and carrying with it this effect, so that the system can now revert to its far-from-perfect ideal behaviour.
Friday 26 April 2013
The Great Clown of Queensland........
Is Clive Palmer the saviour of ALP electoral success in September?
In announcing the formation of the Uniting Australia Party to contest the next federal election, with identical (or almost) policies to the Liberal Party our favorite mining magnate with delusions of grandeur has potentially split the conservative vote a third way.
Conservative voters will now have the mouthwatering choice between the LNP represented by Tony Abbott and his Clayton policies on every imaginable issue, Bob Katter with his unknown policies, and now Clive Palmer with his modified Clayton Liberal policies. My mouth salivates.
If the conservative vote were split evenly (never going to happen) between these three alternatives the ALP would make a killing in September.
The light on the hill may have just received a burst of flammable gas.
In announcing the formation of the Uniting Australia Party to contest the next federal election, with identical (or almost) policies to the Liberal Party our favorite mining magnate with delusions of grandeur has potentially split the conservative vote a third way.
Conservative voters will now have the mouthwatering choice between the LNP represented by Tony Abbott and his Clayton policies on every imaginable issue, Bob Katter with his unknown policies, and now Clive Palmer with his modified Clayton Liberal policies. My mouth salivates.
If the conservative vote were split evenly (never going to happen) between these three alternatives the ALP would make a killing in September.
The light on the hill may have just received a burst of flammable gas.
Tuesday 23 April 2013
I Can't Believe......
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4646276.html
"Power is not meant for bureaucratic hands"
POWER IN BUREAUCRATIC HANDS IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROTECTS SOCIETY FROM RADICAL NEOLIBERAL FREE MARKETEERS SUCH AS chris berg .
CONTRARY TO HIS BELIEFS IT IS AN OBSERVABLE FACT, OBVIOUS TO AN OPEN MINDED RENAISSANCE MAN SUCH AS MYSELF THAT THE MARKET IS A HARLOT WHO/WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONTROLLED, AND THAT OPEN SLATHER COMPETION IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA.
I can't believe the crap that is given credence via publication.
Rather, I fully understand the need for the ABC to publish ALL opinions. Given this, I congratulate the ABC for none-the-less refraining from publishing the rabid shockjock opinions extant on talkback radio.
I follow Chris Berg. I've read his book- have it on my kindle so I can re-read it when necessary- and I always read his articles on the Drum website. He is a highly articulate and intelligent person who deserves to be published.
His association with a right wing think tank: The Institute of Public Affairs, means that everything he says must be viewed through the sepia-glass of right-wing bias. Most people do not possess this sepia-glass and so someone who does possess such a tool must step into the void to maintain the balance.
I note that Mungo McCallum does a good job of this. Jeff Sparrow jumps in now and again. Greg Jericho, whose book on the fifth estate is a good read, goes into battle on a weekly basis, in a lucid and persuasive stile backed up by lots of data proving his points. How can any one argue with observations backed up data to prove and show it. Chris Berg always finds a way.
Did I hear someone say "What is your Point?"
Yes Mr Grasshopper we can always remain relatively content that the opinions of the Right will be balanced by the real opinions of the Left in such a way that a middle road is followed in the public discourse.We must remain forever vigilant that this process is achieved. If not our ponderous democratic system is in peril and we are all in danger.
"Power is not meant for bureaucratic hands"
POWER IN BUREAUCRATIC HANDS IS THE ONLY THING THAT PROTECTS SOCIETY FROM RADICAL NEOLIBERAL FREE MARKETEERS SUCH AS chris berg .
CONTRARY TO HIS BELIEFS IT IS AN OBSERVABLE FACT, OBVIOUS TO AN OPEN MINDED RENAISSANCE MAN SUCH AS MYSELF THAT THE MARKET IS A HARLOT WHO/WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONTROLLED, AND THAT OPEN SLATHER COMPETION IS ALWAYS A BAD IDEA.
I can't believe the crap that is given credence via publication.
Rather, I fully understand the need for the ABC to publish ALL opinions. Given this, I congratulate the ABC for none-the-less refraining from publishing the rabid shockjock opinions extant on talkback radio.
I follow Chris Berg. I've read his book- have it on my kindle so I can re-read it when necessary- and I always read his articles on the Drum website. He is a highly articulate and intelligent person who deserves to be published.
His association with a right wing think tank: The Institute of Public Affairs, means that everything he says must be viewed through the sepia-glass of right-wing bias. Most people do not possess this sepia-glass and so someone who does possess such a tool must step into the void to maintain the balance.
I note that Mungo McCallum does a good job of this. Jeff Sparrow jumps in now and again. Greg Jericho, whose book on the fifth estate is a good read, goes into battle on a weekly basis, in a lucid and persuasive stile backed up by lots of data proving his points. How can any one argue with observations backed up data to prove and show it. Chris Berg always finds a way.
Did I hear someone say "What is your Point?"
Yes Mr Grasshopper we can always remain relatively content that the opinions of the Right will be balanced by the real opinions of the Left in such a way that a middle road is followed in the public discourse.We must remain forever vigilant that this process is achieved. If not our ponderous democratic system is in peril and we are all in danger.
Those Who Ignore The Lessons of the Past.....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-19/wright-a-fallen-superpower-distracts-itself-with-the-past/4639658
"We were the dominant superpower in the world pretty much without the use of electricity or the petrol engine. We are the grown-up always harking back to high school. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back to 1895?! We could send a gunboat into the IMF and shell it with impunity! That's a way to deal with economic ruin at home!
But we can't do that anymore. The most offensive thing we can send in is George Osborne or if it's really hopeless Tony Blair. (As Middle East Peace Envoy, it's a bit like sending a pyromaniac to put a fire out.)
And so this week there was another explosion of pomp, uniforms, old buildings, and drunken protesters playing Falstaff all adding up to a nice advert for tourists to come see "all that history" as a divisive prime minister "who made Britain great again" was laid to rest."
This is a beautiful piece. It says a lot about England and the EU.
In a democracy the final decision of the majority has to be accepted. Right or wrong, far-seeing or shortsighted, positive or negative, when the electorate speaks either accept the consequences or move overseas. The fall of England and Europe from economic dominance is now a fact of history.Only Germany, the loser of two world wars, has been able to rise above the pack, but fortunately is shackled by the bureaucracy and obligations associated with it's leadership of the EU.
England is a basket-case precisely because it chose to become one by embracing Thatcherism with open arms. A brief interlude with 'New Labour' did not help matters and now, in the wake of the GFC, and in meek obeisance to its EU partners, it continues to elect week conservative governments who maintain the main elements of Thatcherism to this day.
There exists a baffling belief in the efficacy and truth exhibited by a thoroughly discredited macroeconomic philosophy. I speak of the Austrian school of macroeconomics personified by the teachings of a man called Von Hayek. The austerity policies imposed by the ruling elites of the EU have now doomed Europe to economic malaise and decrepitude for generations. Even if more enlightened economic policies were adopted tomorrow, three years of this economic Hayekian madness has created an underclass of unemployed people which over the space of those three years will have been rendered unemployable, or designated Long Term Unemployed (LTU). Once this is allowed to happen the economy can not recover without expensive and time-consuming retraining programs, spanning a generation, importation of foreign labour, or some combination of these elements. There is no other way.
Europe is exhibiting the effects of going down the road of macroeconomic policies which focus on markets rather than people. The verbiage is all about interest rates, profits, yields and invisible hands. These policies ignore the fact that economies consist of entities exchanging goods and services such that they are economically entwined in such a way that the prosperity of each entity is dependent on the prosperity of those it is entwined with. These policies are stupid and the demise of Europe as a source of economic prosperity is in the process of proving this stupidity
It's sad to watch and the plight of the LTU underclass is heartrending.
In the meantime, on the other side of the Atlantic, the conservative forces who promote and employ these discredited policies only controls the tools of legislation, creating an environment where, any progressive attempt at legislation has to be snuck finessed and finaggled through, because if you calmly explain to these people the benefits of what you propose, they vote it down. In other word they are incapable of seeing reason, no matter what you say. The forces of progress are in control at the top and the country is moving forward at a pace which, while being far below what could be achieved if the tools were in their hands, is inevitably slow given the circumstances.
I've been sensing a hint of revolution in the air since the private debt of the banks was unfairly rendered public through massive bailouts and the lower reaches of the socio-economic pyramid forced to pay it of through austerity and taxes.
God gets what God wants. God help us.
"We were the dominant superpower in the world pretty much without the use of electricity or the petrol engine. We are the grown-up always harking back to high school. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back to 1895?! We could send a gunboat into the IMF and shell it with impunity! That's a way to deal with economic ruin at home!
But we can't do that anymore. The most offensive thing we can send in is George Osborne or if it's really hopeless Tony Blair. (As Middle East Peace Envoy, it's a bit like sending a pyromaniac to put a fire out.)
And so this week there was another explosion of pomp, uniforms, old buildings, and drunken protesters playing Falstaff all adding up to a nice advert for tourists to come see "all that history" as a divisive prime minister "who made Britain great again" was laid to rest."
This is a beautiful piece. It says a lot about England and the EU.
In a democracy the final decision of the majority has to be accepted. Right or wrong, far-seeing or shortsighted, positive or negative, when the electorate speaks either accept the consequences or move overseas. The fall of England and Europe from economic dominance is now a fact of history.Only Germany, the loser of two world wars, has been able to rise above the pack, but fortunately is shackled by the bureaucracy and obligations associated with it's leadership of the EU.
England is a basket-case precisely because it chose to become one by embracing Thatcherism with open arms. A brief interlude with 'New Labour' did not help matters and now, in the wake of the GFC, and in meek obeisance to its EU partners, it continues to elect week conservative governments who maintain the main elements of Thatcherism to this day.
There exists a baffling belief in the efficacy and truth exhibited by a thoroughly discredited macroeconomic philosophy. I speak of the Austrian school of macroeconomics personified by the teachings of a man called Von Hayek. The austerity policies imposed by the ruling elites of the EU have now doomed Europe to economic malaise and decrepitude for generations. Even if more enlightened economic policies were adopted tomorrow, three years of this economic Hayekian madness has created an underclass of unemployed people which over the space of those three years will have been rendered unemployable, or designated Long Term Unemployed (LTU). Once this is allowed to happen the economy can not recover without expensive and time-consuming retraining programs, spanning a generation, importation of foreign labour, or some combination of these elements. There is no other way.
Europe is exhibiting the effects of going down the road of macroeconomic policies which focus on markets rather than people. The verbiage is all about interest rates, profits, yields and invisible hands. These policies ignore the fact that economies consist of entities exchanging goods and services such that they are economically entwined in such a way that the prosperity of each entity is dependent on the prosperity of those it is entwined with. These policies are stupid and the demise of Europe as a source of economic prosperity is in the process of proving this stupidity
It's sad to watch and the plight of the LTU underclass is heartrending.
In the meantime, on the other side of the Atlantic, the conservative forces who promote and employ these discredited policies only controls the tools of legislation, creating an environment where, any progressive attempt at legislation has to be snuck finessed and finaggled through, because if you calmly explain to these people the benefits of what you propose, they vote it down. In other word they are incapable of seeing reason, no matter what you say. The forces of progress are in control at the top and the country is moving forward at a pace which, while being far below what could be achieved if the tools were in their hands, is inevitably slow given the circumstances.
I've been sensing a hint of revolution in the air since the private debt of the banks was unfairly rendered public through massive bailouts and the lower reaches of the socio-economic pyramid forced to pay it of through austerity and taxes.
God gets what God wants. God help us.
Monday 22 April 2013
Markets Marked
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-22/janda-auto-subsidies-should-stay-for-now/4640226
"Holden's decision to slice another 500 jobs from its already much diminished workforce has again reignited debate on whether the Australian, South Australian and Victorian governments should drop their support for the auto industry.
Orthodox free-market economists argue that such assistance prevents the most efficient allocation of resources in the economy from taking place, causing a loss in output for society as a whole."
Can't let this one go through to the keeper. My posts lately spoke of the abject failure of an experimental free market in carbon emissions to modify the behaviour of consumers, demonstrated clearly by the collapse of the carbon price in the EU carbon trading market.
Our lives are controlled by neoliberal free-marketeers who continuously muddy the waters and actively prevent the establishment of the Keynsian Capitalist Utopia.
Let us debate the proposition that "The market is a harlot and free competition is a bad idea"
"Holden's decision to slice another 500 jobs from its already much diminished workforce has again reignited debate on whether the Australian, South Australian and Victorian governments should drop their support for the auto industry.
Orthodox free-market economists argue that such assistance prevents the most efficient allocation of resources in the economy from taking place, causing a loss in output for society as a whole."
Can't let this one go through to the keeper. My posts lately spoke of the abject failure of an experimental free market in carbon emissions to modify the behaviour of consumers, demonstrated clearly by the collapse of the carbon price in the EU carbon trading market.
Our lives are controlled by neoliberal free-marketeers who continuously muddy the waters and actively prevent the establishment of the Keynsian Capitalist Utopia.
Let us debate the proposition that "The market is a harlot and free competition is a bad idea"
Sunday 21 April 2013
'Thus spake Zarathustra'
"The jubilation across the Tasman as New Zealand authorised same-sex
marriage throws into stark contrast the awful mess into which Labor has
plunged itself here."
Jeff Sparrow is always lucid.
They say Nero played his fiddle placidly while Rome burned.
Would someone please ask "What the f@#$%^k do you mean by that?"?
Mr. Grasshopper. There are many more pressing matters to attend to. This side-show is all very well, and I congratulate the gay activists for there skill in stirring up sufficient ground swell to peak in NZ and Tasmania, but it must be recognized as a side-show with the potential to distract our attention from matters of more import.
My last post mentioned that solution to these problems will require intense focus for extended periods over many terms of government. They are pressingly urgent, need to be solved yesterday.
Can we please get on with the main game now.
Jeff Sparrow is always lucid.
They say Nero played his fiddle placidly while Rome burned.
Would someone please ask "What the f@#$%^k do you mean by that?"?
Mr. Grasshopper. There are many more pressing matters to attend to. This side-show is all very well, and I congratulate the gay activists for there skill in stirring up sufficient ground swell to peak in NZ and Tasmania, but it must be recognized as a side-show with the potential to distract our attention from matters of more import.
My last post mentioned that solution to these problems will require intense focus for extended periods over many terms of government. They are pressingly urgent, need to be solved yesterday.
Can we please get on with the main game now.
But wait there is more.
Further to yesterday's post and the failure of market driven processes to produce a sustainable Economy, it worries me somewhat that I see so much hoo-hah in the media about fossil fuels. I even heard about a pilot carbon capture electricity generator in the US. In the mean time I hear a lot about fracking, shale oil, Coal Seam Gas, Gas and oil hubs, new oil reserves.
What we should be hearing about is technological advances which increase the efficiency of solar cells, projects to build massive solar panel arrays in the world's deserts, advances in nuclear fusion technology, the discovery of new sources of energy...etc.
Seems to me someone has lost the plot. We need to focus on this problem for an extended period 100%.
Right Now.
What we should be hearing about is technological advances which increase the efficiency of solar cells, projects to build massive solar panel arrays in the world's deserts, advances in nuclear fusion technology, the discovery of new sources of energy...etc.
Seems to me someone has lost the plot. We need to focus on this problem for an extended period 100%.
Right Now.
Saturday 20 April 2013
What a Scam
We've all been duped and scammed.
I can't decide whether to start at the end result or the beginning way back in the sixties. The greenhouse effect was recognised as a threat 40-50 years ago. Its existence was debated in academic circles, even though its existence is proven by some very simple chemistry and physics (so why the need for all this debate?). Whether there was a need or not, or whatever, these events occured in this sequence, the end result being that it was belatedly realised that us humans had to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent gases or face ecological armageddon.
Methods of achieving this result were debated and the neoliberal free-market ideologues prevailed. Under their preferred method the behaviour of fossil-fuel consumers should be modified by market forces and there invisible hands. If we set up a market for carbon emissions a sustainable economy would result through the action of the invisible hand.
A carbon market was duly set up in the European Union; the first test of the above hypothesis. Australia's carbon trading system is linked to the EU carbon market.
Last week the price on carbon emissions in the EU carbon market fell to $4 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The proposed starting price for such emissions in the Australian Carbon market is $23. I hope no one who reads this needs to have the consequences of such a price differential explained to them.
So. We were informed and persuaded, wined and dined, bedded and screwed, into believing in the power of an unfettered market to deliver our needs through the machinations of the invisible hand.
This is what the free marketeers delivered after, if you will recall, a sustainable economy.
I can't decide whether to start at the end result or the beginning way back in the sixties. The greenhouse effect was recognised as a threat 40-50 years ago. Its existence was debated in academic circles, even though its existence is proven by some very simple chemistry and physics (so why the need for all this debate?). Whether there was a need or not, or whatever, these events occured in this sequence, the end result being that it was belatedly realised that us humans had to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent gases or face ecological armageddon.
Methods of achieving this result were debated and the neoliberal free-market ideologues prevailed. Under their preferred method the behaviour of fossil-fuel consumers should be modified by market forces and there invisible hands. If we set up a market for carbon emissions a sustainable economy would result through the action of the invisible hand.
A carbon market was duly set up in the European Union; the first test of the above hypothesis. Australia's carbon trading system is linked to the EU carbon market.
Last week the price on carbon emissions in the EU carbon market fell to $4 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The proposed starting price for such emissions in the Australian Carbon market is $23. I hope no one who reads this needs to have the consequences of such a price differential explained to them.
So. We were informed and persuaded, wined and dined, bedded and screwed, into believing in the power of an unfettered market to deliver our needs through the machinations of the invisible hand.
This is what the free marketeers delivered after, if you will recall, a sustainable economy.
Friday 19 April 2013
To Gonski or not to Gonski. That Mr. Grasshopper is the 100 billion dollar question
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-19/cassidy-gonski-funding-is-an-offer-too-good-to-refuse/4636794
"While raiding university funding to pay for the Gonski reforms hasn't helped the Federal Government's case, the premiers will find it hard to say no."
I fear that you underestimate the willfulness of our silly stuck-up twat of a LNP Premier, who no doubt still plays tennis poorly. Ah the nostalgia. Sepia-shrouded memories of playing pennants on Saturdays with Collin Barnett. On the same team no less. This could be the only time in history when a self confessed radical lefty played on the same team as a pillar of the far right. Why, you might ask, did these two particles not annihilate each other in a puff of self-inflicted oxymoronity, as particles of matter and antimatter are wont to do? The answer lies in the bin with the other great mysteries of life which must be pondered independently at one's own expense and on one's time.
"While raiding university funding to pay for the Gonski reforms hasn't helped the Federal Government's case, the premiers will find it hard to say no."
I fear that you underestimate the willfulness of our silly stuck-up twat of a LNP Premier, who no doubt still plays tennis poorly. Ah the nostalgia. Sepia-shrouded memories of playing pennants on Saturdays with Collin Barnett. On the same team no less. This could be the only time in history when a self confessed radical lefty played on the same team as a pillar of the far right. Why, you might ask, did these two particles not annihilate each other in a puff of self-inflicted oxymoronity, as particles of matter and antimatter are wont to do? The answer lies in the bin with the other great mysteries of life which must be pondered independently at one's own expense and on one's time.
Wednesday 17 April 2013
Requiem for the Boston Marathon
You didn't deserve to be blown up.
It was inflicted on you any way.
Your recovery will be swift and strong and you will return to the world stage in a better condition to continue exerting your influence.
It was inflicted on you any way.
Your recovery will be swift and strong and you will return to the world stage in a better condition to continue exerting your influence.
Tuesday 16 April 2013
Still Can't Get Over It
A Woman dies and her grave is danced upon by all and sundry
People of the centre left, neoconservative and/or neoliberal to whatever degree, but in all truth and honesty labeled as progressive, are by definition compassionate and kindly so would never dream of this no matter what her perceived biases, sins or achievements.
Would someone please explain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh that's right. Events such as this alter the general state of apathy ennui and innertia in the facebook twitosphere.
Something to say other that "I'm washing my dog......isn't he cute" amongst other world shaking revelations.
********************************************************************************
At the time, from a sterile vantage on the opposite side of the world, Little of Maggie's shenanigans were perceivable except in the realm of foreign policy. A defining characteristic of regimes of this ilk is their single-minded dismantling of secondary manufacturing economic systems, with the intent of stimulating in a proactive manner their evolutionary transformation to the tertiary state of economic being ( this logic string implies the existence of a quaterrnary economic state whose characteristics are not really predicable from a point inside a tertiary system) characterised by the dominance of service industries. To this end, policies are created or adopted which, either directly or indirectly eliminate manufacturing firms from the economy.
There is only one exception to this wholesale elimination and that is those factories and firms whose sole function is to develop and produce weapons.
Which brings us back to Maggie Mae's foreign policy.The Harrier Jump Jet had been developed for deployment on the British Navy and at the time of the Falklands War was at the prototype-further-testing-required phase.
What a great idea. In stead of taking it out to an empty place, firing it up and observing what it can do, let's take it down south and smack some Argentinians around, in the process stirring up such a furor of patriotic, nationalistic neocolonial sentiment that I am forced back into the highest office in the land (much to my feigned ambivalence) by a landslide vote of truly seismic dimensions, for a further five year term as the savior of the Falklands Colony, and the hero of the Falklands War. Everybody wants to be a national hero in their heart of hearts, and here was a godgiven way of achieving this outcome without getting shot or shot at
Maggie must have thought that all her Christmases had come at once.
People of the centre left, neoconservative and/or neoliberal to whatever degree, but in all truth and honesty labeled as progressive, are by definition compassionate and kindly so would never dream of this no matter what her perceived biases, sins or achievements.
Would someone please explain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh that's right. Events such as this alter the general state of apathy ennui and innertia in the facebook twitosphere.
Something to say other that "I'm washing my dog......isn't he cute" amongst other world shaking revelations.
********************************************************************************
At the time, from a sterile vantage on the opposite side of the world, Little of Maggie's shenanigans were perceivable except in the realm of foreign policy. A defining characteristic of regimes of this ilk is their single-minded dismantling of secondary manufacturing economic systems, with the intent of stimulating in a proactive manner their evolutionary transformation to the tertiary state of economic being ( this logic string implies the existence of a quaterrnary economic state whose characteristics are not really predicable from a point inside a tertiary system) characterised by the dominance of service industries. To this end, policies are created or adopted which, either directly or indirectly eliminate manufacturing firms from the economy.
There is only one exception to this wholesale elimination and that is those factories and firms whose sole function is to develop and produce weapons.
Which brings us back to Maggie Mae's foreign policy.The Harrier Jump Jet had been developed for deployment on the British Navy and at the time of the Falklands War was at the prototype-further-testing-required phase.
What a great idea. In stead of taking it out to an empty place, firing it up and observing what it can do, let's take it down south and smack some Argentinians around, in the process stirring up such a furor of patriotic, nationalistic neocolonial sentiment that I am forced back into the highest office in the land (much to my feigned ambivalence) by a landslide vote of truly seismic dimensions, for a further five year term as the savior of the Falklands Colony, and the hero of the Falklands War. Everybody wants to be a national hero in their heart of hearts, and here was a godgiven way of achieving this outcome without getting shot or shot at
Maggie must have thought that all her Christmases had come at once.
Saturday 13 April 2013
Ding Dong The witch is dead; hubble bubble toil and trouble; The Passing of a Great One; Which will it be
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4620464.html
"The masses are divided. In one camp, it's a postmodern Wizard of Oz redux - "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" and "olay, olay, olay" soccer strains are sound-tracking booze-fuelled festivities and relief tweets.
The other camp is playing it sombre. Genteel. They're playing the like-her-or-loathe-her-the-dead-deserve-respect card. That the dead deserve not to have their proverbial graves tap-danced upon. That now, apparently, isn't the time to ask too many questions."
I've been following the reaction to the death of Maggie Mae. A lively discussion is taking place on 'The Conversation. Someone asked the question of whether her domestic policies, ie Thatcherism, changed Britain. I just couldn't let that one go.
If results and consequences are any indication the answer is yes, in a bad way. Thatcherism, with its denial of the concept of society and its Geckoesque individualism and greed played a large role in precipitating the GFC. It continues to thrive as a major plank in the platform of the British Conservative Party. Its blind application in the wake of the crisis, focusing on Hayekian austerity has left Britain staring down the barrel of a triple dip recession, a generation of unemployed people.
Judging from the above observable facts, her effect was pronounced, profound, far-reaching, polarisingly divisive, and above all deeply negative for all but the social ruling elite which she represented.
Tony Blair was quoted condemning the 'ding dong the witch is dead' street parties springing up everywhere celebrating her death. Show some respect for the dead spake Blair. My initial response was to agree with him. Stripping the better progressive instincts from the forefront of my being I valiantly tried to keep an open mind. After all the record does indeed show that she was elected by at least a clear majority of British society as Prime Minister for three consecutive five-year terms, the implication being that a clear majority approved of her policies. Then reality set in. Looking with an objective eye on the Britain of the seventies and today's Britain, one can easily come to the view that every difference, socially, economically or politically has a negative vector attached. Britain today is a worse place than it was.
"The masses are divided. In one camp, it's a postmodern Wizard of Oz redux - "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" and "olay, olay, olay" soccer strains are sound-tracking booze-fuelled festivities and relief tweets.
The other camp is playing it sombre. Genteel. They're playing the like-her-or-loathe-her-the-dead-deserve-respect card. That the dead deserve not to have their proverbial graves tap-danced upon. That now, apparently, isn't the time to ask too many questions."
I've been following the reaction to the death of Maggie Mae. A lively discussion is taking place on 'The Conversation. Someone asked the question of whether her domestic policies, ie Thatcherism, changed Britain. I just couldn't let that one go.
If results and consequences are any indication the answer is yes, in a bad way. Thatcherism, with its denial of the concept of society and its Geckoesque individualism and greed played a large role in precipitating the GFC. It continues to thrive as a major plank in the platform of the British Conservative Party. Its blind application in the wake of the crisis, focusing on Hayekian austerity has left Britain staring down the barrel of a triple dip recession, a generation of unemployed people.
Judging from the above observable facts, her effect was pronounced, profound, far-reaching, polarisingly divisive, and above all deeply negative for all but the social ruling elite which she represented.
Tony Blair was quoted condemning the 'ding dong the witch is dead' street parties springing up everywhere celebrating her death. Show some respect for the dead spake Blair. My initial response was to agree with him. Stripping the better progressive instincts from the forefront of my being I valiantly tried to keep an open mind. After all the record does indeed show that she was elected by at least a clear majority of British society as Prime Minister for three consecutive five-year terms, the implication being that a clear majority approved of her policies. Then reality set in. Looking with an objective eye on the Britain of the seventies and today's Britain, one can easily come to the view that every difference, socially, economically or politically has a negative vector attached. Britain today is a worse place than it was.
More on the Passing of Maggie Mae
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-10/baird-thatcher-paved-the-way-for-one-woman/4620668
What a polarising girl. How Cute!!!!!!!!!!!
What a polarising girl. How Cute!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday 10 April 2013
Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4618576.html
"Last month the ABS released its attempt to determine the relative level of advantage and disadvantage across the nation on the basis of information contained in the 2011 census. Its Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage takes into account not only income but also such aspects as overcrowding in homes, people's occupations, the number of cars per household, the number of households with single parents, and also the number with no internet connection.
The index provides a score for each geographical area (from 0 to around 1,250 - the higher the score the higher the advantage), which allows for areas of various size to be compared. The ABS has compiled this data to the level of SA1 - i.e. areas with an average population of 400 people each. This allows for an incredibly detailed picture of cities and major areas within Australia. They have also converted the data into Google Earth, with dark blue denoting "most advantageous" and dark red "most disadvantaged"
Greg Jericho informative as always
"Last month the ABS released its attempt to determine the relative level of advantage and disadvantage across the nation on the basis of information contained in the 2011 census. Its Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage takes into account not only income but also such aspects as overcrowding in homes, people's occupations, the number of cars per household, the number of households with single parents, and also the number with no internet connection.
The index provides a score for each geographical area (from 0 to around 1,250 - the higher the score the higher the advantage), which allows for areas of various size to be compared. The ABS has compiled this data to the level of SA1 - i.e. areas with an average population of 400 people each. This allows for an incredibly detailed picture of cities and major areas within Australia. They have also converted the data into Google Earth, with dark blue denoting "most advantageous" and dark red "most disadvantaged"
Greg Jericho informative as always
China
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4615756.html
"the Chinese leader who brought China to the heart of global politics was not Chairman Mao, but the faded and reviled figure of Chiang Kai-shek, his Nationalist predecessor.
If Chiang is remembered at all, it is as a corrupt and incompetent leader whose greed led the Americans to nickname him "Cash-my-Check". Yet in recent years, Chiang's status in the People's Republic, the state founded by his deadly enemy Mao, has risen as his homeland acknowledges his contribution to the Allied effort in World War II."
Way back in my callow youth as I studied the modern history of China I came to identical conclusions. Not about 'Cash-my-Check' but about his colleague and predecessor Sun Yat-Sen. There was a brief period, prior to the untimely, tragic and unfortunate death of this man through natural causes, when China was shakily on track towards a western style polity of some description, although recent research has indicated that even Sun Yat-Sen would not entertain the possibility of a liberal democracy as he is found to have said that the Chinese people are historically and culturally unequipped for aught but authoritarian styled government.
Bare in mind that this article is by an academic historian specialising in this area.
I have at least a modicum of interest and knowledge here and 'Cash-My-Check' was a monster who unleashed his green shirt assassin brigade on the unsuspecting communist faction of the then highly polarised national assembly, called by Sun Yat-Sen to extract some form of national government out of the turmoil of post-empire warlordism which then existed in China, precipitating the long march and the death of a large number of his own countrymen.
On his defeat in the ensuing Chinese Civil War and retreat to the island of Taiwan he inflicted a bloody purge on the inhabitants, killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Its all very well to point out inadvertent and unintentional historical consequences of his actions, and these are valid and fascinating points, but you still can't apologise for the evil of this man.
"the Chinese leader who brought China to the heart of global politics was not Chairman Mao, but the faded and reviled figure of Chiang Kai-shek, his Nationalist predecessor.
If Chiang is remembered at all, it is as a corrupt and incompetent leader whose greed led the Americans to nickname him "Cash-my-Check". Yet in recent years, Chiang's status in the People's Republic, the state founded by his deadly enemy Mao, has risen as his homeland acknowledges his contribution to the Allied effort in World War II."
Way back in my callow youth as I studied the modern history of China I came to identical conclusions. Not about 'Cash-my-Check' but about his colleague and predecessor Sun Yat-Sen. There was a brief period, prior to the untimely, tragic and unfortunate death of this man through natural causes, when China was shakily on track towards a western style polity of some description, although recent research has indicated that even Sun Yat-Sen would not entertain the possibility of a liberal democracy as he is found to have said that the Chinese people are historically and culturally unequipped for aught but authoritarian styled government.
Bare in mind that this article is by an academic historian specialising in this area.
I have at least a modicum of interest and knowledge here and 'Cash-My-Check' was a monster who unleashed his green shirt assassin brigade on the unsuspecting communist faction of the then highly polarised national assembly, called by Sun Yat-Sen to extract some form of national government out of the turmoil of post-empire warlordism which then existed in China, precipitating the long march and the death of a large number of his own countrymen.
On his defeat in the ensuing Chinese Civil War and retreat to the island of Taiwan he inflicted a bloody purge on the inhabitants, killing tens of thousands of innocent people.
Its all very well to point out inadvertent and unintentional historical consequences of his actions, and these are valid and fascinating points, but you still can't apologise for the evil of this man.
Reactionary Populism
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4615260.html
"Labor's embrace of economic rationalism precipitated its current identity crisis."
"Hawke and Keating's embrace of economic rationalism wrong-footed the Liberals in opposition and they too struggled to determine their agenda in an era in which Labor appeared to have stolen their thunder."
Tony Abbott it has adopted a new course; that of reactionary populism. While Abbott may well support many of Howard's policy prescriptions, this doctor is more about "no".
Abbott's Liberal Party is committed to destroying the Labor government, whatever it takes. If this means disowning initiatives of the Howard era or contradicting long-held Liberal policy, so be it."
Both political parties have reached a nadir of market differentiation that makes a mockery of the barest concept of democracy. If you vote for either of these parties you get the same set of policies in all important areas.
Could the Greens form government as the new progressive party of the left?
"Labor's embrace of economic rationalism precipitated its current identity crisis."
"Hawke and Keating's embrace of economic rationalism wrong-footed the Liberals in opposition and they too struggled to determine their agenda in an era in which Labor appeared to have stolen their thunder."
Tony Abbott it has adopted a new course; that of reactionary populism. While Abbott may well support many of Howard's policy prescriptions, this doctor is more about "no".
Abbott's Liberal Party is committed to destroying the Labor government, whatever it takes. If this means disowning initiatives of the Howard era or contradicting long-held Liberal policy, so be it."
Both political parties have reached a nadir of market differentiation that makes a mockery of the barest concept of democracy. If you vote for either of these parties you get the same set of policies in all important areas.
Could the Greens form government as the new progressive party of the left?
Tuesday 9 April 2013
Quotables
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4615654.html
"great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: 'I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation.'"
Pardon me for feigning naivety but how is it that the minority plutosphere (all definite collective nouns may now be denoted by words composed of a Latin prefix indicating the defining characteristic of the collective referred to followed by the suffix '-sphere') are blind to the inarguable, demonstrable, purely objective truth of this.
"Murray Rothbard: 'Taxation is theft.'"
"great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: 'I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilisation.'"
Pardon me for feigning naivety but how is it that the minority plutosphere (all definite collective nouns may now be denoted by words composed of a Latin prefix indicating the defining characteristic of the collective referred to followed by the suffix '-sphere') are blind to the inarguable, demonstrable, purely objective truth of this.
"Murray Rothbard: 'Taxation is theft.'"
'Class Warfare' or Rational Redistribution
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4615654.htm
"Sloan would recoil from the mere suggestion: new taxes are bad, by definition. She clearly belongs to the anarcho-capitalist school of economics which enjoyed a brief boom in the middle of the last century under such luminaries as Murray Rothbard, whose motto was: "Taxation is theft."
"Tony Abbott declared flatly: "This is a government which is prepared to tax the people to fund its own spending."
Well, duh. Governments levy taxes to fund their programs - to build schools and hospitals, run the defence force, and look after the needy by setting up a national Disabilities Insurance Scheme, which Abbott whole-heartedly approves. Taxation is not theft; it is not even a necessary evil. It is a public good, without which we would lapse into ... well, anarcho-capitalism, the law of the jungle, red in tooth and claw."
Good old Mungo.
As I have been saying here and elsewhere for quite some time now, the answer to most of the world's problems is to tax the wealthy in an equitable manner and actually-for-real use the revenue for the improvement of the common good, while adopting pure Keynsian economic policies.
It's all been done before.
If this is 'class warfare' then bring it on.
"Sloan would recoil from the mere suggestion: new taxes are bad, by definition. She clearly belongs to the anarcho-capitalist school of economics which enjoyed a brief boom in the middle of the last century under such luminaries as Murray Rothbard, whose motto was: "Taxation is theft."
"Tony Abbott declared flatly: "This is a government which is prepared to tax the people to fund its own spending."
Well, duh. Governments levy taxes to fund their programs - to build schools and hospitals, run the defence force, and look after the needy by setting up a national Disabilities Insurance Scheme, which Abbott whole-heartedly approves. Taxation is not theft; it is not even a necessary evil. It is a public good, without which we would lapse into ... well, anarcho-capitalism, the law of the jungle, red in tooth and claw."
Good old Mungo.
As I have been saying here and elsewhere for quite some time now, the answer to most of the world's problems is to tax the wealthy in an equitable manner and actually-for-real use the revenue for the improvement of the common good, while adopting pure Keynsian economic policies.
It's all been done before.
If this is 'class warfare' then bring it on.
Sunday 7 April 2013
Trends
The aftermath of the latest crisis of Capitalism labeled the GFC has seen a dramatic polarisation of politics in the West. France, Australia, and The USA have gone down the left road, characterised by NeoKeynesian economic policies focussed on government intervention in the market to stimulate the economy and create jobs, while Europe has veered to the right, inflicting Hayeckian austerity policies which have produced a triple dip recession in Britain, a generation of uderperforming economies, and a mass of unemployed.
Obama's re-ellection reignited the light on the hill in that country while the socialist regime in France is on a five year term. Here in Australia the light is threatened by the implosion of the ALP. None-the-less, if the Gillard government were judged on the number of progressive initiatives it has been able to push through, they would win easily in September. The fact that the opinion polls point to a rout, and they can't be that far off, has been generated by a dishonest spin campaign, and the electorate has swallowed it. A miracle could still happen. Media reports during the US election insisted on suggesting that the GOP had a good chance right up to the end.
Obama's re-ellection reignited the light on the hill in that country while the socialist regime in France is on a five year term. Here in Australia the light is threatened by the implosion of the ALP. None-the-less, if the Gillard government were judged on the number of progressive initiatives it has been able to push through, they would win easily in September. The fact that the opinion polls point to a rout, and they can't be that far off, has been generated by a dishonest spin campaign, and the electorate has swallowed it. A miracle could still happen. Media reports during the US election insisted on suggesting that the GOP had a good chance right up to the end.
Of Blogospheres and Pundospheres
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-04/green-insight-isnt-the-main-game-in-punditry/4607604
"The chaotic daily churn has left news organisations with gaping holes that political pundits are all too happy to fill. But don't assume they're motivated by a desire to inform..."
"Richard Cooke at the Monthly"
"Graham Richardson"
"Mark Latham in the Australian Financial Review"
So there is only little such thing as news now and instead we are being fed a modicum of what was once called 'news' followed by much 'punditry' epitomised by these examples.
Several thoughts spring to mind.
This 'chaotic daily churn' has sparse raison-d'etre except as an illustration of the evolutionary processs occurring in the fourth estate, initiated by the confluence of the IT revolution and the neoliberal paradigm. The neoliberal paradigm forces the fourth estate to compete within itself, producing winners and losers, as is inevitable. The winners bolster the fourth estate, increasing its quality and efficacy, while the losers retreat to form the blogosphere and the pundosphere, which together may be described as the Fifth Estate. ideally this is a description of the process, however nothing is ever ideal in this world.
Does this Fifth Estate have any influence on the democratic process? Does anyone pay any attention to what they say? I fear the answer is no, or more accurately, only to a small extent. The size of its readership and therefore the extent to which it influences public opinion can only be guessed at. The extent to which radio shock-jocks represent mainstream opinion, for instance, has been demonstrated to be relatively small. Together with what I have labeled the Fifth Estate, with which it overlaps to a greater or lesser extent, it seems to form a useful addition to the process.
On the issue of balance and bias, Richard Cooke must be assumed to be left of centre if he appears in the Monthly, which is often used as a podium for tirades against the right wing press and for cat fights amongst the intelligentsia of the left. This latter appears to be what is referred to here. His criticism of Richardson is probably valid, but this really isn't news.
I would have expected a lightning bolt from the gods of neocon plutocracy to smite the offices of the AFR for publishing Mark Latham, a scion of the far left who has rebranded himself as elder statesman of late, but then the AFR as does the ABC needs to project at least a facade of balance. Whether this is only a facade or is their actual state is a moot point. The reader of the AFR can safely ignore this article if they so wish as do I ignore anything written by Peter Reith or Amanda Vanstone on the Drum, while applauding them for publishing them in the interests of balanced journalism.
"The chaotic daily churn has left news organisations with gaping holes that political pundits are all too happy to fill. But don't assume they're motivated by a desire to inform..."
"Richard Cooke at the Monthly"
"Graham Richardson"
"Mark Latham in the Australian Financial Review"
So there is only little such thing as news now and instead we are being fed a modicum of what was once called 'news' followed by much 'punditry' epitomised by these examples.
Several thoughts spring to mind.
This 'chaotic daily churn' has sparse raison-d'etre except as an illustration of the evolutionary processs occurring in the fourth estate, initiated by the confluence of the IT revolution and the neoliberal paradigm. The neoliberal paradigm forces the fourth estate to compete within itself, producing winners and losers, as is inevitable. The winners bolster the fourth estate, increasing its quality and efficacy, while the losers retreat to form the blogosphere and the pundosphere, which together may be described as the Fifth Estate. ideally this is a description of the process, however nothing is ever ideal in this world.
Does this Fifth Estate have any influence on the democratic process? Does anyone pay any attention to what they say? I fear the answer is no, or more accurately, only to a small extent. The size of its readership and therefore the extent to which it influences public opinion can only be guessed at. The extent to which radio shock-jocks represent mainstream opinion, for instance, has been demonstrated to be relatively small. Together with what I have labeled the Fifth Estate, with which it overlaps to a greater or lesser extent, it seems to form a useful addition to the process.
On the issue of balance and bias, Richard Cooke must be assumed to be left of centre if he appears in the Monthly, which is often used as a podium for tirades against the right wing press and for cat fights amongst the intelligentsia of the left. This latter appears to be what is referred to here. His criticism of Richardson is probably valid, but this really isn't news.
I would have expected a lightning bolt from the gods of neocon plutocracy to smite the offices of the AFR for publishing Mark Latham, a scion of the far left who has rebranded himself as elder statesman of late, but then the AFR as does the ABC needs to project at least a facade of balance. Whether this is only a facade or is their actual state is a moot point. The reader of the AFR can safely ignore this article if they so wish as do I ignore anything written by Peter Reith or Amanda Vanstone on the Drum, while applauding them for publishing them in the interests of balanced journalism.
Tuesday 2 April 2013
A brilliant bit of sarcasm from Mungo MacCallum
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4603440.html
"It must be some small comfort to know that her enemies frequently adopt exactly the same approach. Is there anything sillier than to read in The Australian constant exhortations to Gillard to be more consultative, more ready to listen to abroad range of opinion, more - yes - tolerant of dissent? This, while every other page of the paper is devoted to Rupert Murdoch's Generalissimo Chris Mitchell's crusades against union bosses, the Greens, the ABC, the Fairfax press, public school teachers, intellectuals, chardonnay quaffers, latte sippers, political correctness, Julian Assange, Tim Flannery ...
But of course, that's all right. That's a free press just doing its job. Julia Gillard's in a quite different position. I mean, it's not as if Rupert Murdoch and Chris Mitchell are trying to run the country. Well, is it?"
Sadly true. In our darkest hour the ALP self-implodes leaving the country at the mercy of the forces of darkness. It may possibly be that an Abbott government will not be able to undo everything Gillard has done for the common good but I would rather not find out. There is no hope of this government winning another term according to many I speak to even in the face of the media. Is there a rabbit to be extracted from the bag?
"It must be some small comfort to know that her enemies frequently adopt exactly the same approach. Is there anything sillier than to read in The Australian constant exhortations to Gillard to be more consultative, more ready to listen to abroad range of opinion, more - yes - tolerant of dissent? This, while every other page of the paper is devoted to Rupert Murdoch's Generalissimo Chris Mitchell's crusades against union bosses, the Greens, the ABC, the Fairfax press, public school teachers, intellectuals, chardonnay quaffers, latte sippers, political correctness, Julian Assange, Tim Flannery ...
But of course, that's all right. That's a free press just doing its job. Julia Gillard's in a quite different position. I mean, it's not as if Rupert Murdoch and Chris Mitchell are trying to run the country. Well, is it?"
Sadly true. In our darkest hour the ALP self-implodes leaving the country at the mercy of the forces of darkness. It may possibly be that an Abbott government will not be able to undo everything Gillard has done for the common good but I would rather not find out. There is no hope of this government winning another term according to many I speak to even in the face of the media. Is there a rabbit to be extracted from the bag?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)