Home > Regular Features > Monday message board

Monday message board

March 27th, 2006

It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. March 27th, 2006 at 09:41 | #1

    Thank goodness the Commonwealth games are over!

  2. still working it out
    March 27th, 2006 at 10:05 | #2

    I am still trying to work out what actual difference the new IR laws are going to make in the real world.

    Can anyone point to some good solid analysis on the web somewhere?

    The coverage in the MSM seems so light weight as to be almost meaningless. Its issues like this that remind me of why I turned from them to blogs in the first place.

  3. Terje
    March 27th, 2006 at 13:12 | #3

    Apparently the free market is unpopular during civil disasters.


    QUEENSLAND Premier Peter Beattie has threatened to name and shame anyone caught profiteering in areas devastated by Cyclone Larry.

    Consumer affairs officers have begun investigating a string of complaints of shops and services raising prices for goods in cyclone-ravaged parts of far north Queensland.

    I did a little digging and found this article on the issue.


    It seems to me that if some market good such as a generator is scarce (eg in an area with high demand) then a price rise is a reasonable way to ration the good. It may not be the best way but it would certainly seem more efficient than first come first served at the normal market price.

    It also seems like an odd remark for the premier to make given that he is calling for skilled trades people to come and help in the area. Why relocate to an area with below average fascilities for average rates of pay. If you move to the area to provide your labour and you charge above average prices when you are going to be ostersized as if you were some type of social scum. In other words only relocate to work in the disaster area if you are motivated by charity.

    If goods and services are scarce, and they are not to be rationed using price signals, then what means of rationing is approved? Should the private sector back out and leave it to the government (command and control) to fix the problems caused by Larry?

  4. March 27th, 2006 at 14:24 | #4

    I take it you would be opposed to the sale of Medibank Private? If so (or if not), why?

  5. gordon
    March 27th, 2006 at 14:45 | #5

    I can only agree with SWIO that the mainstream media are airbrushing the whole IR laws issue. It’s hard to find a factual account. SWIO might try the NSW Parliament Briefing Paper at

    Or he could try the Evatt Foundation paper at

    The latter has a somewhat lefty bias!

  6. Steve Munn
    March 27th, 2006 at 14:52 | #6

    I wonder whether some workers, especially those in forms with fewer than 100 employees, will be less willing to spend as a result of WorkChoices and if this could result in a contraction in aggregate demand that would negate the alleged job creation benefits of the package?

    I know I am financially conservative. If I was worried that I could be sacked without reason I would feel more inclined to save than spend.

  7. Terje
    March 27th, 2006 at 15:30 | #7

    I know I am financially conservative. If I was worried that I could be sacked without reason I would feel more inclined to save than spend.

    Would this put downward pressure on interest rates? Who would borrow the money you save? Or would you stuff it in a mattress?

  8. March 27th, 2006 at 15:34 | #8

    Just as well that the NSW parliament can be considered as non-lefty biased or you would have given two lefty links.

  9. March 27th, 2006 at 22:36 | #9

    My comment on the alternate version of this Monday message board is correct.

  10. Waratah
    March 28th, 2006 at 07:13 | #10

    PM Lawrence was clearly wrong on the other Monday message board.

  11. gordon
    March 28th, 2006 at 08:53 | #11

    I’m a bit worried that neither of my suggestions to SWIO re: IR laws comprehends the Regulations made fairly recently. Maybe other commenters know of a straighforward factual summary of these “reforms” which also covers the Regs.

    And, Andrew Reynolds, if you can see factual errors in either of these references (the above issue aside) please share with us.

  12. still working it out
    March 28th, 2006 at 09:31 | #12

    Thanx Gordon. 100 pages sounds a bit meatier than 4 bullet points.

    Andrew Reynolds,

    If you have something similar from a more free market perspective I would be just as keen to read that as well.

  13. Bring Back EP at LP
    March 29th, 2006 at 08:43 | #13

    Is PM Lawrence correct or incorrect?

  14. gordon
    March 29th, 2006 at 11:47 | #14

    When the facts are troublesome, as our recent visitor Tony Blair (“What the Bloody Hell Are You Here For?!”) knows, the thing to do is to lie. If the poverty statistics look bad, just redefine ’em and your problems disappear. This seems to be underway in the land of the free and the home of the downwardly mobile, as Economist’s View posts (March 28) “Poor Measurement of Poverty Raises Concerns”:

Comments are closed.