« Anonymous comment under threat, part 2 | Home | Converts »
Monday message board
By jquiggin | August 8, 2005
As usual on Monday, you are invited to post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
Topics: Regular Features |
29 Responses to “Monday message board”
« Anonymous comment under threat, part 2 | Home | Converts »
Monday message board
By jquiggin | August 8, 2005
As usual on Monday, you are invited to post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
Topics: Regular Features |
August 8th, 2005 at 8:28 am
the two great exports of Victorian England were football and cricket.
On most ocassions football was the superior product however when you get TESTS like the one just finished at Egbaston cricket rises to the top.
This test had almost everything except funnily enough a century on a batsman wicket.
The Poms desrved to win and for cricket’s sake needed to win.
I liked it and my boys liked it.
I am looking forward to the next three tests.
August 8th, 2005 at 10:01 am
I’m not sure if the Poms did deserve to win… I mean you’ve got Kasper out there, who walks across his stumps with every delivery just begging to be hit on the pads with a straight one, yet Harmison and Flintoff kept bowling short… Very odd.
August 8th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Would we have won if McGrath had been there?
There would have been fewer runs to chase, but he wouldn’t have survived 5 minutes against Harmison and Flintoff reverse swinging at 140+ kph.
August 8th, 2005 at 11:07 am
If the poms didn’t win this test they would not have beaten the aussies for the next 8 years. Just before play they lose McGrath (arguable as the best player in world cricket). England bat on an outstanding wicket. Then it rains. Would like to give credit where it is due however. The poms stuck it out and REALLY needed to win. I pose the question, do you think if the roles were reversed the poms would have had a chance?
In the words of Macaulay Culkin….. I don’t think so!
August 8th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Can I recommend Pamela Bone’s piece on Mulsim feminism in today’s Melbourne “Age”.
After treading all over her own best intentions and the better angels of her nature in recent efforts to say what she meant to say, this moring she got it right.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/pamela-bone/the-bravest-women-in-the-world/2005/08/07/1123353210652.html
August 8th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
The issue of media diversity is, as ever, vital. The front page yarn in today’s Australian makes it clear that the media owners and the Howard government will soon be making a very cosy deal indeed.
Australia already has the most tightly controlled media in the Western world and it’s about to get worse.
Read on: http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-diversity-indeed.html
August 8th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Interesting that in today’s papers General Cosgrove(Retired),says that forces should be withdrawn from Iraq in the near future,to avoid provoking insurgent retaliation,as he says that the Coalition presence there does just that !. What a shock for Howard.! Will Cosgrove get a ticking off.? What all the world knows,is still unknown to a least 3 men,Bush,Blair and Howard ,who apparently believe that the muslim insurgency there and elsewhere is because they don’t like our Constitution ,or our voting systems,or Reality televison(especially Big Brother!).Giving 80 years of western meddling in the afairs of the Arab world from the Balfour declaration in 1918. onwards,it’s not rocket science to come to this conclusion,but full marks to Cosgrove anyway.
August 8th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
I pointed out the sad death of John Garang, leader of the SPLM in last Monday’s message board, and the potential effects on Sudanese peace, but everyone was more focused on other topics. Now that riots have broken out all over Sudan, this is the crucial point where the international community must keep its eye on the ball.
August 8th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Actually, Australian forces should be deployed in various key points within the continental USA, in place of US troops. This would have the following benefits:-
- Less trouble with separate commands in Iraq, using the freed up US troops within a unitary command structure.
- Less high profile for Australia (the USA won’t be any worse off from increased exposure - they already got that).
- More of a “we don’t want to hurt each other, now do we?” grip on the US alliance
That last means, less trouble from US troops here (it gets under-reported, and they always get away with it), and more guarantee that the USA won’t leave us in the lurch if it ever comes to the crunch. Come on, would you really trust them that way, now you’ve seen the fall of Saigon?
August 8th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Its still quite embarassing, as always, to lose to England - whatever the circumstances may be. The worst thing about close games is that members of the losing team will beat themselves up over the if onlys.
August 8th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
.
. I also posted the following at the web blog on Libertarian.org.au
.
.
With starvation once again stalking parts of Africa there has been a lot of discussion about aid for Africa and the plight of some of the worlds poorest people. The usual culprits that commentators nominate as the cause of this suffering are:-
1. Western greed and indifference.
2. Corrupt governments in the impoverished nations.
3. A lack of property rights in the impoverished nations.
In my own view each of these has a small part to play. However there are more fundamental problems in these countries than just corruption or a lack of property rights. The nations in question invariable have fiscal policies that make any form of sophisticated domestic trade substantially impossible. Whilst people in these nations may wish to specialise, lift their productivity and trade with their neighbour from the next village their own risk and reward situation ensures that they generally don’t. Mostly people in these nations either work for the government or stick with a subsistent self reliant existence that is highly inefficient.
A relevant case in point is Niger. Each night we see their kids starving on the evening news.
Jude Wanniski is an American political commentator who has been commenting on the tax systems in Africa for some time now. He commented some time ago on the situation in Ethiopia. More recently he cited some facts about Niger. I have relied on an article by him to derive some of the following statistics.
In Australia you have to earn about A$1800 per week before they tax you at 50 cents in the dollar. In Niger you hit this level of taxation as soon as you earn more than A$16 per week. And in Niger their GST is nearly double ours.
Their kids are starving to death on our TVs and their government wants to take half their income, and charge them nearly 20% any time they go shopping.
What has been so often missed in the rhetoric about free trade is that trade is not just between nations. It is something that occurs inside a country between individuals and households. And taxation is nothing more than a domestic tariff on inter-household trade. Niger and many other impoverished nations have destroyed their domestic economy with an excess of domestic tariffs.
Whilst it would be easy to blame such policies on inept governments in the impoverished nation this does would tell the full story. A lot of these nations due to past mistakes are effectively being administered by the IMF. The IMF dictates their economic policy.
When the IMF takes over its usual remedy is:-
a) Austerity (i.e. tax hikes)
b) Currency devaluation (i.e. inflation)
Both of which are poison for any economy.
Things obviously need to change. But how? If we are to give aid or loans to these nations it needs to be made contingent on serious reductions in taxation. Certainly such a reform priority is more important for these nations than things like privatisation or government reform. And obviously we need to change the IMF or abolish it.
http://www.wanniski.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=4544
August 8th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Steve Edwards, well said about Mr Garang. There was a good bio and summary of Mr Garang and the issue in Sudan provided by the Economist. See the link below
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4245742
August 8th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1072872,00.html
Time on line’s coolest blogs. Was collecting the lawyer one for my daughter but these two are quite a laugh
Eavesdropping
Overheard in New York
http://www.overheardinnewyork.com
Amusing verbatim accounts of stuff people say to each other in public. Anybody can submit; just email your (brief) transcript to the editors for consideration. Overheardintheoffice.com is equally hilarious. Warning: on both sites, some material is not suitable for children, and profanity, stupidity or bigotry is generally kept intact.
August 8th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
sorry,
http://overheardintheoffice.com/
August 9th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Any of those from NSW know what the Dr Suman Sood trial is about. Best I can tell she was raided in 2001 re medicare fraud, 96 charges in Feb 2005 for which she has been convicted. Appears to be some argument about the necessity to charge by doctors for late term abortions in the way she does. Also is alarming to read her being described as an “abortionist”. Now it would appear she is being charged with manslaughter for the death of a foetus, as a foetus was aborted alive. Is it the case that foetus’s have legal standing now as persons?
There seems to be attempts to tie the issue to Abbott, even though she was first raided in 2001 and manslaughter charges would be a state matter. Not defending Abbott, he has blown it for me, but wouldn’t like a critical issue for women to become merely a political football for male politicians and the commentariat.
August 10th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
On a lighter note, check out this web site, and play the rock version of the current anthem.
http://www.hymn.ru/index-en.html
August 10th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Considering that Japan has just been taken to an election over a privatisation, perhaps a discussion on the merits of privatising Japan Post would be worthwhile, Professor.
August 10th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
I’m planing on tackling this, when I get some time.
August 11th, 2005 at 8:41 am
The Federal Government is considering admitting guest workers fro mthe Pacific Island states for jobs such as fruit-picking.
With the Australian economy probably close to full employment and the need to develop sustainable income streams for the Pacific states to reduce their dependancy on aid, I’m cautiously in favor of the proposal.
There are, of course, a number of issues that need to be worked through:
1. security issues - I believe Fiji has a muslim minority amongst its Indian population.
2. Protection of workers from exploitation
3. Prevent guest workers being used to erode the pay and conditions of Australian workers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1434870.htm
August 11th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
When you put “close to full employment”, you are of necessity using the modern definition as modified by bureaucrats and politicians, right?
August 11th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Canada has been at it for some time.
The Commonwealth Caribbean (1966) and Mexican (1974) Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) admits foreign workers for seasonal employment on Canadian farms, primarily in Ontario and Quebec, but also six other provinces. The SAWP has allowed Canadian farmers to import foreign workers for up to eight months a year from the Caribbean since 1966, and from Mexico since 1974, and in 2002, some 10,700 Mexicans and 7,800 Caribbean workers were admitted.
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=897_0_4_0
Mexico is also seeking to expand guest worker programs in the United States and Japan.
August 11th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Victorian Julian McGauran, the Nationals’ whip in the Senate, was caught on parliament’s video cameras flipping his index finger at the Opposition side of the Senate, following a narrow vote.
A number of school children were in the public gallery when Senator McGauran made the gesture
Senator McGauran’s behaviour was referred to the president by Australian Greens senator Bob Brown, who is seeking a privileges committee inquiry into the incident.
He said Senator McGauran should be stripped of his role as Nationals whip and disciplined by Prime Minister John Howard.
“The question has to be asked - if very stern disciplinary action is not taken against obnoxious action by this senator, then what is allowable in the new senate with the government majority?
“It was a disgusting display of arrogance against the chamber and against our democratic system.”
If the kids were offended then they would have to recognise the gesture!
If this is an example of the issues of importance that Brown will be pursuing as a demonstration of the problems Australian democracy has with another Upper House either having a government majority or no Upper House then we may all sleep peacefully.
August 11th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Brown’s hissy fit isn’t the first time trivialities have excited opposition politicians.
Remember the blue-tinged seizures when Paul Keating actually touched HM Queen Elizabeth of Australia?
As for McGauran’s finger, he either bwdlerised the gesture or betrayed a secret about his sexual inexperience.
August 12th, 2005 at 9:05 am
PML,
There are quite valid reasosn for assuming that the level of frictional (as opposed to structural) unemployment has increased.
August 12th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Ros and Katz,
If McGauran’s performance was a one-off I would tend to agree with you. But it is not one-off. It is part of a syndrome of anti-democratic incivility on the part of the present government and its supporters, two examples of which include:
* the abusive descriptions of Barnaby Joyce by Bill Heffernan and Wilson Tuckey;
* the following excerpt from an editorial in today’s Australian:
“SENATORS customarily sit in silence while new members of the upper house delivery their inaugural address. But Wednesday’s maiden speeches by Family First’s Steve Fielding and Australian Green’s Christine Milne should be the last times they are accorded that courtesy by their colleagues.”
In other words, elected parliamentarians who disagree with the Howard/Murdoch press line should be denied the right to a courteous and orderly hearing in the House, and their positions should be met with abuse and bullying rather than reasoned argument.
I may have read more disgraceful comments in a newspaper editorial, but I can’t remember when.
Again, this sort of thing would be less worrying if it was simply gesture politics disconnected from substantive changes in our political system. But it is occurring in tandem with Coalition control of the Senate leading to nobbling of Question Time and the Committee system, and erosion of political and civil liberties dating back to the Magna Carta on the pretext of defending our right to life (which, it is claimed, justifies compromising all other liberties) against terrorism.
August 12th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
As it happened, I listened to the Senate on Wednesday last.
To be fair to the Coalition, the Presiding Officer (I missed their name) did a pretty good and impartial job of maintaining order.
I was struck by the disappointing level of all three of the maiden speeches delivered that day.
August 12th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
IG, please clarify. Isn’t your earlier remark consistent with levels of employment increasing, not unemployment? Did you have finger trouble on the second post there?
Of course, I am more cynical about the structural stuff, the stuff that doesn’t respond to straightforward lever pulling. I can readily believe that those levers have delivered about as much as they can - but that’s not the same thing as addressing the real human problem.
August 12th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Frictional unemployment is unemployment which arises when, for example, new entrants first enter the workforce, people leave an existing job voluntarily without having a new job lined up or when people re-enter the workforce (e.g. mothers returning ot the workforce after maternity leave; people returning to Australia after extended stays overseas).
As people’s wealth increases and as specialisation in the workforce increases, people tend to spend longer looking for a job that suits them.
If I wanted work stuffing letter-boxes I could probably get a job tomorrow; if I wanted to go back to my old profession of environmental economics it’d take considerably longer.
August 12th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
No, I know what frictional unemployment is. I meant, did you mean EMployment or UNemployment in that reply? It seems to make more sense if you meant to say that frictional unemployment was falling, not rising. That is, it seems more consistent with your earlier reply.