Heath Gibson responds to my observation that, per bit transmitted, SMS is about 100 000 times as expensive as Internet or voice telephony. As he says, cost per KB isn’t everything. If you don’t have easy access to email, don’t have or want to use a home phone, only want to transmit a little bit of info and don’t need a reply (which doubles the cost relative to a voice call), SMS looks pretty good. But how can a niche like this account for 75 million messages a month?

The Telstra publicity Heath links to reveals the answer. Mum and Dad are paying the bill

Salon enters the world of blogging with a commercial service (first month free!). Given that the redoubtable Dave Winer is involved, it might provide some competition for blogger/blogspot and perhaps a useful revenue source for the Internet’s best magazine .

Robert Gottliebsen writes that Recession in the US appears almost certain. My prediction in January that,

‘Despite the collapse of the Internet bubble, the state of the corporate sector remains dire. Bloated and overpaid management are the rule rather than the exception. More importantly, the corruption of Wall Street analysts and major accounting firms alike means that profit-and-loss statements and projections are now virtually worthless. It will take at least another year of recession or zero growth before this mess is cleaned up. ‘

was not looking too good after the strong growth (annual rate of 5 per cent!) in the first quarter. But both the analysis and the prediction now look over-optimistic, if anything.

Watch this space for an analysis of some of the really scary scenarios for the next few years

Ross Gittins says: The economic dog has bitten its tail – and we are all hurting. A great column showing the difference between rational economics and ‘economic rationalism’. For more on this theme, take a look here

Paul Krugman writes on THE RHINOCEROS EFFECT I’ve quoted the piece in full (it’s short and sharp) but it’s worth following the link to visit his site. Now read on:

I don’t know how many people have read or seen Eugene Ionesco’s?? Rhinoceros , a parable about conformity and the authoritarian impluse. It tells of a town in which people begin turning, one by one, into rhinoceri – yet few are willing to acknowledge what’s happening. The most memorable scene is one in which the hero’s friend (famously played by Zero Mostel) begins making excuses for his neighbors – maybe it’s not so bad to be a rhinoceros, after all – and, as we watch, turns into a rhinoceros himself.

What reminded me of the play was a visit to my old publication? Slate .? I’ve pretty much restricted my blog reading to? Brad DeLong? and? Josh Marshall? – but I couldn’t help noticing that Zero Mostel had nothing on Mickey Kaus.

Meanwhile, some of us refuse to ignore the rhinoceri running the country.

Tim Dunlop and Gareth Parker have been debating whether blogs should have long posts (like the one below) or short ones with links to the relevant material. Rob Corr has another approach, giving the first para and a “Continue …” link. I don’t think there is likely to be one best way, but I’d be interested to hear people’s views about what they’d prefer for this blog.

I got some interesting comments on mentioning my piece on Bush, notably from Tim Dunlop and, in email, from Jeff Hauser so I thought I’d post the whole thing:

One of the striking features of the aftermath of September 11 in the United States has been the absence of any significant upsurge in anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiment. This contrasts sharply with the success of anti-immigrant parties elsewhere in the developed world.
American participants in the continuing ‘culture war’ between the US and Europe have been quick to seize on this point as proof of American cultural superiority. But even a cursory look at recent history shows that America is no more immune to racism than any other country. Contrary to the quasi-Marxist view that individuals make no significant difference to historical developments, the best explanation is one that gives a lot of personal credit to George W. Bush.
Not all aspects of Bush’s performance in office are creditable. Much of his campaign platform has turned out to be bogus. He ran as a self-made businessman, but owed his success to a combination of politically-motivated favours and dubious deals. His ‘compassionate conservativism’ has shown more compassion for the very rich than anyone else. But, despite campaign mis-steps like his appearance at the separatist Bob Jones university, Bush’s commitment to ethnic diversity and mutual tolerance appears to be quite genuine.
The Bush Cabinet includes two blacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as Hispanic Commerce Secretary Mel Martinez. Bush himself speaks Spanish well enough to take questions on the campaign trail. (There is, inevitably, dispute over whether his Spanish is fluent, or merely adequate, but then, there is a similar dispute about his English).
All this might be regarded as tokenism, the product of political calculation. The tradition of assigning Cabinet and other positions to members of electorally powerful groups is as old as democracy itself. And with millions of Spanish-speaking voters to be won, a few phrases in a second language are not much of a price to pay.
But the fact is that the US Republican party has generally made the opposite calculation, preferring in the immortal words of Pat Buchanan (then an advisor to Richard Nixon) to “cut … the country in half” in the belief that they would be “left with the larger half”. The fruits of this policy of “positive polarisation” may be seen in the Republican delegation to Congress. Out of 250 or so members, only one is black (JC Watts of Oklahoma), and he has announced his retirement, largely because of disillusionment with his Republican colleagues.
Similarly, while Bush pitched for the votes of Spanish-speaking immigrants, fellow-Republicans like Pete Wilson, former governor of California, ran hard on border protection and preservation of the status of English as the dominant language. Wilson’s successful campaign in 1994 was based on ads showing grainy video footage of ‘illegals’ crossing the Mexican border, with the voiceover, “They keep coming.” Wilson hoped to ride anti-immigrant sentiment all the way to the White House in 2000, but, thankfully failed.
Leadership is a much-abused word. But the fact is that racism and prejudice are issues on which leadership, or the lack of it, can make a lot of difference. In most countries, hard-core racists make up a small part of the population, perhaps 10 per cent. At the opposite pole, perhaps 20 per cent of the population is consistently opposed to racism. Between these poles, most people basically agree with the idea of a multicultural and discrimination-free society, but are nonetheless prone to varying degrees of prejudice about other people who look different, speak differently and have different religious beliefs and cultural practices.
The current world situation is one in which appeals to such prejudice can yield significant political payoffs, at least in the short run. For a variety of reasons, this kind of appeal is easier for parties of the political right. The leaders of these parties are therefore faced with the temptation of making such appeals themselves, or of colluding with racist political forces. Sadly, the majority have succumbed. Apart from Bush, Jacques Chirac in France is the only significant right-wing leader to stand firmly against collaboration with racism. Many on the left have either failed to take a firm stand on these issues, or capitulated completely by adopting ‘me-too’ or ‘small target’ positions.
Some aspects of the Bush administration’s response to September 11, such as its unilateral approach to international action, and the cavalier treatment of civil liberties have been less than constructive. But in this crucial respect, Bush has set an example of leadership that others could well follow.

Tim Colebatch reminds us of Australia’s poor performance on this vital issue and says, Someone should explain why good people are jobless

Bankruptcy at WorldCom Is the Largest in U.S. History. Enough said.

In a scathing discussion of the State Liberal parties, Chris Textor writes:
“They [the Labor state Premiers and Chief Ministers] tend to be level-headed, well-spoken leaders rather than the wretched socialist handbags of Federal Labor, who’s every word and policy speech sounds like they were cobbled together from the How to be an ideologically correct leftie manual.”
Is this Kim Beazley and Simon Crean we’re talking about? I agree that Federal Labor is an awful mess, but “socialist?”