I’ve been away at the annual Seiyushin karate camp, and have returned to find my broadband connection not working, and my fallback dialup options plagued with difficulties. So you’ll have to provide the content yourselves, just for the moment.
You are invited to post your thoughts on any topic. I’m still planning a May Day post on labour issues, but I’d be interested in your thoughts. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
John Quiggin 
I thought I’d ask what you, as a Karate practicioner, think of Tae Kwon Do? I’ve just signed my 8 year old up for a year, so it’s already too late, but I would be interested in your opinions.
Thinking of martial arts in general, did you have any problem with your boy (Boys? I’m not sure) “practicing” on friends in the playground? I know this is a kneejerk response by all mums and I am aware the Martial Arts instructors do address this. But I’d be interested in any personal experiences.
One word, humbly said at this moment of Qld sensitivity: Tahs.
I don’t really have enough info to make an assessment of Tae Kwon Do, Helen. Those at our dojo who do tend to be dismissive, but we would say that, wouldn’t we.
My only problem with my son’s karate is that he likes to practice on me. AFAIK, he’s never been in a fistfight.
So, the Australian does a little poll and shows that Howard is preferred to Costello as leader. No surprise. To make a story out of it is over the top. Is it conceivable that a deputy (and a treasurer) would ever come in ahead of the leader (and Prime Minister). I doubt it! It’s absurd focus on ‘preferred PM’ or similar measures of the PM’s popularity. The PM has far greater positive exposure and nearly always comes out ahead.
To completely change topic: on the bus this morning I was reading someone’s class notes over their shoulder. To quote from the course notes, “Critical path tasks have zero slack unless project-slack has been introduced and should therefore be prioritized ahead of non-critical path tasks to achieve event finalization within project time parameters.” I take this to mean, ‘Do important things first.’ I reckon that there is a process of making the commonsense into areas of academic study because so many people enrol in tertiary education now.
John, I’d be interested to hear your throughts on enterprise bargaining versus conciliation and arbitration, since this seems such a dead issue (with both the ACTU and ALP favouring enterprise-based bargaining).
Some random thoughts off the top of my head.
Carrot and stick approaches to employment and unemployment are essentially short term fixes. Many of us spend our lives within a short term fix, and suffer the consequences, principally relating to extinction of intrinsic motivation.
Employment does not make the best use of human resources while it is based on the authoritarian pretext that people must be stamped into one mould or the other, and the inherited and acquired advantage of social class must prevail.
Unemployment can be positive, provided the opportunity inherent in it, is taken.
“So, the Australian does a little poll and shows that Howard is preferred to Costello as leader. No surprise. To make a story out of it is over the top.”
And for scraping the bottom we have http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=national&category=general%20news&story_id=391890&y=2005&m=5
“She suggested the Prime Minister eat more orange vegetables such as carrot and sweet potato, as well as drinking green tea.”
Take that Johnny!
Great article observa. It really does scrape the bottom.
Pretty bad I agree– but the absolute bottom of the barrel is the exclusive domain of ACA. Look at this Media Watch transcript. Not only relying on blatant chequebook journalism to get the Bali 9 story – that’s the kind of behaviour we’ve come to expect, unfortunately – but provoking the unfortunate young dweebs to condemn themselves by asking loaded questions. Disgusting.
Yes, they and their “pathetically stupid family members� are their own worst enemies, but the Packer crowd shouldn’t be let off the hook on that score.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1357607.htm
(Via Northcote Knob).
I am new to the world of blogging – your site is the second I’ve ever visited. What has immediately struck me is that people have so much time to write so much (and with so much venom)!
I’m interested to see that your ‘by-line’ says “from a social democratic perspective”.
I am curious to know what a “social democratic” perspective is.
Is it different to a “democratic” perspective?
yeah, it’s a social democratic perspective. try a little googling, if you’re that dumb. welcome to the blogosphere Graeme.
I agree with your comments on ACA etc. However, the so-called quality media (ABC, Herald etc) are not that far of in sinking to their depths. Phillip Adams, while more educated and more willing to give opposing views a voice, is every bit as bigoted as Miranda Devine. Away from the media its strikes me that the arts have also descended into radical conformity. Peter Garrett interviewing David Suzuki at the Sydney book festival etc – how boring predictable can one get. I wait breathlessly for next years fair with Noam Chomsky interviewing Michael Moore.
Those are large as life questions Graeme and for the answers and sometimes venom, you’ll have to stick around the joint. Some of us schtick about more than others you’ll find, although even the gentler souls can have their subtle mood swings. A question of flavour perhaps?
There’s more to it than “do important things first”. The technique is about finding out what’s importnat, and naturally it has its own notation and jargon. Once you’ve done the figuring out, those rather specic uses of “slack” etc. are about telling you how to read off what’s important from among all the notation/jargon that helped make the workings easier.
That;s where jargon stops being useful, because of the temptation to report in the same language – but it was a tool for work, not for communication.
Marshall realised this when he told people to use mathematics and graphs and so on in their work, but then burn it and write it up in plain language. That’s a different skill, one I can only get right if I go away and come back later so I can reread my own drafts with a slightly fresher eye. It’s hard to self edit.
Say Prof Quiggin,
Have you ever seen Ultimate Fighting Championships? (no holds barred, hardly any rules, world competition based in US)
If you want to get a reasonable comparison between the martial arts, watch series one through five. You can get it at any video store.
The karate guys, sorry to say, don’t do so well. However, Tae Kwon Do was basically the worst. The top fighters tended to be versatile boxer/wrestlers, and “shootfighters”. Kicking, it seems, doesn’t get you very far if you can’t grapple.
There was a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu fighter who won almost every tournament he contested due to his superior grappling skills.
Graeme don’t mind CS he thinks eric Clapton was a fast guitarist!
A social democraticview usually involves believing the State should be involved directly in the economy in various areas deemed to be essential 9(telephones, water etal) that economic liberals would rather want in the private sector.
They also downplay the need for ongoing economic reform with regard to the micro-economy labour market deregualtion being the stand-out here.
They also usually suport the ALP here or ‘centre-left’ parties O/S.
This is a high quality blog except for those with greek names so watch out.
If you want insults google tim Blair!!
Tae Kwon Do is a *sport* (in the Olympic Games). It is preferable to boxing and full-contact karate because it does not involve blows to the head (you can kick to the head, but it takes such a long time for a foot to get up that far that it’s easy to get out of the way. Punches to the head are forbidden). It’s lack of success in utlimate fighting is very predictable but – on its own terms – irrelevant. It is neither a means of self-defence nor a street-fighting technique. Now, what does anyone want to learn a martial art for? Obviously fitness and fun; on these TKD scores well. Some people want to learn self-defence, but the need to learn self-defence is small (too little risk to be worth paying much). And there is absolutely no reason to learn street-fighting (a good method of self-defence gives you time to escape, not the means to knock out a trained fighter).
RE MB’s suggested piece on EB/Arbitration. I’d suggest a more timely discussion might be about:minimum wage setting issues; individual contracts; and the use of enterprise bargaining to drive down labour costs.
On the Min Wage issue, i understand that there is good evidence to rebut the claims of conservatives and neo liberals that increases always have a negative effect on emeployment, but what about the positive arguments ? Why should there be any increase at the bottom, if the primary method for adjusting wages are determined to be based on enterprise or individual productivity ? Isn’t it necessary for those of us who advocate minimum wage increases to invoke more basic social justice arguments ? And if so, how do we square them with other aspects of the orthodox ir agenda of EB etc?
Graeme, if you thought it was actually a arrogant and nasty comment I think you are entitled. And then the implication that its a joke! welcome!
But if you feel challenged by the thought of conversation with a mob of middle class males very confident of their intellectual quality and breadth hold your breath and go again
Too good an opening to miss.
this has been a very interesting and elightening thread for me – the things you learn on the Internet!
I have recently got into the whole gym/weights thing and my next step is to learn one of self-defence arts and I’m still deciding which – there are a range of outlets near where I live ranging from various varieties of kung fu classes to karate to Boxing Works to even ninjitsu. they all sound fun.
Jason – if you want to tear people to pieces, learn boxing and grappling (Judo is fine), but you should at least bench your own weight.
If you want to stay safe, try sprint training!
BTW, Sambo is another one worth looking at.
Was wondering if anyone had any comments on the Survey on Australia in the Economist this week. With a readership of over 1m this will presumably be one of the more internationally well read pieces on Australia.
I always found a thumb to the eye was a good form of self defence.
“Jason – if you want to tear people to pieces, learn boxing and grappling (Judo is fine), but you should at least bench your own weight.”
getting there slowly. Steve. I suppose those seated lateral press thingos don’t count because I’m close to benching my weight on those. unfortunately not yet with the barbells (which I presume is what you mean by benching) – those require ‘balance’ and I am, how would you say. unco so I’d probably crush my own windpipe if I did that unassisted – am seeing a personal trainer twice a week to learn proper technique on the more difficult itemsas well as attempting the safer machines myself.
“BTW, Sambo is another one worth looking at.”
Isn’t he a politically incorrect children’s story character?
You should move to bars or free weights as quickly as possible. You need to develop the stabiliser muscles (which doesn’t happen when working weight machines), and you might as well start now. Use low weights at first (say 40kg) and do 3 sets of, say, 20 reps. There’s no point deferring it.
Sambo is a Russian martial art that I think was perfected by the KGB. One of the Russian Sambo fighters in Ultimate Fighting took the prize, from memory.
By the by, the 40kg figure is for a single 20kg bench press bar plus two 10’s.
Isn’t it the case that the version of tae kwon do fought at the Olympics is quite Korea-specific, and that nations are restricted to entering only four competitors each? (on the basis that Korea would win every gold …)
Thank you, CS, Oberva, Homer Paxton and Ros for the – ah – encouragement.
Sophocles wouldn’t have lasted long in this environment would he!
Anyhow, I’m learning interesting things about martial arts.
I think you mean Socrates, unless you are implying that your interlocutors are a pack of drama queens.
No, I think Graeme is right. Sophocles may not have lasted long – he would have been distracted by the need to write a play on the subject. Socrates, once he learned English and how to use a keyboard, would have wiped the floor with most of us, if not us all.
I wonder what the play would have been – a comedy or a tragedy?
Thanks Katz – yes I did intend to say Socrates, as the father of gentle but hopefully useful questions and it was an unintentional slip – although if I keep this up tragedy might well be on the cards.
I was interested to see if John Quiggin thinks there is any difference between ‘social democratic’ and ‘democratic’ and, if so, what is it, and thus if so whether or not there should be any difference.
In other words if something is truly democratic does the ‘social’ become redundant?
I do not pretend to be our earnest host, but I hope I can help in some small way. Social democracy starts where conventional democracy finishes – it presupposes political democracy and makes an attempt to even up the economic sphere as well – a quick check at wikipedia is a good start.
Personally, I find most of social democracy misguided at best. My opinion, FWIW, is that government (social democrats normally rely on the government) meddling in the economy merely reduces overall production and, as a result, almost always results in a worse outcome for all but those who know how to manipulate the government.
Even though I frequently disagree with PrQ, it is always good to hear his opinion. It is enjoyable to have a debate with a fair-minded person, even if I believe them to be wrong. Most of the commenters on this site also have some interesting opinions, even if that is sometimes in the pejorative sense.
jason – as far as martial arts go you should know by now. The pen is mightier than the sword.
Graeme, an interesting question. I’d agree with Andrew’s first para and go further to say that, without a significant element of social democracy, I doubt that political democracy in the usual sense can be sustained for long.
Clearly, though, it’s possible to be a democrat, in the sense of saying that political decisions should be made democratically, while believing that particular areas of human/social activity should be excluded from democratic control.
I see you’ve had a bit of a baptism of fire, but please persist. I think you’ll find it interesting.
To add to Andrew Reynolds’ comment about Government interventions:
I don’t agree that ALL Government intervention results in loss of overall production — for example, recycling laws may increase production. Likewise, defence spending and Government R&D.
However, one thing I have observed often: Governments can have much more control over the organizations they don’t own, than over the organizations they do! This is because state-owned agencies have much better hold on the levers of power than do private companies, even large companies, and so can lobby more effectively against change (eg, Telstra in the late 1980s). And Governments can use the force of public moral suasion more effectively on private companies than on their own state enterprises.
Hello,
Just wanted to know whether you had enough time to do my 4000 word assignment on the Kyoto Protocol…
If so, email me. Cheers.
Wade.
I’d like to take the opportunity of this budget to bring out the differences between a wage subsidy like the one Costello is proposing, and the Pigovian adjustment in Professor Kim Swales’ GST offset scheme (which is not a true subsidy, unless and until the implementation method gets monetised via vouchers or something).
Costello’s system is narrowly targetted at the long term unemployed, and terminates after a brief period of re-employment. It is naturally structured to cycle the long term unemployed through brief periods of employment, churning them back into being reclassified as short term unemployed. The only exception is the extent to which employers end up investing in training the employee and prefer to keep him or her on rather than investing in training another – but that is offset by the incentives and the existence of a pool of comparatively unskilled jobs to churn people through. Another kind of stickiness is that sincere long term employers will be reluctant to take
on employees under the Costello scheme until it has been around long enough for them to have faith in it; that stickiness works against long term re-employment.
The main effect on the budget reform package is to undercut the grandfathering commitment that no existing social security beneficiaries will have their benefits cut. No, not as such – but they will be compelled to have their status churned via short term subsidised work so that they come back under lower benefits.
Now, let’s look at the Swales scheme. The main points in which it differs are that there is no outflow of funds, and while it is only revenue neutral in the short term it is budget neutral even over time, so it can be (and is) untargetted and long term with no costs incurred until the benefits start to kick in. Theoretically that could be immediately, but in practice I expect a couple of years delay while potential employers get used to it and start having faith in it (just as described for the Costello scheme). But there will be no costs during that interval, and some signs of progress, so I expect it to be practical to keep it going that long. I
also expect the first effects to show through as more apprentice hiring and fewer retrenchments/less downsizing (if indeed there is any scope remaining for that by now).
It’s easiest if I quote two letters I had published a few years ago. They don’t mention Kim Swales, since at that time I had not yet come across his parallel work.
The following is the text of a letter I had printed in the Australian Financial Review of 11.8.97, which I also have here:-
‘Tax rebate to create jobs
In his article of 6.8.97 Alan Mitchell summarises some theoretical options that were used to brief Ministers before the Cabinet meeting on unemployment. One in particular showed some possibility of results, namely lowering the minimum wage while compensating the less well off through social security and/or the tax system.
‘These options rely on reaching a new equilibrium. The practical difficulties are blindingly obvious – there’s many a slip between cup and lip, so what if other factors interfered and we got the worst combination of the intended and current situations? We might have all the unpleasant effects of minimum wages collapsing, without ever quite reaching the jam promised us for tomorrow. We might not be able to get there from here.
‘Yet there is another approach. Consider the effect of rebating employers’ own tax bills, say by $10,000 per full time employee per annum (and pro rata for part-timers). The precise figure should correspond to social security costs, including the on-costs of administration. The general tax rates would need to be higher to offset the rebates on the existing workforce, of course – but short of 100% unemployment the frighteningly high rates are merely dummy intermediate numbers for purposes of calculation, and no employer would ever pay that much. But this does imply broad-based production taxes, such as a GST or a tax on the use of commercial plant and premises.
‘In the short term such rebates would encourage employment at the same time as protecting a minimum wage corresponding to social security, with no additional cost over and above the existing hidden cost of social security. As tax rates would match present requirements the system would be revenue-neutral in the short term, and while the tax base would narrow to the extent that social security was privatised, it would only do so in exact step with reductions in the social security burden. Over time this approach would be budget-neutral and would not affect governmental planning, resources or budgets [I should have put “commitments”] in any other respect. Yet apprenticeship
schemes would become realistic, retrenchments would be less likely, and to the extent that the unemployed were taken into the workplace they would be exposed to all the opportunities they need. And, over time, structural change would still create new opportunities – only now without people having to risk being sidelined into dead-end, low wage careers.
‘With this approach you can get there from here.’
The following is the text of a letter I had printed in the Australian Financial Review of 7.11.97, which I also have here:-
‘Tax rebate on employees a better option [than negative income tax]
‘Professor Dawkins’ article on unemployment and tax reform states that “the best way to attack these problems is with a negative income tax”. Another approach uses broad based taxes on producers. If employers received rebates for all their employees, e.g. classifying them as a GST business input, there would be an incentive to hire at corresponding wage levels.
‘The only difference is where the tax falls. Yet this has three major consequences:-
‘- Negative income tax physically transfers funds. This means churning with additional compliance costs. Employee rebates have no counterflows of cash, so they are only dummy intermediate figures for purposes of calculation with no great administrative burden.
‘- Negative income tax improves employment indirectly. First, people have to accept that lifestyles are unaffected, harder with low inflation as nominal wages are “sticky”and slow to adjust. Further increases in the natural level of unemployment would offset this slow improvement. But employee rebates do not affect nominal wages and so do not need a change in expectations. The quicker response not only means employment recovers more rapidly but also means recovery can keep pace with any simultaneous damaging processes.
‘- Social security is a general cost, not falling on particular employers. This currently creates a bias towards retrenching. But employee rebates do affect particular employers, cancelling the bias. Negative income tax does not benefit employers directly, so what would happen depends on just how much of unemployed people’s willingness to work actually flows through to create jobs, and how fast. Opinion is divided on the subject.
‘Perhaps a drug cocktail attack on unemployment could combine these and other approaches.’
In a precise and specific sense, the Swales scheme is not a subsidy at all, and it is only “financed” by GST in the sense that it uses that as a carrying tax. Changes in revenue with increased employment are in fact set off against reduced social security outgoings, and it is that that is truly financing it. The problem areas seem to relate to existing previously successful rent seekers (downsizers), sovereign risk from faulty implementation, and interfaces with the wider global economy. I want to get all these studied, but so far I haven’t managed to get anybody on board with it.