Weekend Reflections is on again. Please comment on any topic of interest (civilised discussion and no coarse language, please). Feel free to put in contributions more lengthy than for the Monday Message Board or standard comments.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Israel’s involvement in the Iraq war remains murky, though central. A recent article explains more:
http://antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com/2006/02/differing-realities.html
Peddling another conspiracy theory again Antony?
WBW,
The only thing that would surprie me, is if Israel wasn’t involved.
And more on how “Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq’s oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below preinvasion values” at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09hearing.html
I’m pretty sure that the coalition didn’t go into Iraq to improve the sewer, water and electricity systems. The oil will take awhile, but it will be back up to pre-1990 levels. Of course, historically Iraq hasn’t been a big US supplier of oil anyway.
That is the point, isn’t it? Having gone into Iraq, blown up bits of it, and taken over the government, the Coalition then had to do government-type things.
Supplying electricity seems to be the main symbol of a stable civil society, because it is so obviously missing or erratic.
That dotten line between the coalition and the Iraqi hearts and minds is a plumbing diagram.
You need to get supplying electricity into perspective and stop blaming it on the lack of totalitarianism
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18116441-1246,00.html?from=rss
Perhaps it gets quite hot in Iraq too.
We South Aussies can all be relaxed and comfortable now that our premier is on the ball http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18120520-1246,00.html
I think!!!
You know, with all this sort of crap in Iraq still going on, how can there be so many (fewer but still loud) apologists and liers happy to keep on repeating and justifying the same old bull?
All it does is to show us the contempt they have for the normal punter and for people like you and me, especially when they are in the position to do something about it. Ther might even be an interesting economic argument behind this, as they have no cost to pay for any of this, basically it’s not even part of their calculations. Almost like externalities…
Ultimatetly, Honesty, simplicity and straight arguments go a long way to shred the fraudulent masks of the media and our pollies. Hey, for the braves souls it might even win them votes. In these times of indistingishable sheep and zombies, Differentiation goes a long way. It might be the last hope for the Nationals.
I guess all this is becoming a bigger factor with the AWB scandal and more independents getting elected…
But as for the “heads of state”, this cartoon puts it perfectly:
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1226
Given the popularity of the recent threads on global warming, I think that it would be great if JQ lead a discussion on the economics (and technology) of alternate energy sources (ie non-fossil fuel).
I accept that the cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol are probably low (as suggested by JQ) however the benefits also seem to be very, very low. I am still waiting for JQ to address this latter issue which he previously said he would do at some future date (yet to be advised).
“That is the point, isn’t it? Having gone into Iraq, blown up bits of it, and taken over the government, the Coalition then had to do government-type things. ”
for some temporary period, yes. Forever? No.
“That dotten line between the coalition and the Iraqi hearts and minds is a plumbing diagram. ”
I’ve never been a big believer in the hearts and minds theory. Certainly winning hearts and minds wasn’t the point of the allied action against Germany and Japan. Their hearts and minds are their own.
I wonder if they believe the crap they spew or if they know they’re full of it, but don’t care as the end justifies the means…
Some, like avaroo, are (or behave) like they’re just young punks in need of a good kick where the sun don’t shine. Some others might actually know what they’re doing: Lying.
Anyway, this is what I was listening to: a great independent and self-published Aussie group The WAiFS.
If the shoe fits this one’s for you. Either way enjoy it! 🙂
I don’t see much evidence that the Howard industrial relations reforms will register in the voters consciousness at the next election. Any heat that this issue generated seems to have disipated rather quickly. Howard bounced back in the polls and politically all seems to be as it was before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_industrial_relations_legislation%2C_2005
Careful Terje,
As more liers are busted, hope you haven’t been doing any editing to those articles, hehe 😉
Carlos,
I have not done a lot of editing on the article about the 2005 industrial relations legislation. However if you backtrack to the very earliest version of the article you will see that I did kick the ball off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_industrial_relations_legislation%2C_2005&oldid=18665758
Regards,
Terje.
The political bite of the IR changes will be a while coming. For now it’s jsut a bit of legislation, something that happened ages ago, like, before christmas. It’s when a few horror stories start popping up that it may start to resonate. And we’ll see how far the Unions run with it at the next election (trusting the ALP to run some totally useless campaign that misses the point entirely).
I agree with Wilful. The IR issue won’t gain impetus again until the horror stories start occurring, like mums and dads with kids and mortgages being sacked for petty reasons or no reason at all.
Or, maybe, the ACTU was wrong and it was all a scare campaign. It could end up being a plus for th egovernment at the next election. Just a thought.
I’ve found it hard to trust Wikipedia after sitting behind a guy using his laptop at a major computing conference, who was alternating between writing a paper and writing a wikipedia entry. He was cut-and-pasting in both directions, so I can only presume he was generating the wiki text to provide support for his academic paper, at the same time as promoting his own ideas via wikipedia.
Do you mean to say that before the law was changed this had never happened?
Do you mean just so the employer can get a kick out of it?
Re Wikipedia
In broad terms information can be categorised under three headings:
uncontested
contested
specialised or privileged
Wikipedia has trouble with the latter two categories.
1. Edit wars break out over hotly contested issues. Regular enyclopedias evade this problem by blandness.
2. Spin doctoring infects potted bios of briefly noteworthy persons, such as MPs, etc. Wikipedia is uniquely prone to this problem because it is open and live.
The secret for users is to know what kind of entry you are reading. I’d have no problem directing my child to Wiki’s entry on the Solar System.
But anyone who treats Wiki as authoritative on the other categories exhibits naivete that should be punished.
Nevertheless even in these instances Wiki serves an excellent function as a starting point for further research.
Terje, I’m sure you’re a responsible, nay a wonderful employer, and the vast majority of small and medium business owners consider their staff to be their main asset. Unfortunately, and this is the reason for most regulation, there are a segment of utter utter arseholes out there who are employing people, and not breaking any laws, but exploiting them to their full advantage. They may even think that they’re morally justified, that employees can ‘just go elsewhere’ or should just get out there and start their own business. These people don’t believe in society, or cooperation, or cohesion or a virtuous circle of investment, they’re in many ways parasites on society. And the host body has just had it’s immune system weakened.
That’s not the point, the point is a) whether the frequency and severity of these will increase, and b) whether the unions will manage to capitalise on a perception of an increase.
QUOTE: Unfortunately, and this is the reason for most regulation, there are a segment of utter utter arseholes out there who are employing people, and not breaking any laws, but exploiting them to their full advantage.
RESPONSE:-
You may be right. There could be some utter, utter arseholes out there employing people.
You have some interesting logic when you say that the reason for regulations is because some people (who don’t break laws) are not nice. If they are being nasty without breaking the law then perhaps the regulations are a waste of space. Perhaps civility can not be mandated through laws.
The only real reforms brought in by Howard relate to:-
1. How much you can pay people.
2. Whether you can sack people.
Neither of these really relate to whether you are a nice employer or a nasty one. I suspect that you could pay people well, never sack anybody and still manage to make yourself very unpopular with the workers.
If we care about workers well being (which I do) then we need to create an economic enviroment that ensures that workers have lots of real alternatives. We need a nation that is friendly to capital formation because when the capital to labour ratio is high jobs become plentiful and wages rise.
The logic is fine, though maybe not clear. The bad employers will skate as close to the edge of the law as permissible. Howard extends the boundaries, they skate further away from the ‘social contract’ and idea that we are all in this together as a community, not just an assemblage of competing individuals.
Civility is always mandated through laws, at least at the last resort.
I fully agree with your final paragraph. But I fully disagree with the IR changes – they make the workforce ‘more flexible’ when it was already plenty flexible enough. I know I’ll be fine, I’m a skilled worker with a good employer, it’s the part time women doing menial service work (which someone has got to do) that I’m concerned for.
Terje, you make an interesting point that you could pay people well, never sack anyone ans still be quite unpopular. By the same token, you could pay people will, sack people frequently and still be a popular employer. Some of the toughest people to work for personally, pay some of the biggest bucks. Someone like Donald Trump cannot be easy to work for, he’s terribly demanding of his people time-wise and he’s rather uncouth to boot. Yet people line up for the chance to work for him. You can always find people to work for you if you pay enough.
Your suggestion that ensuring that the public have enough choice in employers is exactly on target. Because you cannot legislate civility. All you can do is make it tough for uncivil employers to find people because there’s always someplace else people can choose to work.
avaroo, a lot more can be done to keep things civil.
“Name-and-shame” campaigns that have ruined corporate reputations are perhaps one of the most effective ways. It reinforces the “cost” of being “uncivil” to your worforce, while rewarding the responsible employers.
Unfortunately, I know a lot of employers only care about things they can cost. Yet, those same employers are quite happy with 15-20%+ yearly turnover rates in staff, plus ongoing recruitment and ad campaigns that costs them a fortune…
So, if you believe the cappy TV hype, do go and get a job with Donald Trump. Didn’t he just go bankrupt? again?
Wilful said:-
Avaroo said:-
It should be clear that I am closer to Avaroo on this issue of civility and law than I am to Wilful. However I think there is some truth in both sentiments.
If you have no rules then you may get a collapse in some forms of civility. However there is a limit to what rules can be policed and to the merits of doing so.
For instance I think that it is civil to say “thankyou” and “please” and to hear somebody out when they have a view, rather than talk over the top of them. It does not mean that I always do these things however I generally appreciate these things from others and endeavour to do them myself. Would a law help? I would say that a law would be counter productive. Giving people a gesture or the grace of good listening is civil because it comes voluntarily. If people got a smack every time they failed to say please I would start to resent the gesture.
Civility and civil society is in my view those things given through goodwill. Like charity it is no longer given through goodwill once it becomes mandatory. I believe that the more you compell such things then the less goodwill you get. Certainly in the longer term.
Obviously there are some forms of behaviour where a law makes sence. For instance I think it should be illegal to hit strangers in the street (as opposed to opponents in the boxing ring). Not because I think that without the law we would all feel inclined to hit strangers. But rather because when people are hit they have a right to defend themselves and the state is a reasonable instrument to employ in the process of self defense.
So if your boss never says please or thankyou, does not pay you enough and will never listen to your concerns then I would suggest you look for another job. However if your boss hits you then I would call the police.
Any notion that a worker is entirely dependent on a particular employer and can’t find another job is as fanciful as the notion that an employer is entirely dependent on a particular worker and can’t find another employee. People (workers and employers) may convince themselves of their dependence on others or their indespensible nature but it is merely delusion.
There seems to be no mention yet of arsehole employees, nor of those employees who are not very nice people, and who do their level best to sabotage their place of employment in every subtle manner possible. This is far more widespread than are arsehole employers.
SATP,
Don’t forget – there are no such employees, or at least only those that there employers have turned into nasty, time wasting people, so it really is the fault of the employer if someone is wasting alot of their time posting comments to a blog…
Hmmm, maybe you are on to something there.