I haven’t had time for a really thorough reading of the government’s Green Paper on emissions trading, let alone a full-scale response. But I thought I’d put down a few points for discussion.
Year: 2008
Weekend reflections
It’s time, a little bit late for weekend reflections. Feel free to write at greater length than for a standard comment thread. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
The litterbug argument
Over the fold my piece from yesterday’s Fin, a response to the argument that since Australia only contributes about 2 per cent of global CO2 emissions, there’s no real point in us doing anything. I’ve drawn on discussions here, so thanks to everyone who participated.
Although the article includes some allusions to the Green Paper, the deadlines involved meant that it was mostly written before the Green Paper was released, and it doesn’t deal with any of the details, on which more soon I hope.
Back on air
After a long period of deterioration, the shared server from which the blog is hosted has finally been repaired, fixing the cumulative depredations of spammers. At least for the moment, response seems to be rapid and free of 503 and similar errors. I’m looking into migration options to avoid a return to the problems that have plagued the blog intermittently for the last year or so, but this depends on getting a bit of free time. In the meantime, I’m just glad to be back on air.
Indigenous Territorians short-changed?
That’s the claim made in today’s Oz, quoting the NT Council of Social Service president Barry Hansen. The NT gets very high levels of Commonwealth Grant funding on the basis of a needs-based formula which is heavily influenced by the large proportion of indigenous people, living in remote areas that are costly to service. According to Hansen, the funding is largely spent on providing services to the wealthy (mostly white) suburbs of Darwin.
Mr Hansen pointed to the latest Commonwealth Grants Commission State Finance Inquiry working paper that showed the commission had assessed the Northern Territory Government’s expected per capita expenditure on indigenous services to be close to $218 million in 2006-07. The working paper’s assessment showed that the Northern Territory Government, whose grants from the commonwealth are not tied to the spending areas for which it is allocated, only spent $110 million.
I haven’t studied the NT accounts in detail, and I’ve only visited a few times, but I must say this is consistent with my understanding.
As an illustration, it’s worth comparing the Parliament building for the NT (pop 217 000) with the building in which the Legislative Assembly for the ACT (pop 339 000) which received self-government about the same time . The NT assembly is an imposing building. I don’t have a cost figure, but obviously it would not have been cheap. The ACT assembly meets in a low-rise office building, at least 40 years old and refurbished 15 years ago. (pics to come) It’s hard to see how the NT could have afforded its building on the basis of the local tax base, assuming that any compensation for the high cost of remote services was spent where it should have been. And what’s true of the buildings is true more generally of the capitals. While the ACT, and particularly its city centre, has got noticeably shabbier since the end of direct Commonwealth control and funding, Darwin looks like a place that is getting plenty of public expenditure.
Of course, impressions can be wrong and bloggers like Ken Parish at Club Troppo are much better-informed on the NT than I am. So I’ll follow this story with interest.
Monday Message Board
It’s time once again for the Monday Message Board. Please post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
A quick request
Can anyone tell me where (in Brisbane, or delivered here) I can buy pate campagne? Feel free to provide recipes also, though most I’ve seen are look hard or too time-consuming for me.*
* Which reminds me of a variant on an old joke.
Q:What do economists make for dinner? A: Reservations.
Weekend reflections
It’s time once again for weekend reflections.Feel free to write at greater length than for a standard comment thread. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
Fortune magazine and the N-word
Nationalization, that is. In this piece on doomsday scenarios for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (H/T Calculated Risk) the cutely named and quasi-private mortgage packagers and guarantors, Katie Benner says
So what might it look like if the government had to lend a hand? Outright nationalization is an unlikely option given that neither the current administration nor the presidential candidates could afford to support such a move in an election year.
but goes on to imply that the likely alternatives could be far more costly, citing a Standard & Poors estimate of a trillion dollar cost to taxpayers, and possible loss of the US government’s AAA rating. Agency ratings aren’ t reliable indicators, but the US government has been in the category of issuers who are assumed to be exempt from scrutiny. A change in this status would be a huge problem for a big debtor like the US.
Either a bailout or a nationalization of Fannie and Freddie would make the Northern Rock fiasco in the UK pale into insignificance. The Northern Rock case shows that a policy towards financial enterprises in which both failure and nationalization are regarded as unthinkable cannot be sustained. The shareholders of these companies have been happy to accept the higher returns associated with an implicit government guarantee and they (the shareholders) should pay the price when the guarantee is needed.
Self-plagiarising myself on self-plagiarism
After reading this piece on self-plagiarism in the Times Higher Ed Supplement, I couldn’t think of any better response than to reprint verbatim this piece from 2005 (now with a new improved 2008 publication date), including a self-link to a piece which is simultaneously self-referential and self-plagiarising.
It’s over the fold
Read More »
John Quiggin 