It’s time once again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Is NSW becoming a police state?
http://ausgunowners.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/those-who-would-deny-freedom-to-others/
Also worth a look:-
Very amusing.
We are talking about stimuli number 3…
Does this mean that ProfQ will write another one of his economic refutations “Keynesian stimulus doesn’t work” on this blog?
One question for all the neo-socialists amongst the readers…
You blame neo-liberalism for asset bubbles and the GFC, but what about the bubble and burst of the late 1960s in the US equities market? There was a huge amount of regulation then, so how does your world view fit in with an example of an asset bubble during the fabled Keynesian golden era?
There will always be bubbles, Sean. A bubble is a symptom of runaway greed. And they are not a twentieth century thing. The 1640 tulip market crash for instance.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7341.html
This looks like a good read on the subject.
According to ABC News Online:
QUOTE
Immigration to sack 700 workers: union
Posted Fri May 1, 2009 12:12pm AEST
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) says the Federal Immigration Department is planning to slash 700 jobs, or 10 per cent of its workforce.
The union says the cuts are proof that the Government’s forced savings in federal departments are costing jobs.
A Government spokesman has dismissed the claim as pre-Budget speculation, but will not deny it.
CPSU assistant national secretary Mark Gepp says the Government can no longer deny the 3.25 per cent “efficiency dividend” will have a detrimental effect on services.
“We understand that the department is now going through the process of talking to employees about some of those general specific details,” he said.
“But we would make the point, that any cut in immigration has got to put in jeopardy our capacity as a nation to protect our borders.”
END QUOTE
If this is true, it is concerning on a number of levels.
1. The government’s one-off, two-off etcetera stimulus packages will be meaningless if they are counteracted by budget contractions.
2. This illustrates that Rudd is continuing Howard’s attack on the public service. The absurd 3.25 per cent “efficiency dividend” should be scrapped at once. The words “efficiency dividend” are code for arbitrary cut.
3. Given our difficulties with immigration policy, reducing that department is not the answer. More enlightened and humane policies which both protect borders in a proper manner and protect human rights including refugee rights will require more staff not less.
4. A more general observation on employment policy is also apropos. In a severe recession leading to a possible economic depression, it is incumbent on the government to act directly as a reserve employer and to employ those who are not employed due to market failure.
We now have predictions that Australia’s unemployment will hit 1 million people in this recession or depression. To have 1 million unemployed out of a total population of 23 million is a huge waste of human resources. There is no way that free market boosters can claim that the free market on its own is efficient when it wastes such an enormous amount of our most precious resource.
The time has come for the public services to perform the role of reserve employers and to set a minimum wage. I’ll point out to the critics of the Keynesian era that for much of that era Australia’s unemployment was about 2 to 3 percent. This is almost effective zero unemployment because frictional unemployment (changing jobs, time from interview to job start etc) tends to be about 2%.
Only a quasi-religious adherance to neoliberalism and corporate capitalist ideology can explain the blindness of the right wing to these empirical facts of political economy. Their blindness to climate science is of a piece with their rank stupidity in economic matters.
^ Do any of you delusional left wing socialists acutally read the garbage that you write? I come to this site to have a great laugh at the lengths you people go to defend the government and attack the free market. It is blatantly obvious most you hate those that prosper. You desire an equitable outcome, yet you are not willing to work for it. You do nothing and expect everything. Why is it that in a country with equal opportunity, do we need to have an equal outcome? If you earn an income below average, it is not becuase the free market failed you, it is because you failed yourself.
#4 Can you give the dates to which you are referring. Stock markets fluctuate all the time, but I don’t think there was a major bust between the 1930s and the early 1970s.
Of course, as I’ve written many times, the breakdown of economic management in the early 70s brought about the transition to the economic liberal system that is now in the process of collapse. How to avoid a repeat of the 70s failure is indeed a big question for a renewed social democracy.
Let’s say I take “The General’s” points personally.
“If you earn an income below average, it is not because the free market failed you, it is because you failed yourself.”
In point of fact, I earned above the average income, though not by much, when I worked and I now draw an above average retirement income. My wife continues to earn an above average income. However, I don’t think this makes me a “success” any more then earning a below average income, in and of itself, would make me a failure.
Like most moderate left wingers, we do not hate people who prosper but I do object to and oppose those who prosper by the exploitation of others. I will never resile from that position. There is nothing more contemptible than deliberate oppression and exploitation for personal gain.
We desire an equitable outcome and are willing to work for both for own upkeep and equitable outcomes in society. We are prefectly aware that rights (beyond certain basic rights) are not freestanding without duties and obligations. This appears in contradistinction to those proponents of right-wing individualism who are governed entirely by short-sighted self-interest and have no sense of the public good.
The assumption that Australia is a country of equal opportunity is flawed. Though better than many countries, Australia is still far from an equal opportunity country. Blacks, women and the poor are still discriminated against in many ways.
Persons with the views of “The General” always sneer at any mention of the continuing reality of discrimination. Yet their rage and jealousy at the thought of disadvantaged people being assisted actually stems from a feeling being discriminated against themselves.
The reverse is true of course. No segment of society gets more hand-outs than the middle classes and the rich. Many billions are handed out in middle-class welfare, tax breaks, negative gearing and industry assistance. No-one is more on the government teat than the rich and their cronies.
John, if I may reply to The General by saying it is not what’s best for the individual but what society demands ie ‘Executive officers’ legal responsibilities CPRS Bill, clause 324.
General
We dont hate those who prosper but we do hate those who prosper by fraud and charlatanry. They erode the very fabric of every civil society and are more trouble than they are worth on any free market valuation.
Free markets are not a license for behaviour that leads to civil disruption and loss of confidence in markets. Thats a wide call you made and wildly off the mark and you cannot conveniently lump the majority of people into a left wing socialist basket because they are now starting to see the failings of the free market view with its excessive attacks on regulation designed to protect the majority (so they too can actually get ahead).
Right now I would go as far as to suggest people dont want the markets to solve the problems we have right now, think excessive deregulation has contributed to the mess, and want governments that are seen to be proactive in the face of this crisis, not just sitting on their (lazy) hands doing nothing but singing hymns (blaming the unemployed for being “losers” or lacking “initiative” etc).
There are plenty of people with initiative out of work right now. Your views arent likely to be popular with them. Accusing other people of being left wing socialists because they want to see a proactive government wouldnt slide down nicely with a lot in here either.
This isnt a left right argument. Its about what is being put in place to stop the fraud thats been happening in the financial markets, prevent the subsequent rising unemployment from its collapse etc, to correct our own lack of infrastructure investment. Real problems that need addressing because the market failed to.
I dont care how prosperous you are. I care how ethical you are with corporate responsibility (not just to yourself but to employees, creditors, and broader society). There is some real hardened deadwood sitting prosperous in corporate positions fleecing everyone they come across if they get half a chance.
I don’t see large line-ups outside soup kitchens yet, so maybe the socialism is saving capitalisms behind, for the moment. I suppose when we do start to see the ranks of the homeless grow larger, you’ll want to blame the stimulus, not what preceded it.
David C,
I keep a large rock in my back yard. It keeps the bears away. Since I had the rock installed I haven’t seen a single bear.
12# David,
This pdf parliamentary briefing paper on homelessness at the link below has quite a few stats. Homelessness has grown.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/HomelessnessinNSW
To quote
“Since the release of the White Paper, there have been reports that the number of homeless families in NSW has increased by 51%.13 A total number of 22,500 people sought immediate help from the Department of Housing in 2007/2008. These figures indicated that immediate housing assistance increased by over 7,600 in 2007/2008, which was an increase of 643 a month compared to the previous year.”
But I agree the denialists are likely to blame the stimulus.
There has been a couple of items on the ABC news site concerning testing Queensland primary school teachers on their numeracy and literacy.
For example see here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/02/2558982.htm
Apparently the results of national numeracy and literacy tests show that Queensland primary school students are at the bottom of the results table. One of the ideas raised has been that poor content knowledge by teachers may be a contributing factor in the poor results of the students.
So the suggestion is that teachers should be tested to check their content knowledge. The teachers union seems to be opposed to this.
I suppose there are many contributing factors that influence how students perform in tests. For those factors that involve teachers the problem might be content knowledge or teaching practice, or both.
It’s important to understand where the problems are in order to correct poor quality results. So it would seem completely reasonable to conduct tests to determine those teachers that need to improve their knowledge. And then give them assistance so that they come up to standard.
In this instance the objections of the union seem unfounded.
Further to the previous discussion about the ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, it would appear that the truth may eventually be uncovered after all.
The New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) may have, with 35,000 signatures collected so far, gained sufficient number of signatures to be able to force the placement of a referendum question on the ballot for New York City General elections as to whether a new investigation of 9/11 with subpoena power be formed. If they achieve 45,000 signatures, the placementof the referendum question cannot be prevented by the New York City Council.
What happened in the seventies, JQ? I remember the gold price surge and the share market crash, but what was different about that one to any other?
Someone earlier, rather rudely, claimed that everyone was attacking the free market.
Some may, but the real long term problems are not based on the market as such. The problems arise from the misuse of the market by different types of expropriators. They use the market to claim more wealth than would flow their way if a theoretically pure free market existed.
Monopoly capitalists make bigger profits if they can control the market. This is the real threat.
JQ said:-
What would Keynes do? He would put in place a commodity based standard. He would either institute the Bancor (his original idea) or he would do like Mundell is currently trying to do and get SDRs turned into a form of global ECU. possibly he would go for a gold standard which is what he ultimately settled for post WWII. If you want to kill off what George Soros refers to as the Global wrecking ball that floating currencies represent then you need to work on a mechanism for stablisation.
In the period 1950 – 1970 we had many notional aspects of socialism. However we also had relative to today two vital classical liberal ingredients:-
1. Low taxes.
2. Hard money.
Governments consumed less of our economy. Currency was fixed to gold. It worked. If you are an empiracist then things that have been demonstrated to work ought to be worth consideration.
Personally I don’t want a renewed social democracy in Australia or elsewhere. However if it must be then lets have social democracy with low taxes and hard currency and economic stablity just like in the 1950s and 1960s.
If you want to toss out neo-liberalism then toss out floating exchange rates. Wasn’t it a neo-liberal that floated the dollar?
Joseph,
I’m sure you’ve got footage and news stories of those bears in your back yard.
Alice.
Thanks for that. I suspected as much.