Its time once again for Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Alice @ 44,
1. If some people want to view economics and politics as one subject, that is fine with me as long as they don’t force others to do the same.
2. Yes, you may have misread what I wrote regarding ‘after lunch’. It was a bunch of engineering (not economics) students who wanted ‘political engineering’ (‘PE’) after lunch. Isn’t the anecdote is a pleasant reminder of the time when the nuisance of political correctness hadn’t been invented as yet?
@45
1. So far ‘EMH’ has not been made precise. I don’t know the model which underlies ‘economic rationalism’ Do you?
2. Alice, I like some of your writings because it captures quite well comments I hear from people and a few of my own observations. However, your paragraph 1 makes me wonder what your are on about because it seems to me you have all the problems identified and all that is left is for you to now publish your solutions. On the other hand, I humbly acknowledge that I fail completely to extract any meaning from your sentences. For example, you write: “Why on earth when things reach crisis point in the larger macroeconomies (like the catastrophic GFC).” What are ‘macroeconomies’? – never mind their relative size. Do ‘macroeconomies’ exist in reality (physical) in this world or are you referring to a bunch of statistics (about 5 variables), which seem to be in the ‘utility function’ of Treasurers the world over?
3. “New models required and braver economists to say – bloody hell…it doesnt work like we thought it would.” Alice, are you over-tired? What is the problem to which you are offering a solution? And who is ‘we’ in this instance?
4. Whom are you quoting in the last sentence of the second last paragraph?
And now for post 101. A few questions for Ernestine.
What is “neoclassical economics” in your book or is it a meaningless term?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement below?
“General equilibrium theory is a key branch of theoretical neoclassical economics. It seeks to explain the behavior of supply, demand and prices in a whole economy with several or many markets, by seeking to prove that equilibrium prices for goods exist and that all prices are at equilibrium, hence general equilibrium.” – Wikipedia
Do you agree, disagree or have comments on the statement below?
“There is nothing more frustrating for critics of neoclassical economics than the argument that neoclassical economics is a figment of their imagination; that, simply, there is scientific economics and there is speculative hand-waiving (by those who have never really grasped the finer points of mainstream economic theory). In this sense, neoclassicism resembles racism: while ever present and dominant, no one claims to be guided by it. Critics must find a clear definition of neoclassicism if only in order to liberate neoclassical economists from the temptation to barricade themselves behind infantile arguments viz. the non-existence of their school of thought. Then, the good debate may begin.” – Christian Arnsperger, Hoover Chair in Economic and Social Ethics
University of Louvain (Belgium) and Yanis Varoufakis, Department of Economics
University of Athens (Greece) October 2005 from the paper “WHAT IS NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMICS – The three axioms responsible for its theoretical oeuvre, practical irrelevance and, thus, discursive power?”
The same writers go on to say.
“In this… , we offer a definition of neoclassical economics which turns on three crucial axioms and which, in conjunction with one another, as we shall claim, underpin all (and only) neoclassical theory.1 Later, we argue that these very axioms are simultaneously responsible for: (a) the difficulty mainstream economics faces when it comes to illuminating economic and social reality, and (b) the discursive success of neoclassical economics which gives it an effective (politically driven) stranglehold over alternative modes of economic reasoning.
We think our definition of neoclassical economics is important because critics are often caught off-guard by sophisticated neoclassicists (see Dasgupta, 2002) who take advantage of gaps in existing definitions in order to turn criticisms on their head. In short, the critique of neoclassical economics is bound to be as effective as sophisticated is its definition of the opposition. For instance, criticism that neoclassical economics necessarily posits hyper-rational bargain-hunters, never able to resist an act which brings them the tiniest increase in expected net returns, is apt but not telling. There are plenty of neoclassical models featuring boundedly rational agents; even utterly irrational ones (e.g. evolutionary game theory; for a critical review in the spirit of this chapter, see Hargreaves-Heap and Varoufakis, 2004). Similarly with criticism focussed on ‘neoclassical features’ like market-clearing, selfish individualism or Pareto optimality. None of these cut ice because, though these features are usually present in neoclassical modelling, they are not necessary features of some neoclassical model.
Thus, as long as critics’ slings and arrows are directed against features of neoclassical economics that the latter can shed strategically, like a threatened lizard ‘loses’ its tail, they shall miss their target. Nevertheless, we do believe that there are at least three features of neoclassical economics that cannot be so shed; and, therefore, if the critics concentrate on them they shall, at the very least, force neoclassicists to engage in a fruitful dialogue. The single most promising prize from such a development ought to be the clarification of the origin and nature of the greatest paradox in social science: that mainstream economics is as dominant as it is unappetising (even to some of its own practitioners).”
Any comments on the above, Gerardine? Now to cut to the chase. The list of the alledged and inescapably defining neoclassical axioms is as follows from the same authors cited above;
“(1) The first axiom of neoclassical economics: methodological individualism…
(2) The second axiom of neoclassical economics: methodological instrumentalism
(We label the second feature of neoclassical economics methodological instrumentalism: all behaviour is preference-driven or, more precisely, it is to be understood as a means for maximising preference-satisfaction.)…
(3) The third axiom of neoclassical economics: methodological equilibration
(The third feature of neoclassical economics is, on our account, the axiomatic imposition of equilibrium.)…”
I would add that Steve Keen’s argument for dynamic modelling comes in about here.
Comments Ernestine?
John, today the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Ms Lynelle Briggs, has rebuked the Opposition on a number of matters regarding the actions of Godwin Grech. But Briggs does not raise the issue of the missing email (an official document) from the PM’s department that has since gone walkabout. The the crux of the matter in this sorry saga is the missing document from the PM’s office which led Godwin Grech to fake the email and is central in determining his innocence or guilt. Time to stop the rot.
The whole essay (or chapter of a book?) makes interesting and possibly disturbing reading for main stream economists.
Click to access 941678562..pdf
I’ll also refer to Ernestine’s statement;
“If some people want to view economics and politics as one subject, that is fine with me as long as they don’t force others to do the same.”
In one sense, I sympathise with the idealism inherent in that statement in another sense I deplore the lack of realism in it. Politics and economics are not separate nor are they separable in the sense that politics and physics are separable.
I mean politics in the broadest sense as the significant aggregates of what all people in society do and say and think in power transactions and negotiations. (That’s a lousy definition, I hope it conveys something of what I mean but I must fly.)
Ikonoclast, I’ll reply to your questions either tomorrow or on Saturday.
People may construct a multitude of systems for the purpose of trade. The system adopted at a given place and time is generally an evolution of a previous system, and so on back in time. The economics for a given organisation structure of society, and the system employed to conduct trade, depends upon the stability of both the social structure and the system of trade. It is difficult to see how either economic history or political economics could be ignored when trying to understand the various aspects of real life economics in action. Since both societies and their systems of trade may evolve over the course of time, it is necessary to understand why this evolution happens, and that is intimately tied to politics and economics of previous times.
The same is true of the academic world in attempting to understand our modern systems. We got to where we are because of what came before. Politics is not economics, but economic systems involve some politics. Analysis of economic systems also needs mathematics and statistics, and perhaps even some psychology as it relates to economic behaviour. There shouldn’t be anything indecent about an Economics department housing academics that work in each of those disciplines relevant to economic thought. An Economics department full of economists, each in the same mold – economic rationalists for example – is indecent and shouldn’t be tolerated.
PS: AWB needs another look.
John, today the Godwin Grech saga continues and as usual fiction takes over facts and if by chance the AFP do trace the original PM’s missing email (an official document) which sparked the whole sorry saga then the so-called fake email is no more a fake.
@Michael of Summer Hill
If the IT forensics staff are competent they would already know whether such an email ever existed or not. Since the AFP haven’t announced it, I’m fairly certain that Grech is, at the very least, mistaken in his recollection – that is being charitable.
On the other hand, some very real evidence of the elaborate behaviour of Turnbull, Abetz and Grech, along with a paper trail, does exist. Turnbull over-reached in his political use of Grech. The Liberal party’s attempted elevation of Godwin Grech to super-whistleblower is another political mistake as it doesn’t seem remotely credible. Who was playing whom is an interesting question not yet completely answered.
@Fran Barlow
Incredible! You just can’t make this stuff up 🙂
No Donald Oats, let’s just say that the facts of the case leading up to Grech’s so-called fake email do not stand up for the PM’s office has not been able to discredit Grech’s claim.
@Ernestine Gross
Fair enuff Ernestine.
@Ernestine Gross
Oh I get it Ernestine – PE. I like my PE (pool exercise) before breakfast and my other PE (political engineering) after – I swam like an angel today… now if only I could get the other one happening.
M
@Michael of Summer Hill
Michael of SH – it was a fake email. What part of fake dont you understand,. What part of “its not appropriate for senior public servants to be feeding information to opposition parties” dont you understand? What part of the Public Service Commissioner’s (Lynelle Briggs) comments “public servants….have no business briefing the opposition before Senate Hearings without the express permission of their boss or Minister” dont you understand.
Grech is the anithesis of a good public servant…and acted completely oustide his responsibilities to his superiors for a start. It wasnt whistleblowing. It was fraudulent and he was actively conspiring with the opposition in the fraud touse that fraud to discredit the incumbent government whilst at the same time doing the very same actions to assist a liberal donor car dealer.
Grech’s claim has not only been discredited. It has been demolished as a sham.
MoSH, the PM doesn’t have to prove the non-existence of something that they claim doesn’t exist, namely the email that Grech claims to have seen. On the other hand, Godwin Grech does need to prove that the email exists as he is the one making the extraordinary claim.
Anyway aren’t there really several questions, MoSH?
The first question being whether or not some kind of impropiety has occurred with regards to Kevin Rudd, Swan and Mr Grant. Evidence is required before an answer may be given one way or the other. So far the case is circumstantial.
The second question is whether or not an email from Rudd’s office to treasury – Godwin Grech is the alleged recipient – exists, and given its existence, contains the details Godwin Grech has claimed to have seen. This goes towards the evidence required to answer question 1.
The third question is whether Godwin Grech constructed a document that was designed to have the appearance of an email – Grech claims to have received from the PM’s office – and which he treated as though it was the alleged original email from the PM’s office.
The first part of the third question has already been answered by Godwin Grech himself: he did construct a “replica” of the email he claims to have received from the PM’s office. The second part of the third question isn’t entirely resolved yet. Grech certainly seems to have used the “replica” as though it was the alleged original email from the PM’s office, in which case the replica is a forgery. If Grech had never received the email that he claims to have, then the replica is a forgery, irrespective of how he used it. If he stated to Turnbull and Abetz that he is certain that he had received such an email but he cannot locate it, and this is his recollection of the contents, then the question as to why he made it look like the original email – complete with properly filled-in header, needs answering, but the question as to whether or not his reconstructed email is a forgery or not is easy to answer – it is a forgery. If he had just written a few notes and recorded those notes as being his best attempt to recollect the contents of the alleged email from the PM’s office, then there wouldn’t be an issue of forgery or not. There would still be issues as to whether he was being frank on other aspects of the affair.
Some facts are apparent already, irrespective of any further investigation. Let’s go have another look for the set of emails of AWB in the lead-up to the Iraq war mkII. The issues surrounding the AWB’s behaviour and the previous Liberal government’s part in that are an order or two of magnitude larger than the Utegate issues.
Politics is a dirty business. I think that is my conclusion from watching the UteGate become EmailGate, GrechGate, BullAtAGate, etc.
The question is also why – if Grech was really any good as a senior public servant – if there ever existed any email from the PM’s office – why wasnt it immediately printed and filed (in hardcopy).??
After all, this was supposedly PM office communication wasnt it?? (not Joe Blow ordinary car dealer)…strangely lax of Grech not to keep a copy of the original in hardcopy. That is another reason to suspect strongly it never existed at all. A communication from one of a hundred car dealers – you may not keep a hardcopy – but a communication from the PM?
It doesnt add up…because I suspect there wasnt ever such a communication. As someone wrote in a letter to the editor today – Grech doesnt know the difference between “blow” and “suck.”
No Alice & Donald Oats, until the PM’s office produces evidence to the contrary the fake email is in fact not a fake.
What would you accept as evidence?
TerjeP (say tay-a), more than a systems failure.
In reply to # 102 and 104
Ikonoclast, my reply is intended as a sign of respect for you and our host rather than a sign of a need to voice an opinion on the paper by Arnsperger and
Varoufakis (A&V), which you referenced in 104.
Re 102:
Q: “What is “neoclassical economics” in your book or is it a meaningless term?”
I consider the term neoclassical economics meaningful in the context of books on the history of economic thought. Such books usually provide references to representative work to mark an era. As such I find the term ‘neoclassical economics’ a helpful label with the understanding that no suggestion of homogeneity of thought is implied and, similarly to history, it is understood that there is no neat beginning or end to an era in calendar time. It is, if you like, one way to mentally organise complex evolutionary processes without introducing methods that might not have been available or applied at the time of writing.
Q: “General equilibrium theory is a key branch of theoretical neoclassical economics. It seeks to explain the behavior of supply, demand and prices in a whole economy with several or many markets, by seeking to prove that equilibrium prices for goods exist and that all prices are at equilibrium, hence general equilibrium.”
I can’t think of a general equilibrium model for which I would consider the above characterisation to be adequate or even applicable.
Q: “Do you agree, disagree or have comments on the statement below…. “(long quote)
I am not a suitable person to comment. I don’t consider myself a neoclassical economist, as ‘defined’ by A&V, and these authors are interested in ‘forcing’ neoclassicists to engage with them in a ‘dialogue’ with the requirement that it must be ‘fruitful’. The authors write: “Nevertheless, we do believe that there are at least three features of neoclassical economics that cannot be so shed; and, therefore, if the critics concentrate on them they shall, at the very least, force neoclassicists to engage in a fruitful dialogue.” (On the humorous side: I would not wish to engage with A&V even if I would consider myself or could be shown to be a neoclassical economist, as ‘defined’ by A&V, because, given my size, gender and age, I would almost surely lose in a physical fight and I can’t see how their “believes” could possibly result in them achieving what they want without physical force.). But I’ll make a few comments on the paper you referenced @ 104
Q: “Now to cut to the chase”
(1), (2), (3) see 104 below..
Re 104
“1. The whole essay (or chapter of a book?) makes interesting and possibly disturbing reading for main stream economists.
Click to access 941678562..pdf
I’ll also refer to Ernestine’s statement;
2. ‘If some people want to view economics and politics as one subject, that is fine with me as long as they don’t force others to do the same.’
In one sense, I sympathise with the idealism inherent in that statement in another sense I deplore the lack of realism in it. Politics and economics are not separate nor are they separable in the sense that politics and physics are separable.
I mean politics in the broadest sense as the significant aggregates of what all people in society do and say and think in power transactions and negotiations. (That’s a lousy definition, I hope it conveys something of what I mean but I must fly.)” [Paragraph numbers added]”
Re 1: I can’t say that I find the paper disturbing or even interesting (technically or in relation to current economic problems). But this is not a criticism but merely my personal opinion.
A few observations
a) A&V refer to work by Mantel and Hugo Sonnenschein, known under the nickname ‘anything goes theorem’. They forgot to include the 1974 paper by Debreu on the same topic. I suggest A&V send a copy of their paper to Professor Sonnenschein to get his view on their usage of his work. (It doesn’t seem to be to be quite right).
b) Re the A&V ‘axioms’.
i) “methodological individualism”. If this makes sense to the authors then fine. (‘ism’ words hardly ever, if at all, make sense to me).
ii)” methodological instrumentalism” . I am not impressed. A&V’s behaviour seems to give support to the opposite of want they want others to believe. A&V complain about the ‘authoritarian ‘ neoclassicists who kept people like them out of Economics departments. But both A and V have a chair in Economics. Surely, this gives support to maintaining the assumption that individuals (A & V in this instance) ‘maximise preferences’. Moreover, taking preferences as given (as is done in contemporary general equilibrium theory) is consistent with the liberal idea of showing respect for individuals (including A&V).
iii) “The third axiom of neoclassical economics: methodological equilibration
(The third feature of neoclassical economics is, on our account, the axiomatic imposition of equilibrium.)…”
I have given one example on this blog site in support of this item, namely the Linter-Sharpe-Mossin capital asset pricing model (CAPM), developed in the 1960s. However, I also mentioned O. Hart’s mid 1970s paper in which he established sufficient conditions for the existence of an equilibrium of an exchange economy from which the CAPM, can be derived. It is an empirical question to check whether these conditions are fulfilled at a particular time and at a particular place.
Clearly (and A&V may be aware of this), contemporary general equilibrium theory (from Arrow-Debreu onward) does not belong to ‘neoclassical economics’ as ‘defined’ by A&V.
c) I am missing the proof of their allegedly axiomatic approach to analysing neoclassical economics.
Re 2: There may be ‘idealism’ inherent in my statement. It is true, I prefer a ‘liberal’ education (in the sense of freedom of inquiry) to dogmatic approaches (even if the intension was honorable in some sense). I also acknowledge the intersection of ‘economics’ with politics and its relevance to daily life – its pretty obvious. But, I had something much more down-to-earth in mind when writing the sentence you quote. Life is finite and there seems to be an extreme shortage of proverbial Einsteins who can master (not only talk about) all the areas with which Economics intersects in one way or another. You have given a list with which I concur. I am saying people who are interested in Economics should be free to interact with people (directly or indirectly via the literature) from outside Economics departments (or faculties) according to their personal interests and abilities. However, I do defend a common research question to delineate the boundaries of Economics as a discipline and I have stated this question. A&V have nothing to say on the material welfare of humans, except providing a hint of self-interest.
@Ernestine Gross
Ernestine – particularly agree with your final para. There is something in the comment re your preference for a ‘liberal’ education (in the sense of freedom of inquiry) to dogmatic approaches (even if the intention was honorable in some sense).
Cant help but think that some economics departments have gradually over time (?when did it start and how) and perhaps unwittingly (and even with good or well meaning intentions)- committed themselves too much to the latter.
TerjeP (say tay-a), the so-called fake email was a communication between Grech & the PM’s office and falls within the category of an authorised business use and cannot be said to be a fake.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Oh pleeese Michael – is this some form of delusionism? “The email wasnt a fake?”
More delusionism, climate scientists are honourable folk:
“The short story is that a professor from Ohio State found an error in a paper on Antarctic temperature trends in Nature. He published his analysis of the error on the blog Climate Audit and sent a gracious note to the authors letting them know of his discovery.
What did the authors do? They turned around and submitted the correction to Nature as their own work, and then had it published under their own names without so much as an acknowledgment to the Ohio State professor who actually did the work and made the discovery of the error. In academia this sort of behavior is called plagiarism, pure and simple.”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/common-decency-goes-long-way.html
No Alice, this is not a delusion for until the PM’s office produce evidence to the contrary of what Grech is claiming within the so-called fake email, then the ‘contents’ stand for Grech has reproduced what he truly believes is evidence based on his knowledge, belief and/or information relayed to him from the PM’s office.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Michael – as I asked you once before – why are you SOOOO unquestionly supportive of the “mates state” under Rees or whoever (it no longer matters – State Labor has failed to deliver on all fronts and the people hate them – they have not got Buckley’s chance of getting in next election – NO matter who they put up front – here is my $50 bucks right now on the table!!!!.
Yet Micahel you want to push the idea that Fed Labor – who probably has the best prime minister since the 1970s….isnt cleared in this petty freaking dishonest conspiracy by the libs and worm known as Grech?
I dont know where you are coming from Michael of Summer Hill, but wherever it is, you are totally mixed up and confused (and you may as well be a delusionist).
No Alice, I don’t want to take your money but let’s wait and see what the AFP come up with. As for Rees thumbs up.
MoSH,
Sorry, MoSH – but if Grech faked an email and presented it as an original then even if he believed that the contents were a perfect copy of the original, he has not acted honestly. If there was an element of financial gain or loss the in criminal terms that would be forging and uttering – but that element seems to be missing, so his actions may not have been criminal – unless an offence under one of the telecommunications acts can be established.
If reports of what he has admitted to have said and done are accurate then he does appear to have at the very least acted dishonestly. It may even have been criminal.
As Turnbull is a lawyer (and a very good one) I doubt that he would have procured this, but it is looking messy.
@Michael of Summer Hill
See Michael – inherent bias towards State Labor. Thumbs down Mosh. Probably a NSW labor party promoter. No cred MSoh. No real thinking gong on there….
No Alice, today the PM has come out in support of Rees. Thumbs up Rees.
Sorry Andrew Reynolds but the PM’s office has not been able to produce a shred of evidence to say otherwise what Grech has claimed in his so-called fake email.
Grech has already admitted to faking the email. And just how would the government disprove a fictitious claim? It’s up to Grech to prove his allegations, not the government to disprove something that doesn’t exist.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Grech explains in his own words what he believes took place. He claims that:
The developments on the morning of 19 June 2009, especially the advice that Mr Martine and I were given about the failure of the Treasury IT back up servers on 20 February put me in an even more difficult situation.
Given that Mr Martine and I were being told that if I had received an e mail from Andrew Charlton on the 20th of February – and I had deleted it that day, it could not be traced, I then believed that it was indeed possible that my general recollection of the Charlton e mail was correct – but that it had come in on the 20th rather than the 19th.
Are we really to believe that there is no digital record of such an email anyway, and yet it exists? Remember, if such an email was sent from the PM’s office by Andrew Charlton, then the ITC servers/backupfor the parliament should have a record of the email in its entirety. Even if deleted from the local computer, the hard drive may still store enough information to reconstruct the email – assuming it existed in the first place. The AFP have the capacity to determine whether reconstruction is possible or not. Log files from several machines involved in the email’s transfer could at least pin down whether any emails were sent by Andrew Charlton to Godwin Grech on the relevant days.
If there is someone who is very knowledgable on the ITC with regards to parliament and to treasury, it would be good to know whether Grech’s claim, that such an email may have existed but disappeared due to treasury server troubles, can be either proven false or proven true.
I’ve decided from here on to take the MoSH approach and to wait and see. The Grech email is still a fake though 8)
@Donald Oats
Oops. Something went wrong with the quoting. Grech’s words are:
The developments on the morning of 19 June 2009, especially the advice that Mr Martine and I were given about the failure of the Treasury IT back up servers on 20 February put me in an even more difficult situation.
Given that Mr Martine and I were being told that if I had received an e mail from Andrew Charlton on the 20th of February – and I had deleted it that day, it could not be traced, I then believed that it was indeed possible that my general recollection of the Charlton e mail was correct – but that it had come in on the 20th rather than the 19th.
Regards,
Don.
No Zarquon, when a senior public servant makes an allegation against the PM’s advisor and the only reponse from the PM’s department is we have had a systems failure that is not disproving the ‘contents’ within the so-called faked email.
Think Zarquon, the so-called faked email is more or less Grech’s Statement of Facts.
[Yes, I’ve broken my promise concerning the UteGate affair :-0 ]
Well MoSH, we can read all about it from the Performance Audit Report 1. From the objectives and scope:
The audit objective, based on the matters raised in the
Prime Minister’s correspondence and in the Parliament, was to examine and
report on:
• any representations to the Treasury since October 2008 from all sources
regarding automotive finance arrangements for car dealers, including
any made in relation to John Grant Motors;
• the nature of these representations;
• the manner in which the representations were responded to by officials,
having regard to any relevant standards and procedures; and
• any related administrative matters that came to attention.
The Auditor used the powers as explained in the section on scope and objectives:
• through the powers provided by section 32 of the Auditor?General Act,
interviewed various individuals so as to obtain information relevant to
the audit objectives. These powers were used in relation to the Prime
Minister and Treasurer as well as relevant staff in their respective
ANAO Audit Report No.1 2009–10
Representations to the Department of the Treasury in Relation to Motor Dealer Financing Assistance
12
Offices,5 senior Treasury officials involved in the development and
implementation of the SPV including Mr Godwin Grech,6 the Managing
Director of Ford Credit and two motor dealers, namely: Mr Adam
Kaplan, the principal of Hunter Holden in Ryde, Sydney (the motor
dealer who made a representation to the Prime Minister) and Mr John
Grant (the principal of Ipswich Central Motors/John Grant Motors).
MoSH, would this convince you that sufficient reasonable efforts to establish the existence or non-existence of the email have been made? And then that the answer is no, it doesn’t exist except in Godwin Grech’s mind?
MoSH,
Even if the original email did exist (and I have no real opinion either way) faking another one is just that – faking.
But Donald Oats & Andrew Reynolds, there is that bit of doubt still lingering in the air for not all emails from the PM’s office were made available which makes Grech’s claim that he truly believes a Charlton e mail on John Grant is buried somewhere in the system even more plausible.
Oh please. Obviously I don’t agree with the suggestion that Rudd is the best Prime Minister since the 1970s (Hawke gets my vote) however it is in any case way to early to start making any such declarations. Rudd is yet to deliver anything of substance.
We only need to know what emails Andrew Charlton sent to Godwin Grech during a fairly small window of time. Any emails not matching that simple criteria are not germane to the investigation concerning Grech’s claims.
Any search for other emails that might or might not contain evidence of some inappropriate behaviour concerning utes and gates, or anything else for that matter, is a fishing expedition, not an investigation.
You are persistent, MoSH, I’ll give you that.
But Donald Oats, if this matter ever goes to court the first thing Grech’s legal team will seek after a directions hearing and an order requiring the other party to give discovery of documents. But of course the PM’s department will try the old trick that disclosure of the documents concerned would be contrary to the public interest and guess what Grech’s claim has not been disproved and we are back to square one that the so-called fake email is not a fake.
Crikey John, today it has been reported that Nathan Rees pros are he working class background, young, fresh, direct and cons inexperienced, stubborn, not liked in caucus, arrogance, bad temper, overconfident. But a close examination of Rees’s CV reveals he is an Honours graduate majoring in English Literature and worked as a ministerial advisor and as a Chief of Staff. Maybe an Hounours degree is nothing for a select few but Rees has earned it just like the Premier’s job.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje – Hawke got together with Keating and started down the road to “reckless” ill thought out de-regulation (and Im not againts de-regulation Terje but the financial system is still in a mess). Strange that inequality starting climbing from just before those two (about mid 1970s after Fraser got in)…but they didnt stop it climbing and kept handing out huge tax cuts for the richest…silly.
Stop Thief! Rally on 15 August to stop theft of Queensland’s public assets
Tell Anna Bligh to get her hands off OUR public assets!
Time/Date: 11am Sat Aug 15
Meet @ Lizard Statue, Boundary St, West End
March to Bligh’s Office (90 Vulture St)
For further information, please visit saveourpublicassets.org.
Daggett, the majority of Australians sympathise with the cause. Thumbs up.
@Michael of Summer Hill
What may or may not happen in court is speculation.
If Grech has no evidence of such an email (ie the email that Grech thinks he received from Andrew Charlton), and treasury have no evidence of such an email, and the AFP have no evidence of such an email, and the PM’s office have stated on the record that there is no such email, and searches conducted by the Auditor found no such email, and Andrew Charlton denies sending any such email, and no such email is found on his computer or his mailbox on the Exchange server, or in any of the archive files…
Then clearly the conclusion must be that there is an email, it is just being hidden by the mean and tricky Kevin Rudd 8)
Regarding whether the allegedly reconstructed email is a fake or not, the Australian Federal Police seem to think so…
From the Aus news story:
“Three days after Mr Grech’s evidence the email was declared a fake by the Australian Federal Police after a raid on Mr Grech’s Canberra home.”
Then there is the fact that the Grech-email was adorned with features of a real email:
“Turnbull and Abetz kept their demeanour, not trying to appear too excited or eager. The email looked real. It even had the disclaimer at the bottom about its contents being confidential and that it not be circulated to other parties.”
Looking forward to your reply MoSH,
Regards,
Don.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Moshee – I agree with your comments re most Australians being against the rampant privatisations that have been going on by State (and Federal Govts)….so what have you got to say about Egan, Carr and Iemma, and now Rees continuing the privatisation push in NSW Labor?? (let me guess Moshie…”thumbs up Rees”????)
You know…there is one bit of delicious irony that has come out of this crash (and for the record…I may just agree with Sukrit a little and suggest that I always thought Greenspan should have had his foot on the brake and not the accelerator and that was years and years ago)
But back to the delicious thing…..when people start saving …its the discretionary trhings that go first. Like newspapers. They stop buying newspapers.
So, for all Rupes support of the atrocious policies that have been implemented over the past thirty years in the name of “entrepreneurialism”, “efficiency”, a “flexible labour force”, “work choices”, “individualism”, “trickle down” bla bla bla
Its of immense satisfaction to me to see his newspapers hit first….oh and then there is the advertising that firms are c utting back on because people buy less or they cant get credit.
Does that mean Rupe’s News is a leading indicator?
He has it coming – I swear… its divine providence.
Donald Oats, I have seen past governments in action and this case is no different you just have to take my word on that.