Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please. If you would like to receive my (hopefully) regular email news, please sign up using the following link
http://eepurl.com/dAv6sX You can also follow me on Twitter @JohnQuiggin, at my Facebook public page and at my Economics in Two Lessons page
9 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”
Half way through 2nd summer here (aka Autumn). So dry you could leave books on the ground outside and they’d still be dry weeks later. No grass left. The kangaroos are trying to eat the apple trees through 2 layers of netting. The only garden we have left is in fortified cages, watered by carting water up from the dams. No rain on the horizon it seems. The TV weather people smile each night as they announce how lovely the weather is. Sigh.
Now there’s talk of Morrison holding onto government. Give me strength.
Shorten an alternative to Morrison? No alternative really. Both support and are backed by fossil fuel interests. Both stand by the big end of town’s Big Australia population policy recipe for disaster that soon enough will see people displacing the kangaroo activity now occurring in your garden.
Svante, do you have any evidence that suggests that Labor would not be better for the environment than the Coalition? Labor stands for 50% renewable electricity by 2030 and the Coalition does not. Coalition ministers say they want to build more coal power stations, which is lunacy.
So regardless of what fossil fuel interests are doing, it would appear if you want Australia to reduce fossil fuel use you should vote for the party Shorten is leader of. Or at least put them as your second choice after the Greens.
“The Moral Order of Panera. Surprise! Panera’s pay-it-forward experiment did not solve hunger”
…”…professors Giana M. Eckhardt and Susan Dobscha studied this very question. What they found was unambiguous: “Consumers in fact experience discomfort when asked to address social issues via how much they choose to pay for their meal.” The researchers refer to the pricing model used by Panera Cares as “consumer responsibilization”: a mishmash…”
…”Panera Cares was a delirious real-world test of Hayek’s libertarian moral-economic theory. Is the market a place where we go to solve major social problems? Or is it a place to go while on break from our seasonal job at Target to spend an hour’s pay on a big, floppy sandwich? The failure of Panera Cares demonstrates, not for the first time, that Hayek’s idea––the one that undergirds our faith that corporations and entrepreneurs will save us––is unworkable and hollow. Eckhardt and Dobscha even find evidence that consumers don’t prefer conscious capitalist businesses, and these companies don’t save on marketing costs.”…
…”Shaich is not only a self-described conscious capitalist, but a board member of Mackey’s Conscious Capitalism, Inc. “…
…”Panera Cares failed to accomplish anything because the market is too chaotic and atomizing to address immediate, collective problems like hunger. “…
And referenced in above article…
“Nietzsche’s Marginal Children: On Friedrich Hayek
“How did the conservative ideas of Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian school become our economic reality? By turning the market into the realm of great politics and morals.
By Corey Robin
“Whether it’s the libertarianism of the GOP or the neoliberalism of the Democrats, that defense has enabled an upward redistribution of rights and a downward redistribution of duties. The 1 percent possesses more than wealth and political influence; it wields direct and personal power over men and women. Capital governs labor, telling workers what to say, how to vote and when to pee. It has all the substance of noblesseand none of the style of oblige. That many of its most vocal defenders believe Barack Obama to be their mortal enemy—a socialist, no less…”…
Research quoted in panera cares article…
“The Consumer Experience of Responsibilization: The Case of Panera Cares
Eckhardt and Dobscha…
“In this paper, we explore the consumer experience of responsibilization, wherein consumers are tasked with addressing social issues via their consumption choices. We study an approach to responsibilization which we label conscious pricing. Conscious pricing asks consumers to place a price on morality: How much would they pay for their lunch to combat the social issue of food insecurity? Conscious pricing stems from the broader movement of conscious capitalism, defined by its chief architects as an approach to business wherein the goal is to create value for all stakeholders: financial, ecological, ethical, and spiritual. Strategies such as conscious capitalism rely on consumers acting responsibly, assuming that consumers, when presented with the opportunity to “do good,” will do so, and that consumers will prefer companies who provide them this opportunity. Using a case study approach and online reviews, in our analysis of Panera Cares, we find that consumers in fact experience discomfort when asked to address social issues via how much they choose to pay for their meal. Because food insecurity is embodied by homeless people eating with them in the café, eating in the café is perceived as unpleasant, and the homeless also feel demoralized. This discomposure leads consumers to resist the subject position of being responsibilized by not supporting the organization that is tasking them to do so. This study is the first empirical examination of the consumer experience of consumer responsibilization and allows us to contribute to a deepened understanding of consumer ethics.”
I don’t get the feeling that Shorten will be a revolutionary policy maker, like Hawke/Keating and Whitlam. He may *appear to be a little reluctant, which could work against him as leaders should be seen to be leading.
Despite all their crap policies ScoMo is on the front foot and all over the place.
*appearances can be deceptive and his absence from the media circus, particularly re Murdoch, has to be a positive.
I was on this Australian legal blog earlier today. The subject was that Australia denied a visa for a visit from Chelsea Manning. In this article I learned that Chelsea Manning has acutally appoligized for what she did many years ago. It really pissed me off to read that. If I had come across that video off the Apache pilots killing a good sumaritian I would have released it myself and publically taken credit for it. I would rather rot in solitary confinement until I went insane than appoligize for releasing that video footage. I would add a big Fuck You to any so called American who would not have released that video.
If that means that I have to say Fuck You to 330 million Americans so be it.
The reason that I mention this is because that a claim has come to my attention recently which is that radical movements do not grow because they alienate people who have not been radicalized. But there is an equally big problem with moderating ones comments. That is if we moderate our comments and our behavior we are talkiing away and walking away from Truth and Justice. When we are talking away and walking away from Truth and Justice we are talking away and walking away from GOD, in a metaphorical sense.
My comments about torturing people and burning them alive and my behavior are not outrageous or even unreasonable. It only seems that way to people who have been molded by a societies that have become morally putrid after being poisoned by a leadership of maggots. I wonder if I can have more effect on anyone in Australia than I have had in the USA since 2002. After almost 20 years my rage has not resulted in any visable changes to any American policies. I wonder if the balances of power in Australia are as bad as the USA. I wonder if I can have more success chipping away at the Walls of the Castles of power in Australia than in the USA.
Finally I am really inspired by Chelsea Manning. She is again in Prison because she has up until now refused to give information to the government for their wikileaks investigation. An implication of that is that there are some facts that the government is unclear about. That gives me just a bit of hope. My hope is that Chelsea Manning is really just a person who volunteered to be the fall guy in the case in which she has been acccused. It is possible that Chelsea Manning is not answering the questions that the government wants her to answer because she does not know the answers herself. Once that becomes clear to the investigators they will know that they have and have had for years a much bigger problem than Chelsea Manning. But Chelsea Manning does not want to admit that she does not know the answers to their questions because she might know that could indicate to the investigators the involvment of someone higher up in her chain of command. Her desire to protect someone may be motivated out of true Patriotism. Her desire to protect someone could also be motivated out of true love.
Red card Curt;
“Curt Kastens says: My comments about torturing people and burning them alive and my behavior are not outrageous or even unreasonable. “.
No amount of philosophy would save such a comment and shows antisocial personality disorder.
“The guiltless pattern of social irresponsibility demonstrated by someone with antisocial personality disorder begins in early childhood or adolescence. Antisocial behaviors range from relatively minor acts, such as lying or cheating, to heinous acts, including torture, rape, and even murder.”
I wonder if I can have more success chipping away at the Walls of the Castles of power in Australia than in the USA.
Buckey’s chance Curt.
As ever middle ages historian of siege warfare can tell you the best way to bring down castle walls is to undermine their foundations. All power is built on wealth. If you undermine the wealth of the powerful then they lose their cockiness and their surety. Wealth taxes can do this very thing but must be levied in a way that is both fair and equitable.To do that Australia needs another wealth census. The last one was in 1915. This is no doomsday book exercise as it is meant to protect those from an unfairly heavy incidence and burden of any wealth tax.