Another Message Board
Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’ve moved my irregular email news from Mailchimp to Substack. You can read it here. You can also follow me on Mastodon here
I’m also trying out Substack as a blogging platform. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack.
John Quiggin 
In his recent Press Club address or press conference, Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe referred to interest rate rises and asked rhetorically, “What is the alternative?” In context he was clearly saying TINA (There Is No Alternative). There is clearly at least one alternative and that is to set a (modestly) higher inflation target. John Quiggin has made this point a number of times in a number of places. Yet, it appears the government will not set a higher target.
The Australian Government sets the target for Australia. The press and commentariat obsess about the interest rate and its mechanics but never question the target.
“Inflation Target
The Governor and the Treasurer have agreed that the appropriate target for monetary policy in Australia is to achieve an inflation rate of 2–3 per cent, on average, over time. This is a rate of inflation sufficiently low that it does not materially distort economic decisions in the community. Seeking to achieve this rate, on average, provides discipline for monetary policy decision-making, and serves as an anchor for private-sector inflation expectations.” – Reserve Bank of Australia.
The inflation rate setting is like a litmus test for neoliberalism. While we have an inflation rate target of 2–3 per cent, we clearly have neoliberal economic policy hegemony still firmly in place. The day the target is lifted, probably the eleventh of never at this rate, we may able to see a signal that the neoliberal ascendancy over our political economy settings is ending. I don’t expect this to happen any time soon. My continuing prediction is that we are locked into hegemonic neoliberalism until at least 2030. By then, the damage will be so great – social, economic, health and environmental damage – that something will have to give, one would think.
One reading of recent US leaks (correctness is denied by many interested parties) is that the war is turning into a match of ammunition production between Russia largely left on its own and the entire west. The end result should be obvious, despite the west holding back. So far so good? An Ukrainian victory, possibly with far less death on both sides than in other war scenarios. Yes. Then we got ramped up western ammunition production, with lots of lobbyists demanding to keep using that production. Keep hating even the good outcomes.
And why again is anybody in Europe supposed to fear the Russian conventional army, or even do so increasingly now. It never made sense to think of a lets pretend nukes do not exist war with Nato, but even based on that premise, there is no goddamn threat whatsoever. Time to lower military spending. What is the US doing these days anyway to justify an Army and secret service apparatus with no real purpose. Lost track. Still in Irak in some way? Still creating new terrorists with drone strikes on wedding parties around the arabic world? Or is China the sufficient excuse of the day for spending money on the Army there. Big armies only make us all less save from external threats and undermine internal democracy at the same time. Democracy is looking bad enough in the west without another military budget increase.
And no, sensless western military spending and hysteric fear of a Russian invasions in some parts of it is no excuse for Russia to “feel threatened” and start a “preemptive geopolitical war” or whatever other narrative is still out there among a very traditional Soviet sympathetic left that cannot even get to realizing the Ukraine is as much a predecessor of the Soviet Union as Russia, much less with how little Russia today has to do with the better aspects of Soviet communism (i take an egalitarian western Social Democracy over that one too anytime).
Ikonoclast: – “My continuing prediction is that we are locked into hegemonic neoliberalism until at least 2030. By then, the damage will be so great – social, economic, health and environmental damage…”
That late? I think the social, energy, health, environmental & economic ‘tipping points’ are likely to emerge sooner.
I think the damage to many people’s health will be much sooner. ‘Virologist on the rampage’ @LettersfromTim tweeted on Apr 9 (including a graph):
It seems to me there’s:
* Zero effort to control transmission
* Too few practicing effective masking/distancing
* Inadequate ventilation
* Inaccurate/misleading messaging – e.g. “almost every citizen is now immune”
* Too few ‘up-to-date’ boosted
Unless governments wake-up and act quickly & effectively, I’d suggest more morbidity, illness & deaths are inevitable, and soon. That will be an increasing drag on economic activities.
Meanwhile, US oil producers now spend under 40% of cash on new drilling, per tweet by Justin Guay on Apr 11:
Unless new oil wells are developed, the natural decline rate for ‘conventional’ oil well production is of the order of 4 to 6% per year. US crude oil + condensate production base declines are at 39% per year, per US petroleum geologist Art Berman:
And if a strong El Niño emerges later this year and persists well into 2024, we may well see the Earth System breach the +1.5 °C warming threshold in 2024 (per Hansen & colleagues at Columbia University), for the first time in millions of years. I’d suggest breaching the +1.5 °C warming threshold is when global food security likely becomes increasingly more precarious.
Ikon says “The inflation rate setting is like a litmus test for neoliberalism. While we have an inflation rate target of 2–3 per cent, we clearly have neoliberal economic policy hegemony still firmly in place.” … “John Quiggin has made this point a number of times in a number of places. Yet, it appears the government will not set a higher target.”
Ha-Joon Chang says “Our analysis provides clear evidence for the existence of ideological bias as well as of authority bias among economists.” (2.)
And “economics doesn’t just influence economic variables, whether personal or collective. It changes who we are.” ~ Ha-Joon Chang (1.)
*
1.
“The empty basket
“Economics is the language of power and affects us all. What can we do to improve its impoverished menu of ideas?
by Ha-Joon Chang
…
“… the dominance of economics by one school has made economics limited in its coverage and narrow in its ethical foundation.
“Some readers may legitimately ask: why should I care if a bunch of academics become narrow-minded and engage in intellectual monocropping? However, you should all care, because, like it or not, economics has become the language of power. You cannot change the world without understanding it. In fact, I think that, in a capitalist economy, democracy cannot function effectively without all citizens understanding at least some economics. These days, with the dominance of market-oriented economics, even decisions about non-economic issues (such as health, education, literature or the arts) are dominated by economic logic. I have even met some British people who are trying to justify the monarchy in terms of the tourist revenue it allegedly generates. I am not a monarchist, but how insulting is it for the institution to be defended in that kind of way?
“When so many collective decisions are formulated and justified with the help of the dominant economic theory, you don’t really know what you are voting for or against, if you don’t understand at least some economics.
“Economics is not like studying, say, the Norse language or trying to identify Earth-like planets hundreds of light-years away. Economics has a direct and massive impact on our lives.
‘We all know that economic theories affect government policies regarding taxes, welfare spending, interest rates and labour market regulations, which in turn affect our daily material lives by influencing our jobs, working conditions, wages and the repayment burdens on our mortgages or student loans. Economic theories also shape the long-term collective prospects of an economy by influencing policies that determine its abilities to engage in high-productivity industries, to innovate, and to develop in an environmentally sustainable way. But beyond even that: economics doesn’t just influence economic variables, whether personal or collective. It changes who we are.
“Believing humans to be driven by self-interest will create a society where cooperation is more difficult.
…
https://aeon.co/essays/why-everyone-needs-to-learn-some-economics
*
2.
“Who said or what said? Estimating ideological bias in views among economists”
Mohsen Javdani, Ha-Joon Chang
Published: 23 March 2023
Abstract
“There exists a long-standing debate about the influence of ideology in economics. Surprisingly, however, there are very few studies that provide systematic empirical evidence on this critical issue.
“Using an online randomised controlled experiment involving 2,425 economists in 19 countries, we examine the effect of ideological bias among economists.
“Participants were asked to evaluate statements from prominent economists on different topics, while source attribution for each statement was randomised without participants’ knowledge. For each statement, participants either received a mainstream source, an ideologically different less-/non-mainstream source, or no source.
“We find that changing source attributions from mainstream to less-/non-mainstream, or removing them, significantly reduces economists’ reported agreement with statements.
“This contradicts the image economists have/report of themselves, with 82% of participants reporting that in evaluating a statement one should only pay attention to its content.
“Our analysis provides clear evidence for the existence of ideological bias as well as of authority bias among economists.
“We also find significant heterogeneity in our results by gender, country, PhD completion country, research area and undergraduate major, with patterns consistent with the existence of ideological bias.”
Cambridge Journal of Economics, beac071,
https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beac071
https://academic.oup.com/cje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cje/beac071/7084598
The “Voice” proposal in Australia has proven to be unusually divisive. A feature of the debate has been the emotional arguments put forward by proponents of the “Voice” and a lack of substantive positive argument.
Specifically:
1. If the “Voice” is purely advisory why can’t it just be legislated without the need for a referendum.
2. Past national advisory bodies such as ATSIC have not performed well. Why will this new (allegedly) advisory body work better? Will it provide better advice on health and education issues than current representative bodies particular those linked to local and state government?
3. Will there be the potential for challenges to almost any legislative move in the High Court if the “Voice” wishes to claim it was inadequately consulted? (The likelihood of this seems stronger given that issue 1. has not been adequately addressed – the intent does seem to provide a power base in the Federal Parliament that is more than advisory.).
4. Do we want a democracy where specific weight is given to the views of a particular race? It is the case that indigenous Australians are disadvantaged but shouldn’t assistance be given to such groups because they are disadvantaged not because of their race? That may imply specific advice from indigenous Australians – this already happens – but not a bias in the design of our democracy that favors a particular race.
5. Is it reasonable to suppose that the constitution of the “Voice” will be worked out after Australians (if they do) approve it. Surely, that is more than a detail.
A 5th point – that I find difficult to articulate exactly – is my fear that the proponents of the “Voice” will behave in the future as they are acting now with extreme emotionalism and name-calling – heart-breakers, devils and racists. Current discussions suggest short-fuses with furious denunciations and/or implications of Uncle Tomism to anyway who questions the “Voice”.
Opponents – who include respected (and elected) indigenous leaders and past Labor politicians are regarded as racists or heart breakers rather than discussants in a significant national debate. Our Prime Minister had tears in his eyes in one speech supporting the “Voice”. This type of emotionalism is troubling. Positive answers to criticisms of the “Voice” proposal would be helpful and answers that go beyond the Uluru Statement.
There’s a lot to unpack in some comments above. I will try to stay succinct in each case.
1. Geoff Miell wrote:
“That late? (to Iko’s prediction that neoliberal hegemony will persist until at least 2030.) I think the social, energy, health, environmental & economic ‘tipping points’ are likely to emerge sooner.”
I have become chary of early maturing predictions after I lost a bet on predicting (in 2011) disaster by 2020 from resource shortages and climate change. I now feel I wasn’t far off; just a decade, which is little in the large sweep of history. I’ve also learnt a new and sad respect for;
(a) the amount of ruin in large systems collapsing from a high base,
(b) the amount of lies, gaslighting and disinformation from the elites, and
(c) the gullible and supine nature of the modern indoctrinated masses.
Bad news and bad data will be comprehensively covered up and until something like 40% to 60% of the population are ruined, the upper 40% may be able to ignore the crisis and abet the elites for crumbs from the table.
The above applies to developed countries. The crisis may hit undeveloped countries sooner, even large ones. Will the West (and even China and Japan) care? I doubt it. The crisis zones will be written off. Not saying they should be, just predicting they might be.
2. KT2 wrote:
“There exists a long-standing debate about the influence of ideology in economics.”
KT2 goes on to talk about economists. The ideology of economists is not the issue. The ideology of the capitalists is the issue. More to the point is to ask if economists have much influence. I actually don’t think they have much influence at all. For a start, left-leaning or socialist and democratic economists have been ignored for about 50 years by the powers that be. The powers that be are the large capitalists and corporations. It’s about “Capital as Power”. Capital *is* power in our system. Capital controls the deployment of human work, resources and energy.
The economists who support the capitalists are bought. Their opinions are for hire. Hence, these economists do not influence so much as they are influenced to influence. The masses are manipulated and contained by bread and circuses (panem et circensis) or by hunger and homelessness or by batons, bullets and penitentiaries all applied as required and directed by the elites. There is plenty of money for games, spectacles, propaganda, stadiums and nuclear powered subs, yet we seem short of money for housing, schools and hospitals.
Harry Clarke says “The “Voice” proposal in Australia has proven to be unusually divisive.”
I don’t think it is *unusually* divisive. I think it is “standardly” divisive in the way that all (claimed or proposed) measures to help poor and marginalized people are divisive or deliberately made divisive. It is passing strange that hardly anybody blinks when more money is given to already rich or well-off people but there is a great hullabaloo whenever there is any attempt to help poor and marginalised people. Harry, to his credit, did highlight the over-payment of job seeker money to businesses and did call for it to be repaid. But the mainstream media were largely silent on that issue and two governments, the former and the current, did nothing.
I wrote above “claimed or proposed” in relation to the “Voice”. It is a proposed measure and it is claimed that it will help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I don’t know how many people have tried to read the Voice proposal. I have. I failed to get right through it but I read a good proportion and scanned the rest. The clear impression I got was that the document consisted almost entiely of pure neoliberal-managerialist speak: lots of verbiage full of aspirational statements and little to nothing concrete in it, fobbing people off with fine words. Neoliberalism hath made its masterpiece when its opponents speak and write in its own language.
The Voice appears to be another proposal skirting the real issue. The real issue is this. Give people money (hat tip to J.Q.) so they can purchase real stuff. As I said in paragraph one, rich and well-off people are given extra money all the time but rarely is a hullabaloo raised about that. However, it is not so simple. Finance, as household, community, private and public finance is the briar patch. It is best managed by people born, bred and trained in the briar patch: an in-group in other words. These people are mostly white of course and predominantly manage this money in their own interests. Out-groups need not apply. That is the state of the game.
Sadly, the Voice is what neoliberalism does when it is pretending it is going to help poor and marginalized people by throwing more dust in their eyes. The litmus test will be whether funding increases after a successful Voice vote (if it is successful) and whether any of this funding ever reaches the grassroots say in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Hermannsberg, Mt Isa, Murgon, Dubbo. Roebourne, Broome or Arnhem land to name a few places.
I feel in a quandary as to how to vote. How will the Voice help the people not in the committees? It seems the structure will have so many levels, the voice from the bottom will never reach the top. People need to be careful. Neoliberalism, the dominant white man system, corrupts everything and everyone it touches.
Correction to above, J.Q. wrote “Give poor people money.” That is IIRC.
We can add of course, also give them the upbringing, education, training and helps to manage money in a grasping world with many temptations and traps. Homo lupus homo. Man is wolf to man. We must always bear that in mind.
Second correction as my Latin is abysmal to non-existent:
Homo homini lupus est.
Harry said – ” Do we want a democracy where specific weight is given to the views of a particular race? It is the case that indigenous Australians are disadvantaged but shouldn’t assistance be given to such groups because they are disadvantaged not because of their race? ”
Whites have more specific weight but its an interesting point . Race and class have always been inseparable , eg; the Irish were once considered not white, low class whites are far more likely to end up in jail than middle class blacks ,etc. In many ways race is a product of class. I too would prefer a constitutional voice for the lower class but obviously the capitalist class would never allow that .So we are left with the modern popular sold out Lefts dominant identity politics approach as the only possible hope for some change. This is because it has had some success when it passes the vital capitalist class test of not interrupting their wealth accumulation too much .
I will vote for the voice .My hope is that over time it might evolve into something more class based and unifying – a proper threat to the elites .I think traditional Aboriginal thought could do it . Hopefully Canberra Aboriginal voices like senator Jacinta Price who think the only hope is to abandon those traditions will be in a minority .
Harry, why is this troubling for you?
“”Our Prime Minister had tears in his eyes in one speech supporting the “Voice””.
A voice.
In need of Constitutional change.
“News Corp condemned for malicious lies and attacks against minorities
By Alan Austin
11 April 2023
…
“Continuing racist attacks
“The Courier Mail in Queensland published a malicious opinion piece in late 2021, headed ‘Only the parents can fix youth crime curse’, which claimed ‘many Indigenous parents routinely abandon their responsibilities and do little to instil in their children respect for our laws and the property of others’.
“The Council’s damning inquiry concluded:
‘In the absence of presenting a more balanced range of reasons behind the high incarceration rates of Indigenous youths, such as poverty, poor education and intergenerational trauma, and instead attributing the incarceration solely on an absence of parental guidance, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure expressions of opinion were not based on an omission of key facts.’
“Murdoch the main offender again
“Once again, most of the APC’s resources over the last two years were spent on complaints against the one media organisation — the Murdoch family’s News Corp.
“Of the 44 complaints fully investigated (May 2021 to April 2023), 33 were against Murdoch publications, which is 75%. Of the 36 articles in breach, 27 were from News Corp — also 75%.
…
“The larger, established corporations, in contrast, actively engage in political and social manipulation and frequently use unethical and deceptive means to achieve their ideological objectives.
“Of these, by far the most destructive is News Corp.
“There is a strong case for the Press Council to be given increased resources so it can complete many more media health checks.
…
https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/news-corp-condemned-for-malicious-lies-and-attacks-against-minorities,17409
KT2
Orwellian:
“There is a strong case for the Press Council to be given increased resources so it can complete many more media health checks”.
Should offenders be sent to an Uluru gulag? Or publicly humiliated for not adhering to the totally one-sided views of Alan Austin and his ilk?
Your post came after my post on the “Voice” but answered none of the queries I raised. Instead you turned the debate into yet another search for the sins of News Corp. Don’t you ever get bored with this approach? Viz: The good guys (“Us”) versus the evil, malicious racists at News Corp.
Harry,
What happens to any professional who practices, operates, advises or teaches in a manner going against professional ethics, professional standards and/or in a manner that is demonstrably dishonest in matters of fact or law? It’s professional misconduct is it not? Or it is malpractice. The same goes or should go for semi-professionals. However, journalists, MSM publishers and politicians have a nice little thing going together where they can can lie and misrepresent to the public, scratch each others’ backs and none of them are held accountable.
No-one is suggesting they go to an “Uluru gulag”. That’s hyperbole. People are suggesting they be held to proper standards of truth, equality and public fairness. If they don’t do so there then should be sanctions from fines and damages to withdrawal of media licenses and yes, maybe disbarment from public professional journalism. There is plenty of lying in PR and advertising: another “unholy trinity” there, MSM journalism, PR and advertising. It needs cleaning up somehow.There are many opinions on this re ills and cures. In my opinion, MSM journalists are captured by capitalists just as are our politicians. Here’s one quick overview of what has happened.
https://theconversation.com/stopping-misinformation-means-fixing-the-relationship-between-journalism-and-pr-159022
Harry, Harry, Harry.
My mentioning Newscorpse after was not referred to you. Just a big voice to compare and highlight emotionalism and objectivity, or not.
Fact: ““Of the 44 complaints fully investigated (May 2021 to April 2023), 33 were against Murdoch publications, which is 75%. Of the 36 articles in breach, 27 were from News Corp — also 75%.”
HC – Emotionalism (at best) – “Don’t you ever get bored with this approach? Viz: The good guys (“Us”) versus the evil, malicious racists at News Corp.”
Harry, as to your questions;
1. Good question. 240 years we have had to answer that question. And haven’t.
2. Whataboutery and tu quoquo. Who says the new body is subject to the old.
2a. HC: “Will it provide better advice on”… Come in Harry play nice. Will it … my crystal ball says ….
Who knows. All society is based in trust and I trust better advice will come from a specific group with specific knowledge. Especially implementation and feedback. How many Aboriginal languages do our Federal Parliamentarians speak Harry?
3. 2nd amendment to proposed Constitution change scuppers your high court Harry. Potential only if egregarious policy against aboriginals. As it should be. Several leading – including conservative – constitutional lawyers have said as much.
4(i). HC “Do we want a democracy where specific weight is given to the views of a particular race?
My challenge to you Harry. Define race.
A: No. Nor gender. Or wealth. Or religion. But we have and do make laws regarding these minorities.
4 (ii) “It is the case that indigenous Australians are disadvantaged but shouldn’t assistance be given to such groups because they are disadvantaged not because of their race?
A: you agree abiriginals are disadvantaged yet you constantly refere to race. it is not because of their race Harry, it is because after a Royal Commission and Closing the Gap targets both seem unheard and unmet.
Explain why Harry, since 1995:
“”3.1 Indigenous people were 16.5 times more likely than non-indigenous people to die in custody between 1990 and 1995. This rate reflects the disproportionately high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody.” (**Deaths** below)
4 (iii) “That may imply specific advice from indigenous Australians – this already happens – but not a bias in the design of our democracy that favors a particular race.”
A: Our democracy is not being designed on the basis of race. You perceive it as race.
We have three levels of Government. Why not also The Voice(s)?.
**Deaths**
“Indigenous Deaths in Custody
Part B – Statistical Analysis
Chapter 2. Indigenous Deaths in Custody
Chapter 3. Comparison: Indigenous and non-Indigenous Deaths in Custody
Chapter 4. Arrest and Imprisonment Rates and Most Serious Offence
Chapter 3
Comparison: Indigenous and Non-Indigenous DeathsSummary
“3.1 Indigenous people were 16.5 times more likely than non-indigenous people to die in custody between 1990 and 1995. This rate reflects the disproportionately high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody.
…
“3.3 Indigenous prisoners were 1.26 times more likely to die in prison than non-Indigenous prisoners.”
…
“7. Cause of Death
“Table 3.6 breaks down causes of death for deaths in police custody. The differences between the three principal causes of death are not statistically significant. 7 The deaths from injury generally resulted police car chases and cases where Aboriginal people were arrested under the presumption of intoxication. Non-Aboriginal people were more likely to die from self-inflicted gunshot, hanging or injury while in police custody.”
[ Table 3.6 ]
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/indigenous-deaths-custody-chapter-3-comparison-indigenous-and-non-indigenous-deaths
Harry’s “A 5th point” – is that I find difficult to articulate exactly”
Fear + tu quoquo. + RACE. You don’t imo find artuculatiin difficult Harry, imo you find it difficult to reconcile your cognitive dissonance between race & disadvantage.
Harry, I find your 5th point particularly egregious and vile “The term “Uncle Tom” comes from the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, where an enslaved African American, Tom, is beaten to death for refusing to betray the whereabouts of two other enslaved people.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom_syndrome
HC’s “A 5th point – that I find difficult to articulate exactly – is my fear that the proponents of the “Voice” will behave in the future as they are acting now with extreme emotionalism and name-calling – heart-breakers, devils and racists. Current discussions suggest short-fuses with furious denunciations and/or implications of Uncle Tomism to anyway who questions the “Voice”.”
Harry, if your 5th point isn’t race – ist, can you please define what you think racism is.
The Voice is not about race. Nor democracy. It is about a minority whom we seem to have failed.
And Harry, you haven’t answered ny question;
why is this troubling for you?
“”Our Prime Minister had tears in his eyes in one speech supporting the “Voice””..
Iko, I guess it’s difficult to know what the “proper standards” are. I read the Oz most days – mainly for the business section which is very good. The bias in the opinion pieces is obvious and recognised/internalized. I see exactly the same biases in The Age – always emphasising “govt orta” answers to every issue – and adopt the same internal screening. I prefer my internal screening to public censorship.
KT2, KT2, KT2 (following your attempted condescension) your response is gibberish which evades every issue and which is part confused/mainly intellectually dishonest. It would take a week to sort out the mess and then you would pour more smoke on the issue so I won’t bother.
No I don’t want a crybaby PM – I want one that will explain clearly the core issues and answer the types of questions I ask above. I don’t care if he feels it “in the heart” – I want to understand the substantive issues pertaining to the referendum. Core issue: Why the need for a referendum if the “Voice” has purely an advisory role as he claims?
Harry,
Yesterday the smh published two articles, written by lawyers, which may be helpful to disentangle your statements.
Both authors describe the difference between legislation (which needs to be consistent with the Constitution) and a referendum which is required to pass legislation that affects the Constitution (ie change or amend the Constitution). IMHO, your point “5.” (not your “the 5th point) arises from not respecting this distinction.
Gabrielle Bashir, President of the NSW Bar Association. Article is particularly relevant regarding the ‘closing the gap’ argument, which you touch upon when referring to education, health etc. Bashir points to a gap in the legal institutional framework.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-s-time-to-close-the-gap-in-the-constitution-20230412-p5czxn.html
Ian Roberts, Barrister is strong on bringing out the intellectual confusions in Dutton’s (and it seems to me also in your points) argument.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-s-opposition-to-the-voice-casts-him-as-the-mansplaining-whitefella-20230411-p5czmh.html
I don’t think I can improve or add to these articles. However, I am offended when you associate the word “cry-baby” with our Prime Minister. Of course I accept that you prefer a Prime Minister who never sheds a tear in public. However, to then rank, as you do, explanation and shedding a tear to express your preference for explanation is nonsense because it implies exclusivity in production (explanation iff no tears), which is empirically unsubstantiated. That is you confuse your consumption preferences with technological possibilities.
Ernestine
“However, to then rank, as you do, explanation and shedding a tear to express your preference for explanation is nonsense because it implies exclusivity in production (explanation iff no tears), which is empirically unsubstantiated. That is you confuse your consumption preferences with technological possibilities.”
Have you ever thought about the language that you use and the issue of plain English? You mean here (I think) that the PM can shed tears and provide an explanation. My problem is that he doesn’t do the latter.
The second article you cite makes the obvious argument that details of legislation (e.g. with respect to corporations law) do not need to be written into the constitution. True. But that doesn’t mean that information regarding the legislative intent of the government that it says will be worked out after the referendum cannot be provided before it. That does not imply this information will be written into the constitution. The article is otherwise an attempt to nail Dutton with an unwarranted “mansplaining” charge. The word is wrongly used anyway.
The first article doesn’t offer anything new at all but gives the game away by saying that legal challenges through the courts remain a “slight possibility”. It again does not answer the question of why a referendum is required when legislation could be used. The claim is that the body will be permanent but this means nothing if, as is claimed, every aspect of its operation (composition, elections, access to the bureaucracy etc) cam allegedly be controlled by the parliament. Is the author seriously contending that the abolition of ATSiC shows the need to permanently establish a representative body in the constitution? ATSIC was a corrupt failure and is one of the reasons people are nervous about establishing a permanent body – even one that can allegedly have every aspect of its operations controlled by the parliament. Would Geoff Clark make a suitable member of the Voice?
I am really sorry that you were offended when I described the PM as a “crybaby”. But I gotta say I thought the same about Bob Hawke when he periodically turned on the tears. Not conduct suitable for someone supposed to be our national leader.
“KT2, KT2, KT2 (following your attempted condescension) your response is gibberish which evades every issue and which is part confused/mainly intellectually dishonest. It would take a week to sort out the mess and then you would pour more smoke on the issue so I won’t bother.”
No gibberish or smoke.
Just…
Profit led inflation.
What other language may be used to describe such?
“This dramatic expansion of business profits (taking gross corporate profits to almost 30% of national GDP, the highest in history)” Jim Stanford (1.)
(2.) “It’s a view also recently articulated by UBS’s London-based chief economist, Paul Donovan, who blamed “profit margin-led inflation”.
“Profit margin-led inflation is when some companies spin a story that convinces customers that price increases are ‘fair’, when in fact they disguise profit margin expansion,” he said.”(2.)
John Quiggin & Flavio Menezes said on July 27, 2022:
“Although our analysis does not support the simplistic view that inflation is being driven by market power, it illuminates the way in which market power and inflation interact.”
“Most importantly, it provides no support for the idea of a wage-price spiral. And that means there is no case for cutting real wages to fight inflation.”
https://theconversation.com/inflation-is-being-amplified-by-firms-with-market-power-187418
*
1.
“Profit-Price Spiral: The Truth Behind Australia’s Inflation
February 24, 2023
by Jim Stanford
…
“Additional profits resulted from businesses increasing prices for the goods and services they sell, above and beyond incremental expenses for their own purchases of inputs and supplies. This dramatic expansion of business profits (taking gross corporate profits to almost 30% of national GDP, the highest in history) has been mostly unremarked on by the RBA and other macroeconomic policy-makers. They have focused instead on the supposed risk of a ‘wage-price’ spiral. However, new empirical evidence confirms the dominant role of business profits in driving higher prices in Australia – not wages. This suggests the focus of monetary policy on wage restraint is misplaced and unfair.
“Major findings:
…
https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/profit-price-spiral-the-truth-behind-australias-inflation/
“Profit-Price Spiral: Excess Profits Fuelling Inflation & Interest Rates, not Wages
February 24, 2023
“New empirical research reveals the main driver for inflation in Australia is excess corporate profits, not wages, and that inflation would have stayed within the RBA target band if corporates had not squeezed consumers through the pandemic via excess price hikes.
“The dramatic expansion of business profits has gone mostly ignored by the RBA and other macroeconomic policy-makers, who have focused instead on a supposed ‘wage-price’ spiral which does not exist. This suggests the focus of the RBA on wage restraint is misplaced and unfair, and that interest rates would be far lower today if companies had not gouged customers at the checkout.
“The report Profit-Price Spiral: The Truth Behind Australia’s Inflation”…
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/profit-price-spiral-excess-profits-fuelling-inflation-interest-rates-not-wages/
2.
“RBA accused of ‘dereliction of duty’ for dismissing corporate profiteering as a cause of inflation”
…
“Workers have already paid once for the current inflation, through rapid erosion of their real wages. They are now being forced to pay again, through rising unemployment and further real wage cuts, in order to solve a problem they clearly did not cause.”
…
theguardian
/business/2023/apr/13/rba-accused-of-dereliction-of-duty-for-dismissing-corporate-profiteering-as-a-cause-of-inflation
Harry,
I’ll start at your last paragraph and work myself to the top of your post.
I respect the position of Prime Minister, therefore I am offended if someone comes with emotional baby talk, like your “crybaby”, as a description of the holder of this high position, irrespective of who occupies this position for a period of time.
The first article, which I referenced, is by Gabrielle Bashir, President of the NSW Bar Association. It is entitled ‘Its time to close the gap in the constitution’.
You say this article contains nothing new. Well, you can say this now. But in your posts you failed to let us know that your understanding of the meaning of the phrase ‘closing the gap’ goes beyond the gap in life expectancy, health, education between the first people in Australia and subsequent inhabitants (more generally, variables with which economists are familiar), namely the Constitution. I understand the proposed referendum on “Voice to Parliament and the Government”, containing 3 paragraphs, would be closing the gap of recognition of Aborigines and Torres Straight Islanders in the Constitution.
Still relating to Bashir’s article, you postulate that there is a ‘game’. Well, life can be modelled as a game. What do you wish to say?
And, you say with respect to Bashir’s article: “It again does not answer the question of why a referendum is required when legislation could be used.” Are you serious? Bashir explains very clearly – in plain English as far as I can be a judge of this – that legislation that does not require a referendum cannot affect the Constitution and it is in the Constitution where there is a gap that is to be closed. I am really surprised by your statements. I did try to point to the crucial difference in my post.
And, you say: “The claim is that the body will be permanent but this means nothing if, as is claimed, every aspect of its operation (composition, elections, access to the bureaucracy etc) cam allegedly be controlled by the parliament.” But, I understand that the legislation, which requires a referendum to bring about the amendment to the constitution, is consistent with all other elements of the Constitution.
As for your comments on ATSIC, I consider this as an example of individuals having different information on which their beliefs are based. The information set could include only hypotheses. Perhaps you wish to argue your beliefs with Bashir.
Instead of arguing about probability assessments (eg “slight possibility” vs yours whatever it is), lets look at the limiting possible outcomes.
a) The worst possible outcome for closing the gap, defined in terms of socio-economic variables such as health, education, …, is no better than ATSIC.
b) the best possible outcome for closing the gap in terms of the same socio-economic variables is that the government of the day as well as parliamentarians and, via the media, the public at large, learn something about the concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which they were not aware of before with the result that for very little or less money significant improvements can be achieved for that group of people, who you consider disadvantaged, as per your first post.
For the third time, I now write the crucial difference between ‘legislation’, such as that underlying ATSIC, which you prefer (and not) and the legislation that requires a referendum to amend the Constitution is that the latter recognises the first people in Australia in the foundational document of Australia. To return to the ‘terra nullius’ position would require another referendum! Surely, this is a crucial difference.
Regarding the article by Ian Roberts, Barrister, you write: “The second article you cite makes the obvious argument that details of legislation (e.g. with respect to corporations law) do not need to be written into the constitution. True. But that doesn’t mean that information regarding the legislative intent of the government that it says will be worked out after the referendum cannot be provided before it. That does not imply this information will be written into the constitution.”
I cited the two articles in response to your item 5., which reads:
“5. Is it reasonable to suppose that the constitution of the “Voice” will be worked out after Australians (if they do) approve it.”
It seems to me, your ‘plain English’ has let you down, assuming you did not deliberately wish to obfuscate.
As to the first paragraph, which you wrote in reply to my post, I double checked and came to the conclusion that I wrote down in plain English what I concluded from your plain English.
My hypothesis is that you will write something to the effect that you don’t wish to continue the conversation and I can say now that if my hypothesis turns out to be correct then I agree with your wishes.
Albanese has been named in The Times “100 most influential people” list. This can only be because he has 100% toed the neoliberal line in economic matters including in tax and housing policy, ignored the COVID-19 pandemic entirely, done nothing substantial about climate change dangers and bought future-useless nuclear subs “off the plan”. The last three of Australia’s certainly do play overseas and *all* are part of the neoliberal plan to ignore the people and the environment and to make the rich richer. That is their only plan.
Ikonoclast: – “Albanese has been named in The Times “100 most influential people” list.”
Meanwhile, there have been 116 reported COVID deaths this week.
This makes 3,020 deaths in 2023, and 20,049 deaths in total, since the pandemic began.
3,020 deaths over 104 days so far for this year (2023) means on average about 29 deaths per day.
Australia remains on track for 10,500+ COVID deaths in 2023.
The COVID-19 pandemic is not under control.
Australians are dying of weak leadership.
And it seems to me journalists/media are not doing their jobs detailing the extent of the clear and present danger to citizens/society, on the existential threats of the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis & the climate crisis.
Nate Bear tweeted on Apr 11:
Posted at ClimateCodeRed.org on Apr 12 was a piece by David Spratt headlined The case for climate cooling, and some eye-watering charts. It included a link to a recent online talk (duration 1:09:35) by David Spratt organised by Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing (MEER), a network of researchers and advocates established by Ye Tao which focusses on mirror-based cooling solutions. The topic was the recent Breakthrough paper Faster, higher hotter on some takeaways from climate research in 2022. The MEER talk (and ClimateCodeRed blog post) included some slides not in the original paper.
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/04/the-case-for-climate-cooling-and-some.html
Ikon, Harry, Ernetine & my comments above, are a perfect example, and ample justification, for ‘A’ / The Voice.
i) What level of schooling / academia, is necessary to parse, classify, and supoort or rebut, mine, Ikon’s, Harry & Ernetine’s comments above?
ii) How much time & energy required absorb (i)? Who possesses such?
iii) what constitutes, after doing (i) and absorbing and UNDERSTANDING (ii), a consensus or defined disagreements?
iv) how will this new consensus reach critical mass? (Oops – media & political dog whistles now sounding)
If (i-iv) don’t convince anyone as to the necessity of a Voice to Parliament, the unconvinced are truely self referential, and imo disingenuous and dogmatic.
If a naysayer needs assurance about “The Voice Rendered Toothless” (fn-TVRT), read:
Mark Dreyfus in Hansard re The Voice:
…
“… Nothing in the provision will hinder the ordinary functioning of our democratic system.
“…would give weight to the representations of the Voice, those representations would be advisory in nature.
“It will be a matter for the parliament to determine whether the executive government is under any obligation in relation to representations made by the Voice. There will be no requirement for the parliament or the executive government to follow the Voice’s representations. The constitutional amendment confers no power on the Voice to prevent, delay or veto decisions of the parliament or the executive government. The parliament and the executive government will retain final decision-making power over all laws and policies.”
…( fn-TVRT)
*
Naysayers are denying the very trust of systems and processes that support the naysayers own ‘voices’, so to deny the other.
I read the exceptional English speaking experts and communicators on The Voice yesterday – barristers, silks, politicians and experienced journos. They’re words too, seem like gibberish to many in the group of people – humans – we are discussing.
And those experts are just functionaries of a process, irrelevant for the culture in question – the oldest surviving culture – to be real and continue.
Anything other than a Yes Vote is obfuscation and FUD, combined with a revelation that the naysayer trusts the political process to deliver for them, BUT NOT for things the naysayer is fearful of, or against – the other.
Asking for clarification, and not trusting our politicians and processes, ends up asking for proof before the event, and a ‘complete’ answer – 100% – for the naysayers
In JQ’s ” Burden of proof” APRIL 10, 2017, the authors of the paper state of a 100% solar power system that “there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.” – they are semantically correct AND denying all futures at once. Ignoring processes and denying imagination, improvement and involved intelligence towards inclusion, solutions with lived experience (anyone been an aboriginal for 3+ generations), and rectification in future.
If we as a species had acted in such a manner throughout history, we would still be in distinct and seperate tribes, the enlightenment would not have happened. Nor democracy.
If anyone wants ‘all my questions answered to my satisfaction’ -100% – they are delusional. If vacilating on a potential future – say The Voice – and a simple Yes will not be entertained, the vacilator is denying all the privileges awarded to them by democracy and undermining the very processes they are seeking to protect. A very sad and destabilising state to act out.
“One would only know a posteriori that something was knowable a priori. “The trouble then is that claims that people do have a capacity for a priori knowledge seem quite precarious.”
[18] Derek Leben (2015) “… does briefly discuss some potential philosophical relevance of linguistic structure for concepts such as know and cause, but concedes that, e.g., cause may not be “even a real property of the world at all, but a mere projection of our conceptual structure” (p. 66).”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/#Conclusion
There is a “mere projection of our conceptual structure” regarding The Voice. Not trust of systems and processes to develop and improve / disprove The Voice.
“… According to Goldman, an evaluator can correctly (and justifiably) describe a process as reliable, without being able to specify in any detail the sort of process type at issue.”
From “Reliabilist Epistemology” / “Parrying Responses (Comesaña 2006; Bishop 2010; Tolly 2017)”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/#GeneProb
fn-TVRT – The Voice Rendered Toothless.
“Hansard Start of Business BILLS
“Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023”
Second Reading
Thursday, 30 March 2023 Page: 1
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26436%2F0005%22
A very odd development in the Ukraine war. It’s not just me predicting the coming Ukrainian offensive will succeed. ISW, 13 April:
“Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin [….] published an essay on April 14 in which he argues that Ukraine’s coming counteroffensive is more likely to succeed than fail. Prigozhin warned that a selfish Russian “deep state” (which he defines as “a community of near-state elites that operate independently of the political leadership of the state and have close ties and their own agenda”) is currently in crisis due to the Russian military’s failures to secure a victory quickly. Prigozhin accused members of this deep state embedded in the Russian bureaucracy of deliberately sabotaging Russian success in the war because they seek to resume their privileged lives of comfort. Prigozhin stated that these Russian deep state “internal enemies” will push the Kremlin to “make serious concessions” tantamount to “betraying Russian interests,” including even possibly returning occupied Ukrainian territory to Ukraine over the course of a few years. Prigozhin explicitly rejected the notion of any negotiations to end the war and urged Russians to continue fighting, even if it results in Russia’s temporary defeat.”
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-14-2023
Prigozhin is not stupid but he is crazy as well as a thug. He as good as admits that the tens of thousands of Russian lives lost in his Verdun-style assault on Bakhmut have been wasted for no purpose. His implied future for Russia is pretty much exemplified by North Korea, a poverty-stricken paranoid hermit police state pretending to fight a forever war against a vastly more successful South Korea. I don’t believe that the tens of millions of Russians who have gone along with Putin to secure a chance of prosperity, order, international status and foreign travel will tolerate this fanatical dystopian vision.