Wellbeing manifesto

John Quiggin59 Comments

Clive Hamilton has set up a new website advocating a wellbeing manifesto. The general argument, as you’d expect from Clive, is that we should focus less on material wealth and use the benefits of economic growth (which I’d interpret in this context as technological progress rather than increased output) to deliver more desirable benefits, such as increases in leisure, better education and improvements in the environment. You can endorse the manifesto if you want and quite a few prominent people have done so .

I’m in general agreement with the ideas set out in the manifesto, though I’m taking my time to think about it before I decide whether to sign. On a quick reading the manifesto seems to capture a lot of points on which Clive and I agree, and omit some of those on which we’ve disagreed (we agree more than we disagree, but not on everything).

Some good news

John Quiggin20 Comments

The arrest by Pakistan of Abu Faraj al-Libbi is the first significant piece of good news we’ve had for a while in the struggle against Al Qaeda. Suspicious soul that I am, I checked on the possibility that his importance was being overstated, but there are plenty of sources (presumably predating his capture, since they go back to 2004), describing him as the Al Qaeda 3rd in command.

As the European struggle with terrorist groups in the 1970s and 1980s showed, terrorists can be beaten. Despite the fact that most of the policies our own leaders have pursued in the last few years have been either bothced (the failure to pursue bin Laden properly in Afghanistan) or actively counterproductive (Iraq), Al Qaeda is still losing ground on most fronts.

The only serious danger is that AQ will get its hands on nuclear weapons, and the most likely sources of such weapons are Pakistan and North Korea . The kid-glove treatment that’s been given to the Musharraf government is understandable in the light of this threat, and the network of jihadist sympathisers inside the Pakistani military and intelligence systems. On the other hand, dealings with North Korea have been botched horribly. Still, I think the odds are in our favour on this.

Election Day (crossposted at CT)

John Quiggin20 Comments

If I’m not confused by timezone differences, today is election day in Britain and the outcome seems pretty much a foregone conclusion (I haven’t checked the omniscient betting markets, I must admit). So, I’ll look at a more trivial question. If the British government wants to increase voter turnout, why don’t they hold elections on Saturdays instead of Thursdays?

I looked into this question in the case of the US, and there’s a complicated historical explanation, but the central point that, at the time Tuesday was chosen as a polling day, the standard working week was six days, and Sunday was excluded for religious reasons. So it didn’t really matter which day was chosen.

But in an economy where, even with a 24-7 service sector, Saturday is a day off for most people, it seems like a much more convenient choice. For a bunch of reasons, I can’t see the US ever making a change like this[1]. But in Britain it would be easy, and presumably modestly beneficial to Labour, which could therefore push such a change through Parliament any time it wanted.

fn1. First, the US is very conservative in relation to traditions of this kind. Second, the Republican party routinely opposes measures to increase voter turnout.

Costello’s options

John Quiggin36 Comments

I was discussing Costello’s prospects of making it into the Lodge last night, and it struck me that they were not very good. The only way Howard is going to falter badly enough to be sackable is if the economy goes sour, but then Costello will share the blame.

The optimal strategy, and also the standard one, does not seem to have been discussed as an option (feel free to correct me). If he wants the top job, Costello should resign from Cabinet, head for the backbench, and deliver a dignified speech about Howard’s shortcomings. In this scenario, a downturn in the economy hits the trifecta for Costello: his reputation as a masterful economic manager would be enhanced, whichever of his rivals took on the Treasury portfolio would be discredited and Howard would get the blame for alienating the only man who could run the economy properly[1].

If you look at Australia’s political history over the past 25 years, this approach has been pursued with success quite a few times: Peacock, Keating, Latham and Beazley all retired to the backbench to await the call, and none did so in vain, though only Keating (so far) has gone all the way to the Lodge.

fn1. I don’t think the correlation between economic performance and the competence of the Treasurer is all that great, but my opinions on this matter aren’t really relevant.

Winning the unwinnable?

John Quiggin8 Comments

I was reading a fairly sensible analysis of the UK election in The Economist when I came across this

There are echoes in this of a campaign involving Lynton Crosby, Mr Howard’s chief strategist, in Australia in 1996. It looked as though the Labor prime minister, Paul Keating, could not lose the election—until his opponent, John Howard, suggested that the electorate use its voice to “send a messageâ€? to Mr Keating. The tactic worked, and John Howard won a surprise victory.

As i recall it, the only person at all surprised by the election outcome was Paul Keating. And the only catchphrase i can remember from the campaign was “relaxed and comfortable”.

Departure

John Quiggin1 Comment

James Russell has shuttered his blog. Hot Buttered Death It’s one of a handful that were around back in the Mesozoic Era of 2002, when I first started blogging, and I’ve always enjoyed his rather offbeat approach. Still, blogging takes its toll, and James has decided to pack it in. So long and thanks for all the fish!

Contracts and casualisation

John Quiggin46 Comments

It’s the May Day holiday in Queensland, which I’ve observed by starting my long-promised post on contract employment and casualisation. What I have so far is only a first attempt at tackling the issues.

The two big changes in working life in Australia over the past twenty-five years or so have been, first, the reversal of the long-standing trend towards shorter working hours under standard conditions of full-time full-year employment, and, second, the displacement of full-time full-year employment by various combinations of part-time, casual and contract employment.

I’ve written a bit about working hours and holidays in the past, and Jason Soon has more. So I’ll talk a bit about the other developments.
Read More »

Monday Message Board

John Quiggin60 Comments

It’s time for the regular Monday message board, where you are invited to post your thoughts on any topic. I’m still planning a May Day post on labour issues, but I’d be interested in your thoughts. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.

Short-changing Iraq

John Quiggin21 Comments

While I was thinking about Iraq, I ran across this Washington Post story headlined Power Grid In Iraq Far From Fixed and with the front-page lead-in “After two years and $1.2 billion, U.S. effort to resuscitate electrical system is wide of its mark”.

Given the $1.2 billion figure, there’s no need to read the rest of the article. The electricity grid here in South-East Queensland (pop 2.5 million as against Iraq’s 20 million) experienced some blackouts last year, and the distributor, Energex is planning to spend over $A3 billion (about US$2.4 billion) over the next five years to fix the problems[1]. That’s to upgrade a network which has suffered from some underinvestment, but nothing remotely comparable to the two wars and decade of sanctions Iraq has had to deal with. Put simply, $1.2 billion is chickenfeed, and could not be expected to do more than prevent further deterioration.

And electricity grids need generation as well as distribution. $US 1.2 billion spent here in Australia would buy one decent sized power station, say 1500 Megawatts generating capacity. That’s not even enough to replace the capacity that was wrecked, neglected to the point of collapse or comprehensively looted for parts during the war and its aftermath. And of course, construction in a war zone is many times dearer than in Australia.

In this piece, written shortly after the war, I concluded

If there is to be a reasonable chance of establishing a stable democratic government, it will be necessary to spend at least $US25 billion and probably $US50 billion. Australia’s share would probably be at least $A1 billion. This is a large sum of money, but Bush, Blair and Howard had no trouble finding the same amount to fight the war. Regardless of whether individual Australians supported or opposed the war, we are stuck with the obligations we have collectively assumed.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the amount of money that has actually been spent on reconstruction so far is around $5 billion, and the amount left over from the US appropriation of $18 billion, after overheads and diversions to security is between $5 billion and $10 billion. The World Bak Trust Fund, set up in 2003 with pledges of around $10 billion, mostly from Japan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, currently contains about $300 million.

fn1. Disclosure and disclaimer: I’m on the board of the Queensland Competition Authority which regulates Energex. I’m not expressing any opinions about Energex, apart from the generally accepted point that there was underinvestment in the past. I’m just using it as an example with which I’m familiar.
Read More »