In keeping with my Labor party roots, I’ll be down at the local school early to vote, though in the spirit of modernisation, I’ll vote only once. My electorate of Ryan was famously won by Labor at a by-election a few years back, and the local member is thoroughly unappealing, but I don’t suppose there’s any chance of the seat changing hands.

Meanwhile, in the US, Michigan Republicans tried to have Michael Moore prosecuted for encouraging people to vote. He was giving out stunt prizes like clean underwear and noodles to ‘slackers’ who promised to vote and this was, the Republicans claimed, a payment to vote, which is apparently illegal. Police and prosecutors gave the case short shrift, but it reflects a consistent Republican policy of preventing people from voting whenever possible. They hate democracy almost as much as they hate Democrats[1].

Update Jack Strocchi kindly sent me this catalogue of recent crimes against democracy, from the Washington Post a few days ago. I wasn’t aware of any of these particular incidents – there are dozens of others that fit the same pattern.

fn1. Of course, this excludes Southern Democrats like Zell Miller. Virtually all of the old Dixiecrats have joined the Republicans, bringing with them their rich heritage of poll taxes, grandfather clauses and so on.

I’m annoyed that I haven’t received any of the phone or Internet spam being sent out by the Liberals. My concern is that, if they haven’t called me, they may be missing other swinging voters. With any luck, though, their database is sufficiently good to pick out only voters who are genuinely considering the Liberals, then to inundate them with messages night and day.

In the spirit of co-operation, I’d like to point out that not everyone is easily contactable by phone or Internet. A fleet of megaphone trucks, sent out at 5am on Saturday morning, could really have a big impact on the Liberal vote.

I’m working on a review of Doug Henwood’s book, After the New Economy. Brad de Long kindly sent me a copy, and, a mere eight months later, my review is done, at least in draft form. Comments much appreciated.
Read More »

Don Arthur, a great but infrequent blogger, has joined the crew at Troppo Armadillo, which will be a great location for him, I think. His first post is a response to my argument that the era of neoliberalism/economic rationalism is over. Don makes a lot of points, and I’m going to start with a relatively easy one. Don says “it’s hard to see a return to the high tariffs of the old Australian settlement”. I agree, but I think the whole notion of the Australian settlement isn’t very useful in relation to the rise and fall of neoliberalism.

What matters is the Keynesian-social democratic settlement adopted after World War II. Australia was one of the leaders in this with the 1945 White Paper Full Employment in Australia, claimed here as

the first time any government apart from totalitarian regimes had unequivocally committed itself to providing work for any person who was willing and able to work

Nevertheless, there was little that was specifically Australian about this settlement.

While Kelly’s name has been widely used, the things he is talking about are more accurately described by Gerard Henderson’s earlier term ‘Federation Trifecta’, consisting of Protection, Arbitration and White Australia[1]. These policies added up to a uniquely Australian policy package in the period before World War II, but their subsequent histories have been very different.
Read More »

Quite a few bloggers, and others, have commented on the fact that neither the Iraq war, nor the Free Trade Agreement with the US, both hot topics in the leadup to the election, have played a big role in the campaign. The obvious explanation is that both sides have vulnerabilities that prevent them from raising the issue.
Read More »

While I’m busy scanning the electoral tealeaves, quite a few other economists will be anxiously waiting for a phone call from Stockholm. It’s Nobel prize time, and various people have had a go at assessing likely candidates. Brad DeLong says you should pick fields (I think he’s right about this) and goes for the trade trio of Bhagwati-Dixit-Krugman. Tyler Cowen looks at seven candidates. And of course, there’s a betting market

For what it’s worth, I’d like to see Robert Shiller win. However, on Brad’s criterion, it could be argued that he’ll have to wait until “behavioral finance” gets a guernsey. Kahneman’s prize a couple of years ago was in the same general field and this might count against it.

And then, of course there’s Don Luskin

I’m one of those swinging voters who cop so much flak for being selfish, apathetic, ill-informed and so on. In quite a few elections, I haven’t finally made up my mind until I was inside the polling booth. Admittedly, I’ve usually been pretty sure about the order in which I would put the major parties, so changes in my first preference haven’t made any real difference to the outcome. But then, most of the time, I’ve lived in seats that have been fairly safe, one way or the other, so my vote has been essentially expressive.

This time, I’ve decided to bite the bullet and make a decision ahead of polling day. The decision is a significant departure for me. For the first time in a Federal election since the 1980s, I’ll be giving Labor my first preference vote. I haven’t been satisfied with everything Latham has done as leader, but this is the first time in more than a decade that I haven’t felt that Labor is merely the lesser of two evils. Given that the Greens are obviously going to do well anyway[1], I’m happy to vote Labor.

In view of the generally disappointing poll results over the weekend, I’m less optimistic than I was last week, but Labor’s chances are still close to 50-50. And regardless of the electoral outcome, there’s no doubt that the election marks the end of economic rationalism/neoliberalism as the dominant force in Australian politics. The tide has been running against economic rationalism ever since ‘the recession we had to have’. But Howard’s explicit repudiation of this ideology is as clear an endpoint as we’re ever likely to see.

fn1. I’ve occasionally supported the Democrats in the past, but there’s no point in considering them any more.

Howard’s conversion to tax-and-spend social democracy has led to some interesting responses on the right of the Australian political spectrum. I have discerned three main responses.

* See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

This has been the dominant response of the partisan cheer squad represented by commentators like Michael Baume and lobby groups like the Institute of Public Affairs Faced with policies they can’t possibly endorse they maintain a discreet silence and focus on safe grounds for supporting the government, like “experience” . This was the theme of Baume’s latest piece in the Fin, and of the IPA, who wheeled out ex-Labor minister Gary Johns to say

I think Australia has got itself a future prime minister in Latham but I don’t think people will accept him now.

“I think John Howard is a steady hand at the till (sic). I don’t think the economic conditions are such that people will want to switch horses.”

Of course, if you buy this kind of argument we would never have a change of government.

* Hold your nose and pull the lever.

This has been the second-most common response, represented by people like Alan Wood, who, after deploring both parties, manages to find a bunch of reasons for preferring the government.

* A plague on both your houses

Only a minority of those on the right have been willing to condemn the government in the same terms as they have always attacked similar proposals from Labor. One example is a letter by Greg Lindsay and Peter Saunders of the CIS published in The Australian on 29 September.

The big problem for those with this viewpoint is that they have “nowhere else to go”. A few people, like John Humphreys may put the government last. This would be the logical response (if they lose this time, the Liberals might revert to free-market policies, whereas if they win they will persist with social democracy) but I can’t see many people advocating it.

Napoleon famously said that, after his educational reforms, he knew, at any given time of day, what subject every child in France was being taught. But the Howard government is giving him a run for his money in micromanagement, with a promise to specify letter grades from A to E for every student. Parents who’ve read the obscure reports commonly handed by schools will have some sympathy with Nelson on this score, but surely this is the kind of thing that ought to dealt with at the school level (if necessary, with some general guidance from state departments of education).

And if we are going to have letter grades, A to E seems an odd choice, more reminiscent of Brave New World than of actual grading systems parents will have experienced. At least in the three-euphemism systems commonly employed at present (‘tackling this topic with ease’, ‘mostly on top of this topic’,’ not quite yet’) it’s reasonably easy to work out if your kid is failing. And the letter systems I’ve experienced use the mnemonically unambiguous F. What would a D mean in the proposed setup?

Gerard Henderson gets exercised about the sectarianism supposedly implicit in Tony Jones questioning Abbott about his meeting with George Pell. He has things the wrong way around.

It would be sectarian to suggest that Abbott went to Pell to get his orders – rule from Rome and all that. The actual implication though, is that Abbott went to tell Pell what to do, and that Pell complied, either out of ideological sympathy or in return for past favors, such as help for Pell’s private university.

Pell and Jensen are, quite properly, getting the same treatment as any other interest group lobbyists, and it’s entirely appropriate that their backroom dealings should be publicised.

Update Rob Corr has covered this and made some more good points.