Incessant ramblings of the quietly insane

Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax!

2011-03-10T11:51:00.011+11:00

Having discovered, last week, that the Gillard government was SO impressed by my previous post on the best way forward for the ETS and the Carbon Tax, that they decided to implement my plan - I was also interested in this offering from the ABC, on the issue, and thought I'd like to promote it here:

Radio network leads anti-tax uprising

Basically, pricing carbon is a good idea, and the Gillard government's plan is actually the best idea out there (even if I positied it first :-)).

Let's get over this "OMG it's a new tax!" scare campaign - admit that something needs to be done on the issue - and realise that a staged release of an ETS (via a direct pricing charge on industry) is the best way forward.

The funny thing is - I actually think this Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax campaign might just run out of media interest and momentum in time for Labor to release their details... oh... hold on, maybe that's the plan! ;-p

The details should be interresting. And, I suspect, might contain A LOT of compensation for all of the Aussie Battlers that Tony Abbott is currently trying to worry, whith his great scare campaign.

Let's forget about the "broken promises", anything that was previously said or promised, etc. etc. etc. Both sides have changed their minds. Both sides have contradicted themselves and no one can really defend themsleves on that level (except maybe the Greens).

Let's just talk about what the best solution is... here and now, for all of us. Forget the past promises and try to work out where we would and should be going from here.

If you're not convinced by the efficacy and sense of the Gillard government's plan - please post here and tell me why. I'd be happy to have the debate.

The only thing I would ask is that you read my original post first - and refute the points raised there, rather than raising another non-specific anti-tax argument off the bat.

Let the debate begin!

PowerBalance IS a scam... told you!

2011-01-04T15:29:00.011+11:00

PowerBalance - according to gizmodo - has admitted that their wristband WAS a scam.

Now this wouldn't necessarily be quite as funny to me - except that I JUST had an anonymous commenter berating me, and this blog, the other day, for deriding his favourite cure.

See:

my original post - and make sure you check out the comments
the gizmodo article

If the original commenter on my previous post would like to let us know how he feels, I'd be quite interested... honestly - the piss will not be taken... I'd really like to know how you feel about the situation.

Now we need a new target for those new powers of the ACCC... any ideas? Who's next?

Editor's follow-up:

Here's an interesting video - a quick outline of how the scam is perpetrated by "demonstration":

Babies and Cross-Promotion

2010-11-22T09:45:00.005+11:00

Besides having a new baby - my other excuse for not posting is: working on a new band name generator.

So - as a shameless piece of cross-proomotion... and because I don't have time to post on any of the other (more impotant) issues I've been wanting to write about...

Here's "Banda", the band name generator:

http://creativearts.heroku.com/banda

From The Blurb

Banda is a band name generator.

It uses a database of common English words to randomly generate a new band name for you - every time you click "get a new one".

It also allows you to vote on your favourite band names - and to post any band name you really like to facebook, twitter... etc.

Banda - it's like Panda... with a 'B'!

God Would Have Chosen Random Selection (or The Peter Principle Goes to Church)

2010-10-14T14:04:00.010+11:00

New research, out in February - shows that the best process for selecting which people to promote, out of a group, is a random one.

It shows that one of 2 random processes, either:

selecting people completely at random, or;
selecting (at random) either the best of the worst candidate

produce more efficient outcomes, for any organisation, than any of the other strategies tested.

It is not lost, on the researchers, how counter-intuitive this is.

This research has now won one of the IG Nobel Prizes - the spoof prizes based on the Nobel Prizes.

The Point?

The missing realisation here is... it's a big one for the theists. Yes, that's right, the theists!

Because... it shows, without a doubt, that, if God exists - assuming that she is perfect, and therefore chooses the most mathmatically efficient process for any given outcome - she most certainly would have have chosen "random selection" as her preferred method for the development of her pet project (i.e. us).

[N.B. We will ignore, for the sake of argument, the fact that the theory of Evolution does not actually propose "random selection" as the selection method of choice - it proposes that individuals are "chosen" by survival of the fittest from a pool of randomly mutated options... but who said Evolution was perfect? Not the evolutionists, certainly... but God on the other hand... well...]

Achem... anyway. My point is a simple one.

No matter which way you look at it - the Creationists are barking up the wrong tree... even if God has designed it all - random selection is still the most efficient method of promotion... and so... it doesn't need a hands-on designer... any "intervention" that he/she/it performed was doomed to be less efficient than just letting it develop randomly... all God needed to do was push the "Go" button and sit back and watch her creation improve itself via the most efficient method...

Randomness.

Oh... but hold on! If you don't NEED a designer to find the best / most efficient solution then... oh dear...

Ed Note: Any implication that I may, or may not, have just ruined the Intelligent Designer's argument was completely unintentional - and was achieved purely through a random process of pulling ideas out of my head until something worked...

Quite efficient, I find.

REFERENCE: "The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study," Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo, Physica A, vol. 389, no. 3, February 2010, pp. 467-72.

Extract:

In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {\it 'Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence'}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.

Power Balance meets new ACCC powers - bring it on!

2010-10-13T22:58:00.009+11:00

Back in April, the ACCC was given some powers that I had thought were a good idea, for some time...

See the article here for more details.

But now, Christopher Zinn believes he's found the perfect candidate for testing the new laws.

The Power Balance bracelet has been called a "blatant con" by the Australian consumer watchdog, Choice (read report).

So, watch this space, for more exciting updates. Could it be we're entering an age, finally, where consumers can hold manufacturers properly accountable for their claims?

Here's hoping.

What other products do you think would be best for testing under the new laws? List them here in the comments - and I'll send a list of the best ideas on to the ACCC.

More references:

[Ed Note: for follow up, see post here]

Pricing Carbon, Taxes and the ETS

2010-09-30T12:01:00.064+10:00

OK - so I haven't posted for a VERY long time...

I HAVE been busy, producing a theatre show - but, excuses aside - here we go, finally:

For years I have been saying I wanted to write a post in defence of the ETS. Many people - many intelligent and knowledgeable people - have asked me why the Australian Government (and this goes back to the days of PM Howard here) supports an ETS over a carbon tax.

I actually think an ETS is a good idea. I think it's the only practical idea, in the long-term. I think it's the only effective idea, given the practicalities of government and I think it's the most efficient solution economically speaking. I'm THAT convinced.

But, as we all know, the Rudd government did an AWFUL job of explaining themselves.

We can excuse the Howard government for not explaining it properly, because, if you probed far enough, the truth was, they didn't want to do anything about the problem. They just proposed the ETS as their preferred option ... "if we have to choose something I guess we'd prefer an ETS".

But Rudd - that's where it really failed. He really wanted to do something (didn't he?).

In 2007/08 we had the Rudd-Slide - and I thought I'd missed my opportunity to explain why it was good idea, because it would just happen. Then in 2009 I thought I missed my chance to explain why it was a good idea because Copenhagen was going to ignite interest in the issue... then in 2010... well that’s when I should have got around to it - because it was damn clear the government wasn't going to explain their own policies to anyone.

So here we are, at the end of 2010 - and STILL no one is clearly explaining why an ETS would be a good idea. So I'm going to try, in my own little way, to do just that...

Before I try to lay it all out though... I must pre-empt the end of the story. Another idea has occurred to me, which I believe nullifies the only good argument I've ever heard against the ETS (that of the difficulty of getting people to report clearly in the lead-up years). But you'll have to read to the end, to follow the argument.

The Argument

Any possible solution for the problem of Global Warming (I'm taking that problem as a given, by the way... if you need to discuss that topic first, this probably isn't going to be a very useful discussion for you) should be judged on 3 basic measures:

Effectiveness: It's ability to reduce carbon emissions
Efficiency: It's cost to the overall economy
Practicality: It's likelihood of succeeding in the given political system

In a broad sense there are 3 basic models put forward:

Direct legislation to limit carbon emissions
A carbon tax
An ETS

Effectiveness

So basically, the question is - how effectively does your plan reduce carbon emissions? How well does each given plan reach the particular goal of desired carbon output? And the answers are as follows:

Direct legislation: quite effective, actually, but sometimes unknown or unpredictable (can go over the top and damage the industries involved more than necessary - but that's not what we're discussing at this point)

Carbon Tax: completely unknown - depending on the level of the tax, it can completely kill the industries involved, have no effect on emissions or, if you get the value just right (and I mean "just right"), reduce emissions the amount you want.

ETS: This is where the ETS really shines - you set the amount of maximum carbon output for the economy as a whole, and the market makes it happen by setting the right price for carbon. No more, no less - you get exactly the amount you said you wanted (ignoring illegal output, which applies to all 3 plans anyway).

For a really clear summary of the mechanisms involved, from some industry experts, listen to ABC Radio National - Australia Talks episode on carbon pricing. [I will add a link to the specific section I'm talking about, when I get time to edit the file]

The whole talk is quite interesting, in fact, and includes parts near the beginning where an expert from an energy production company actually makes an argument for putting a price on carbon! Who would've thought?

Efficiency

Here, the question is - how efficiently does the given plan reduce carbon emissions (to the desired amount)? How much does it cost, in total, for the economy to adjust to the changes and find a new equilibrium? And the answers are as follows:

Direct legislation: There is some disagreement about this - but in essence the argument against it being efficient comes down to one idea: Government and Independent Bodies can't predict far enough in advance how best to reduce emissions. Don't legislate how it should be done... create incentives and let the cut-and-thrust of commerce and innovation work it out. Direct legislation seems, by all reports, the least efficient option.

Carbon Tax: While a Carbon Tax is not the least efficient, it does seem to have one particular inefficiency. It allows the worst polluters (often the polluters with the highest profit margins) to keep paying to pollute. A carbon tax then, also, has the greatest financial impact on the (often lower-level) polluters who don't have the same high-margins. [N.B. While some people complain about an ETS that it allows the worst polluters to quickly make money on the cap-and-trade market by making reductions that were easy to make and should have been done already... this is exactly why it's more efficient than a carbon tax - it gets the attention of those who can most easily (for "easily", read "efficiently") reduce their carbon output.]

ETS: By all reports, an ETS IS the most efficient way to reduce emissions across the whole economy. A similar scheme (to the one proposed for Australia) was introduced to reduce SO2 emissions in the US, in 1990. It was reasonably effective - and when the efficiency (total cost per reduction in emissions) is calculated it stands clearly above previous attempts to do similar things via other methods. For a more detailed summary of this program and the findings / lessons: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/eco/EmissionsTrading.htm#_Toc240944120

Practicality

And finally, the last question is - how practical is the given plan? How likely is it to succeed (in the long-term) given the changeable nature of politics and the personalities and pressures involved? And the answers are as follows:

Direct legislation: The problem for direct legislation, in the political arena, is that it's too easy to make a general argument that "that's not fair on me because X" - and it's too hard to balance out the differences for everyone involved. The moment you make a concession for one part of the economy, another will jump up and make a reasonable (sounding) argument for their own part of the economy. The only "fair" solution is one in which each area of the economy takes a chunk of the responsibility based on a range of sliding parameters. And politicians will never be able to wade through the sea of barriers that individual interest groups will put in their way (even if those politicians didn't have any self-interest involved, which of course they do).

Carbon Tax: A carbon tax, by comparison, is simple and much more likely to get through, in the first place. But what about after that? What about in 5 years time, when, by some miracle, the politicians managed to set exactly the right tax level, and have reduced our emissions to 90% of 1990 levels, but now the emissions are creeping up again, because innovation means it's much cheaper to produce carbon, and carbon producers can afford to pay more tax to do so... You've got the remember, it's the total carbon output, not the total cost, or revenue we're interested in here... who's going to guarantee that the next government would make the argument to increase the tax by the required amount to keep us on track to a sustainable level of output? No one, that's who... we'd be in the same boat, all over again - right back where we started... fighting the same fights.

ETS: In comparison, an ETS is a self-regulating system. Set-it-and-forget-it. Well, not quite, I hear you say... you still need to make the political argument to reduce the emission levels... Ah yes! But saying, to the voting populace, "we need to reduce emissions further, let's set the dial on emissions a little lower" is a MUCH easier political position than "let's increase taxes again". You tell me which you think is going to be more sustainable... Besides which, you could set-in a program of clearly defined year-by-year reductions, right now - and they are much less likely to need adjustment than tax levels... because when we set the level on an ETS we're saying exactly how much carbon we are going to allow, not guessing how much carbon a particular tax level will generate.

The Only Problem

The problem, with an ETS, that I have seen examples of, is this: how do you work out how many permits to create in the first place?

This problem was faced by the introduction of an ETS in Europe. And they failed to avoid it.

They asked people to report how much carbon they produced... and of course, they over reported, so that there would be too many permits - and permits would therefore be cheaper.

Conversely, a carbon tax has the opposite problem. It asks people to report - and they under report, in order to avoid tax.

And that's what brought me to the solution:

A carbon tax can be introduced much faster and more easily than an ETS... a carbon tax encourages under-reporting... an ETS encourages over-reporting.

So:

Introduce a carbon tax - in the next budget
- A small introductory one, with indications that it will rise over the next 3 years.
Ask people to report their emissions, as they would need to, in order to calculate a tax
- Obviously some form of auditing would need to check-up on people's self-reporting - as is the case for any form of tax or trading system.
BUT - and here's the important bit - make it very clear that there WILL be an ETS introduced at the end of that 3 year period

And, so what? Where does that leave you?

Well, it leaves you with companies, across Australia who all have a vested interest in reducing the reporting of their emissions, over the next 3 years, in order to avoid tax - but who are also clearly aware that any attempt to do so will mean not enough permits to go around and much more expensive permits, in 3 years time.

You have 3 year to prepare for the introduction of an ETS. The tax level can be adjusted in the s2n and 3rd years, as its effect becomes clearer over time.

You might still get some under reporting... and you might even get some over-reporting in the last year, on the calculation that paying a bit of extra tax, in the last year is worth getting more permits into the system eventually... but on balance I think most people will recognise that the most efficient way to report is honestly.

Thus, in my opinion, reducing one of the only major difficulties with the initiation of an ETS.

Until then, let's hope we can get SOME price on carbon soon - so that it starts getting factored in to future growth and planning.

It's sad to reflect that, after all this time... this blog post is still as relevant today as when I first started writing it in my head... more than 5 years ago...

Can we move on now?

Other References:

http://www.mygreenaudit.com/arguments-in-favour-of-an-emissions-trading-scheme/

How bad was the government's insulation scheme, really?

2010-05-05T20:15:00.010+10:00

Some months ago, I read a piece in Crikey which analysed the numbers on the insulation scheme - and how much they increased risk for the people who had used it.

I found the numbers fascinating. Basically, they show that the risk of fire from insulation, per insulation, was actually reduced by the introduction of the scheme, and the extra regulation and safety measures it brought in.

I won't rehash all the details here. You can look them up in the original Crikey article.

But I did want to say that it's not entirely unbelievable. The insulation scheme actually introduced safety regulations to an industry that previously had absolutely none - so however much the opposition wants to claim that the safety measures "didn't go far enough"... at least they went somewhere.

What I am seriously disappointed by is: if these figures and analysis have any basis in reality, then the government has completely failed to explain this to anyone, and has, apparently, simply walked away from the issue because it was a "hot potato". These figures don't make what the government did "alright", they just make exactly what wrong they did a different issue. If the government has walked away from a policy that was, in essence, working - and avoided the hard job of explaining this to the populace, because... well, I don't know... because they thought we were too stupid to understand, then... IMHO that's even worse!

I wanted to try to bring attention to this matter again. As the election grows nearer, more and more references are going to be dragged up by the opposition in reference to this matter... but the real issue isn't that the government stuffed up their policy - it's that the government completely failed to explain how their policy, and implantation of it, was actually working.

Let's understand, and complain about, the real issue here.

James Randi, Psychics and Homeopoathy

2010-04-23T10:33:00.007+10:00

After some rights issues (as mentioned on the James Randi Education Foundation web site), TED have finally released a video, filmed last year, of James Randi's take down of phychic fraud and homeopathy.

For those of you who know Randi... it's all been said before - but he does it so well - with so much passion, and such fun:

Thanks Randi!

Homeopathy wins!

2010-04-19T22:31:00.002+10:00

I had to share this one...

I love the fact that one of the oldest Double-Blind Randomised Controlled Tests ever recorded was performed on homeopathy... but I won't take the credit for the research... let Joseph Albietz tell you all about it.

Oh, it failed the test by the way... but it won in another way. Homeopathy is possibly the first theory to ever be disproved by the implementation of the Double-Blind Randomised Controlled Test.

Irreducible Complexity

2010-04-15T22:09:00.006+10:00

For those of my friends (a couple at least) who believe that the Intelligent Design proponents might "have a point" - I would like to take a moment to post this piece... it's from The SGU 5x5 (The Skeptics Guide To The Universe, 5 by 5).

I found it one of the best, succinct, refutations of the "Irreducible Complexity" argument that is often put forward by people who support the idea of Intelligent Design.

On the same subject, essentially - I also found this, shorter, piece on Teleology (the generic argument behind Intelligent Design), its history and the reasons for being skeptical of its implementation.

Basically, it efficiently outlines the argument against the idea behind Intelligent Design.

Nice work from the SGU team.

So, "what's the harm?" you might ask

2010-04-15T20:33:00.008+10:00

I really quite like this...

I found an interesting web site, today - dedicated to answering the question: "What's The Harm?"

It's a soft argument, often used by people of, what I would call, a non-skeptical nature... to refute the general argument that any false claim (by proponents of drugs that don't work or procedures that do little good) should be tracked down and advertised as non-scientific and unproven.

"What's the harm?" they say. By this, presumably, they mean "if it doesn't do any harm, then there's no problem with allowing people to keep believing it works, whether it does or not".

Now, besides the fact that I would disagree with this basic argument, on principal (more about that some other time, maybe)... even accepting the argument as a valid moral position - the truth of the matter is that many ineffective drugs, non-scientific procedures and false claims do do harm. I have heard many such examples over the years, usually while watching interesting talks from well known skeptics such as James Randi and Simon Singh (who won his libel case today - yay!).

The problem is, I always forget the details, and can't draw them up from my memory banks in a convincing enough way, when presented with the need to do so in argument...

And here's the answer: a web site devoted to recording, documenting and measuring the harm done by fallacious claims and bad (or non-existent) science.

What's The Harm

So bookmark it... and the next time someone says to you "but what's the harm" pull out your smartphone (no product bias here, thanks), load up this page - follow the link to the topic of the hour, and read out a few examples...

If the person you're talking with doesn't become violent with rage over what a smartypants you are, you might just have managed to make a well deserved point...

Have a quick browse through some of the topics covered. I found it quite interesting to see how much detail, and how many examples they've managed to collect.

Simon Singh wins libel case

2010-04-15T20:11:00.008+10:00

The British Chiropractic Association, today, dropped its libel case against Simon Singh, the science writer.

In what must be a great relief to many active and outspoken skeptics, across the UK, and around the world - the court of appeal in the UK overturned the previous judgment, that Singh's piece was "not comment"... that he would need to prove the objective truth of what he wrote.

Interestingly, the previous judgment basically said "you need to prove that Chiropractic doesn't work, or we can sue you for saying it"... which of course would lead to all sorts of possible libel cases regarding people speaking our against unproven claims.

Imagine if pharmaceutical companies could say "'this product cures cancer' - and we can claim it does, on the bottle AND you can't print a word saying it doesn't, until you can prove that it doesn't". The onus of proof would then be on the consumer, or the skeptic, to prove the non-efficacy of a product before anyone would be allowed to say it didn't work.

Anyway, the point is, the decision was overturned - and the BCA have dropped their case.

As Rebecca Watson from Skepchick points out, though, Simon Singh may have a hell of time recouping his costs - and he may still have made some significant financial sacrifices in order to see this case through, and not simply settle "out of court".

More links on the story:
Telegraph UK
Times Online

[Ed: Latest update. This from "The Millenium Project" - Simon Singh again]

Sarah Mahew - grab on to what is true

2010-04-15T19:33:00.003+10:00

I was quite excited (and, kind of touched) by this video:

But, I am confused as to what "Nokia Responsiveness" is.

I'm happy to see the inclusion of this story here - but what exactly is the point of Nokia Responsiveness and its attempt at civic "conversation starting"? Can anyone enlighten me?

But - actually, just replay the video... and listen to that inspiring question at the end... "do we have the courage to let go of our beliefs in order to grab on to what is true?"

Conroy already filtering his own site

2010-03-01T22:59:00.007+11:00

Would I sound paranoid if I said Stephen Conroy's website is deliberately concealing users' searches for "ISP Filtering"?

Well the evidence is on the page itself:

//Customise the tag-cloud to display what shows up
if (unique[i] == "ISP Filtering")
{
continue;
}

Basically, this piece of code simply says "if the value in the List you are displaying is 'ISP Filtering' leave it out". It's there in plain code, in the HTML of the page you download from his site. However many searches anyone makes on "ISP Filetering" it will never be displayed in the list of users' searches - therefore giving a false impression of what people are actually searching for.

It claims to give you information on what users are interested in then specifically alters that information for, what can only been assumed to be, Senator Conroy's own purposes.

It is also a very blunt solution that obviously wouldn't catch values such as "Web Filtering" or "ISP Censorship". Not only is it surprising behaviour - it's also an ineffective, amateurish and clumsy solution to a problem (that he shouldn't have been trying to solve in the first place).

The worst thing about this is - if Senator Conroy doesn't understand what the difference between this and properly removing the results (on the server side) is, then he is an embarrassment to his portfolio and doesn't deserve the role... if he does understand the difference and can't be bothered fixing it "properly" (so you and I can't simply see it ourselves) then he simply doesn't think this is an embarrassing thing to do.

I think the former is more likely - but either way - he just doesn't get it.

More details - news.com.au article on the subject.

Budget '09 Roundup

2009-05-13T21:12:00.016+10:00

Every year my best friend (who shall be, from here on, referred to as "C4") and I get together for a special event. One year, as there was no television at my house, he drove a television over to my house, in the car, especially.

No it's not the State Origin, or the World Cup (der, obviously - that's on every 4 years... isn't it?).

It's the budget. That's right, we get together... to watch... the budget.

As the major and most publicly anticipated political event of each year - we both find an embarrassed nerdy pleasure in making the time to watch it.

The main frustration in previous years has been wanting to comment in the middle of the speech - and rewind in order to catch details. This year (along with the beer, wine and cashews) I came to the party armed with note-pad and pen, so I could jot down points of interest without interrupting the flow of the speech. I needn't have bothered, however, as, low and behold, this year C4 brought his DVD recording system to the party so we could pause, discuss and rewind - what a revelation! Someone should tell someone... I don't know... maybe, sports fans, or something, might like this kind of thing too.

Every year I am inspired to write a roundup. So this year...

On top of this, however - C4 was kind enough to point out the discrepancy between the name of my blog and the regularity with which it's updated... perhaps my "ramblings" have not been quite as "incessant" as I would have hoped...

What better time to pick up the pace with my posts again!

So now, for the roundup:

The Roundup

Initial Thoughts

So - once you get past the contemporary need for a "catch phrase" or a sound bite:

"and tonight's budget is brought to you by the expression 'Nation Building for Recovery'"

the first issue with this budget is the fact that it was billed as a "tough budget". In his opening preamble, Wayne Swan says that "economic leadership is about making the tough decisions, no matter what the political consequences might be".

That may be so - but if it is, then this budget does nothing to prove Labor's commitment to economic leadership. Quite the opposite - they have obviously made some less "tough" decisions in order to minimise the political consequences in their most contested constituencies, and other "tough" decisions have been made precisely because there were no political consequences to speak of.

Yes of course - expecting politicians not to be political is like [insert drole comparison of two oxymoronic concepts here]. But still, to claim the actual decisions within this budget as anything approaching "tough" is simply taking the piss. Wayne Swan claimed that "We couldn't raise the pension without hard choices elsewhere" - but apparently... he has.

Pension Payments

Increase in withdrawal rate
Increase in qualifying age
Decrease in super concessions (some temporary)

for pensioners; all of these things are savings. But they could hardly be defined as "tough" or "hard choices". All of them are outweighed by increased payments to singles and couples.

Now, don't get me wrong. I support all of these measures. All of them seem fair and right. Or, at least, more fair than the previous system. But none of them should be defined as "tough".

Paid Maternity Leave

All this talk brings me to one of major problems in this budget - the plans for paid maternity leave.

Let's look at some of the big numbers:

$22 billion - Infrastructure
$4.7 billion towards a $43 billion PPP Broadband Network
$5.3 billion - Tertiary Education

Amongst all of this, the government has made one of their "tough" decisions regarding paid maternity leave and postponed it for 18 months.

Now the TOTAL spend over 5 years for the introduction of a Paid Parental Leave system is $731 million - and yet the government sees the need to postpone this until after the next election.

The savings are minimal, and yet the potential cultural benefit so great.

Lets make this clear - we are in a club of 2 (along with the US) as the ONLY OECD countries who have no paid maternity leave. If they were worried about the effect on job security, in a time of economic downturn - they could have found a little extra ($731 million isn't much compared to the rest of the budget) to compensate (small?) businesses for some of the extra costs involved in back-filling staff.

The last thing we want to encourage people to do right now, is to hold off on having more children - and yet that's what this decision does. It's a small price for a great gain - and there's no reason, in my mind, to hold a carrot to the electorate and say "vote for me again - or you might not get paid maternity". In fact I find that insulting.

Does the Rudd government believe in it as a policy or not? Not enough to introduce it - apparently.

You could imagine that this might push some of the Labor faithful towards voting Green... and amazingly enough, this shift is borne out in the latest poles - where Labor have lost 5 or 6 points, and the majority of them have been picked up by the Greens.

"But wait", I hear you cry, "didn't you say the problem was the budget isn't tough enough? Isn't that at least a small saving for tough times?"

And this brings me to to my comment for the budget as a whole.

The Big Problem

The problem with this budget is not the fact that it isn't a tough budget.

The problem for this budget is that it was sold as a tough budget.

In trying to come up with some good "tough" measures that the government could have introduced at this budget - I came up with nothing.

The problem is, anything broad-based enough, tough enough and big enough in total value, to actually be defined as "tough" is, at the same time, dangerously deflationary. And deflation isn't a game we want to risk getting into in this climate.

The truth of the matter is, we missed the opportunity to save as much money as we should have, under the last government. They gave it all back in tax cuts, which were an inflationary measure in boom times. Now we're stuck trying to avoid deflationary cuts in bad times.

It's much like the frustration with the first Swan budget.

There wasn't actually enough difference between the Rudd government's position and the Howard government's. While still in boom times, the Rudd government handed back most of the boom time money in personal tax cuts (only slightly less tax cuts than the Liberals wanted to introduce - but let's take a moment to imagine how much worse the current budget would look if we had introduced the Liberals tax cuts).

So... the problem isn't that this budget isn't tough enough - on the contrary... we need to admit that, what we don't need right now is a tough budget. We need to support spending in key areas - in order to avoid deflationary pressures. And we need to (which this budget does) plan to pull back on that accelerator once things are looking good again.

I actually support much of what this budget puts in motion.

After a period of short-term injections, we now need some medium-term plans to increase productivity and support jobs.

There's money for Health and Education and some areas of Social Security (interestingly not Unemployment or Single Parents).

But - in holding off on introducing the Paid Maternity Leave measures until after the next election, the Rudd government has snubbed its nose at its heart-land voters. The argument, presumably, is "well, who else are they going to vote for?".

The Greens? Well, again, Labor may be hoping that all those votes will come back to them in preferences. And they may well be correct.

But - after years of barracking for Kevin Rudd, in response to this (and his last) budget - my current hope for the next election is that we can find dense enough collections of "Left swinging" voters to make a real splash for the Greens.

For some reason (call me naive), I still believe the Greens will push through policies that represent their core constituencies, and not just the people who might be swayed at election time.

This wasn't an "election budget" - that's coming next time. Rudd will have to do a lot more "voter pleasing" next year. This was his opportunity to introduce some real and valuable "Labor style" policies - and, from my perspective, he missed it. I understand that you need to stay in power - but if you don't take the opportunity to introduce some strong policies when the opportunity is there, what's the point in being in power at all?

Unless of course, he thinks this is an election budget? Just how much does he predict we might be heading for a double dissolution...? Hmmmm...

References:

Transcript of the 2009-10 Federal Budget, second reading

Phony Pope Mobile Fined

2008-12-08T21:07:00.003+11:00

It's been a little while since I posted on offbeat news... well, it's been a little while since I posted on anything. I will be back to the political affairs soon - but in the mean time.

A protest Popemobile, built by Sydney activists as a protest against the Pope's visit in July, was issued with a Defect Notice and put off the road. It's driver, Ian Bryce was booked and fined for "having a roof ornament likely to distract motorists".

Details of its adventures, photos, and a video, are linked from the website worldTRUTHday.org .

On top of this, in related news, we now learn that the Government's bill for World Youth Day has come in at more than $100 million over-budget.

World Youth Day - No New Powers, Just Old Ones

2008-07-15T23:36:00.005+10:00

I am more than pleased to report that the new laws, allowing police to detain people or fine them $5,500 for annoying or inconveniencing World Youth Day attendees... for the obvious reason that they could be misused to infringe on people's rights.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/15/2304138.htm

I may have joked about making the laws less unfair by expanding them - but in the end, in all seriousness, sense has prevailed.

Unfortunately it took an appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court to realise this outcome - and all the associated costs and fuss that comes with such an appeal... but at least it happened.

Under-funding Public Broadcasters - the problems and pitfalls

2008-07-08T15:08:00.005+10:00

In my recent post on under-funding the ABC, I outlined how much the ABC has had its budget cut over the last decade or so... and Kevin Rudd's official reply on the matter.

I have since contacted the minister in question (Senator Conroy) to remind him of the promises made before the election.

But today, Crikey! released their assessment of some of the symptoms of under-funding that are beginning to show themselves.

I can't say it much better than them... so here's the link:

The ABC: outsourcings "R" us

World Youth Day - New Powers

2008-07-01T22:08:00.004+10:00

New powers, effective today, have been introduced to allow police to perform partial strip searches at hundreds of Sydney sites - and to allow police to arrest and fine people for "causing annoyance" to World Youth Day participants.

The SHM report.

Critics say that the new laws have the potential to make a crime of wearing a T-shirt with a message on it, undertaking a Chaser-style stunt, handing out condoms at protests, riding a skateboard or even playing music.

I say - these laws haven't gone far enough!

Yes, they are prejudiced against people who aren't participants of World Youth Day.

But the answer isn't to restrict the laws - or repeal them. The solution is to broaden them.

Let's remove the prejudice from these laws by extending their powers to everyone.

World Youth Day causes me great annoyance. Why not fine everyone of the participants for every WYD t-shirt they wear.

All participants of WYD should be strip searched upon leaving any of the "declared areas". People leaving them should be subject to vehicle and baggage searches that require them to remove jackets, gloves, shoes and headwear if requested. And reasonable force should be allowed to make sure they stay inside their "declared areas" if, for any reason, they do not permit the search.

Kristina Keneally is reported as saying "bag checks are a sensible safety precaution which any young person who is going to a major event in Australia … would expect". So, the participants should be expecting them.

The president of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties, Cameron Murphy, said the broad meaning of "causes annoyance" had the potential to encompass any activity.

Great! So, basically, if extended to pro-WYD behavior as well as anti-WYD... it would cover any religious singing, all speeches and sermons performed as a part of WYD... and most especially, anything carrying the motto "For the time of your eternal life"!

Bring it on. Let's fine every last one of them for all the really annoying things they're going to subject us to.

Don't shun the idea - use it.

Bring on the new laws... just get rid of the prejudice in them, and we can all join in the game.

Janet Albrechtsen - why she just doesn't get it

2008-06-25T15:55:00.015+10:00

The History

I first came across Ms Albrechtsen in February this year. I found an article of hers on The Australian website that so incensed me with its internal contradictions, I felt compelled to write a letter to the Editor.

Since then I have come across Ms Albrechtsen a few times... every time, with the same result - utter rage and dismay at the innate hypocrisy and short-sighted outlook expressed in her writing.

I could start an entire blog on the subject "Why I disagree with Janet Albrechtsen" - answering each of her articles and posts with one of my own... in fact, I think I might just do that.

[Update - I did start the blog - see introductory post here]

The Questions

So why do I dislike this woman's writing so much? What could it be that makes my blood boil so quickly every time I start to read her commentary?

I did some "naval gazing" to see whether it might simply be a case of political disagreement. Was it simply that Janet's political position was so at odds with mine that the mere expression of her position made me angry?

But... I found I often agree with Ms Albrechtsen on the main point she's trying to make.

For example

in her article on "Madate Theory", I agree entirely that the theory is bunkum, and should be removed from our political discussions;
in her post on the insanity of the Fairness Doctrine, I completely agree with her general point that forcing media outlets to "balance" their opinion is pointless and dangerous.

But still, these pieces annoyed me on many levels.

There are many other people whose actual position is further from my own... I don't usually have a problem with people's writing simply because the position they're arguing disagrees with my own... so what was the problem?

The Reasons
It all comes down to "style of argument", I realise.

Ms Albrechtsen appears to have been born with a need to argue purely from the negative.

Being a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger (and, yes, I feel happy using that term, as she refers to the distinction freely, herself - "there is still a fundamental divide between left and right") she seems to be of the opinion that the best and easiest way of proving her own point is by arguing against the competition (i.e. the left-wingers).

The problem is, the real world doesn't work that way. We don't all adhere to neat stereotypes, to fit tidily into Janet's arguments.

Ms Albrechtsen states the opinions of the extreme left as if those opinions represent the position of most or all left-wingers.

Quite frankly, this is as short-sighted as arguing that all Muslims want to destroy America, simply because some extremists have expressed that position.

Ms Albrechtsen seems to argue for her own point of view by vilifying the other side. She attempts to beat up on all left-wingers by using the extreme-left position against them - which is meaningless. I, personally, am proud to be recognised as a left-winger - but hardly any of the opinions that Janet Albrechtsen attributes to the left are part of my outlook.

She is arguing with a very small number of people when she argues with these opinions... that may be satisfactory to Ms Albrechtsen - she may simply be compelled to put that increasingly small number of people in their rightful place... but it hardly makes for interesting social commentary or enlightening political debate.

Let's just all agree that most of us (left and right-wingers alike) don't agree with the extreme left... and move on; say something useful.

Being Stupid

"It’s predictable that nostalgic left-wing think tanks still reading dog-eared copies of Das Capital will decry capitalism as a sign of a greedy society" - Janet Albrechtsen

Of course! Because all of "us" left-wing liberals are actually Marxists who want to bring about bloody revolution to welcome in the age of the great totalitarian communist regime. I know I am!

Don't be stupid.

That would be like me jumping straight from the fact that Janet Albrechtsen is a "right-winger" to the idea that she's a fanatical market purist who believes that anyone who doesn't have enough money to eat must have something wrong with them, or deserve it somehow.

Oh. Hold on. She is! And she does!

You see, the problem is, Ms Albrechtsen assumes that everyone must live in a world as extreme as her own. Because she is a right-wing extremist, she can't imagine that most other people live in a world somewhere a long way from either her own position or Marxism.

Most of us don't adhere to an extreme ideal, either left or right. We may, in deed, be left-wing or right-wing, but that doesn't make us a Marxist or a Crypto-Fascist Neo-Con.

I'd like to hear what Janet Albrechtsen thinks, without reference to the opposite left-wing position, for once. Why not try making the argument purely for its own sake - without reverting to name calling and stereotyping as an excuse for a position.

You see, Janet, I am a left-winger who does believe in the "free market of ideas"* (yes, that's right, they exist), and I want to hear your position - not your position in relation to your perception of mine.

But all of that might just be a little bit too subtle for you.

Perhaps I should keep it simple.

Dear Janet, please stop fighting an enemy that hardly exists any more. If you want to take left-wingers on, learn who they are before trying to lampoon them...

But better than that...

Why not simply try standing up for your own ideas, positively, for their own sake, and see if you can make the argument that way.

* But I believe in an efficient market of ideas - and I don't believe that efficient markets are always created by unbridled capitalism, or lack of regulation... sometimes you need checks and balances in order to create an efficient market with enough competition in it.

Supply - not Demand 2

2008-06-18T11:11:00.010+10:00

To continue the discussion of "Supply - not Demand" (see original post here)...

The New Norm

As economic expansion becomes its own problem and the difficulties facing an economy with almost full employment become the new norm... more and more issues arise that ask the question:

"how do we increase supply, and not demand"

I was listening to Radio National this morning (details and podcast here). Professor Deborah Brennan was talking about the Rudd Government's new Child Care policies and the ways in which increasing the Child Care benefits will simply increase demand and not help the supply problem.

I agree with her - and I am sad to think that the Rudd Government has come up with policies as cynical and pointless as the "first home-owners grant".

It makes people feel better. It makes them feel as if the government is doing something... but in the end it simply increases demand, drives up prices, creates more "burn" in the tax benefit system and does nothing to actually make anyone's life easier.

Housing and R&D

It did set me to thinking, however, about how one might manage to improve the supply situation without increasing demand.

The answer, in a way, is simpler for houses. We have a whole industry based around the supply of houses - the construction industry, housing developers... there are people to whom we can give direct tax credits, simply for doing their job, in order to increase the supply of houses being built in the economy (more about this idea).

There is no equivalent for Child Care. There is no Child Care Centre construction industry.

But the concept of tax incentives based on particular activity within an industry is not a new one. Think of the generous tax incentives for R&D that have been implemented in some countries.

Yes, admittedly, there is always the problem of "what is R&D"... but that is for the tax department to work out. You know when you're doing it... and if you've got any queries, don't depend on the tax rebate until the department has made a ruling... it's simple really, and it's been done before, many times.

Finding the Answer

What we need is a 150% (or at least something 100%+) tax rebate on all the costs involved in the first year's set-up and running of a "new" child-care centre.

Yes, the tax department will need to define "new". Yes, it will need to clarify what can be included in the list of expenses. But the basic list is easy to come up with - the details can, as always, be worked out in the fullness of time.

The list includes, but is not limited to, the costs of:

building new premises intended for the purpose of housing a new Child Care centre, which is then used to house said Child Care centre for at least 12 months. (If premises has other purposes, as well, then a pro-rata calculation can be made)
Renting premises intended for the purpose of housing a new Child Care centre, which is then used to house said Child Care centre for at least 12 months.
All wages for staff involved in supporting and running a new child-care centre.
All office expenses, new materials etc. involved in supporting and running a new child-care centre.

Facing the Problems

There is then the problem of Child Care centres not being viable after the initial 12 month period. But the problem is a small one.

The point is, there is a lot of unmet demand out there. There are more children than places. If that isn't the case, we don't have a problem. Once a Child Care centre is up and running - it is unlikely to be torn down and replaced with something else, unless someone has made a very stupid business calculation and is now running a Centre where the prospect is truly unsustainable.

If this is the case, then the problem is with the business case, not the incentive scheme - and the Centre deserves to shut down, as per the laws of Supply and Demand that we are trying to utilise.

Questions:

Would it be expensive?
Yes

Would it cost more than the current rebate extensions?
Possibly, depending on tax rebate levels

Would it help supply without increasing demand?
Yes

Can we afford it?
Yes

Would it help "working families" more than the current rebate, in the long run?
Most certianly, YES!

Let's stop just making people feel better, and help the whole economy.

The Reasons

Access to Child Care is an equality issue.

Increasing access helps new parents back into the workforce. It increases levels of participation. It helps single parents. It increases overall output and productivity.

It simply IS a good idea.

This isn't some "anti-market" strategy. It's a market shaping strategy... and a good one... one that works. Only the absolute free-market purists could argue against it... and, well, really... arguing against a purist of any persuasion is a bit pointless.

Questions, comments, further ideas and foreseen problems welcome. Let's work out the details and get this implemented.

Supply - not Demand

2008-06-11T19:41:00.010+10:00

Australia's housing afford-ability

OK. So what's obvious is that the current housing afford-ability problem, in Australia, is a basic Supply/Demand problem.

What's also obvious is that any attempts that try to fix the problem by giving people money only supports the demand side of that equation and completely fails to deal with the problem from a supply side - which, in effect, only makes the problem worse.

So giving people a "first home owners grant" only raises the cost of housing, on average, by the amount of the grant - it might make it slightly cheaper for first home owners and slightly more expensive for anyone not buying a first home. But on average, the market simply corrects. There's still a lack of supply, and raising demand simply raises the equilibrium point.

And in the face of the, more recent, rental squeeze in Australia's urban centres, giving people rent assistance only pushes the price of rental properties up even further - for exactly the same reason.

What we need is more houses. More houses means greater supply - greater supply means cheaper sales and rent. Simple, isn't it? Obvious!...

What is not so obvious, however, is how the current tax incentives for investors effects the afford-ability problem.

The current housing tax regime, in Australia, was originally designed to help afford-ability by encouraging people to invest in housing, therefore encouraging investment in building houses, therefore raising supply, therefore reducing prices and rent...

There are a number of "but"s here:

Much of the tax relief goes to people investing in pre-owned houses - making the expenditure inefficient. Why are we helping people invest in and make money out of 100 year old houses... we need new houses, not more investors in old ones.
The tax incentives only work as planned when the market is going up.

They encourage extra investment when investment is a good idea anyway, by increasing profits... but they are of little help when the market is going down. At end of the day, if the capital value of houses is going backward, it doesn't matter how much money you refund on the costs of running the house, it's still a bad investment, and needs to be sold.
By encouraging over investment on the way up, they encourage a greater boom and bust throughout the housing price cycle.

So, if cash payouts don't do any good and tax incentives for investors cause extreme markets... what's the answer?

Well, actually, it's really not that complicated.

If you wanted to reduce the cost of cars, you wouldn't start by making investing in cars cheaper, you'd start by making the manufacturing of cars cheaper.

In the same way, in order to make houses cheaper... forget the tax incentives for investors... give tax benefits to builders.

Reduce company tax for companies that make building materials - bricks, building timber etc. Tax return incentives for investment in certain areas of business have precedent and are not that new.
Give tax reductions to companies that build houses - developers etc.
Create subsidies for companies that sell housing products to individual builders and contractors
Give tax credits or bonuses (think "the baby bonus") to individuals who build their own houses.

It's a simple equation:

make building a new house cheaper
increases the number of competitors and competition in the market
makes the final sale price of each house lower
drives down prices for currently standing houses (people who can pay less for new houses won't pay as much for similar non-new houses)

Where does the money come from to pay for all these tax incentives?

In past versions of this plan, I outlined ideas like reducing the current 100% tax benefit for investors by 5% a year, and putting the money saved towards tax benefits for builders... but, quite frankly, with the kind of surpluses we've been seeing in the budget recently, we can simply afford these tax breaks... we don't need to "find" the money. We've got it already.

By keeping the current tax incentives for investors, the combined effect will continue to have downward pressure on rents by encouraging investment... however, over time, the idea of reducing tax benefits for investors could/should be looked at in order to encourage people to buy their (now cheaper) houses, and discourage the low owner-occupier / high-investor model we're currently locked in.

On top of that, by my readings, it's not a particularly inflationary tax-cut. It's upshot is to reduce the cost of building new houses, which immediately takes the pressure off wages by reducing mortgage stress and rental stress.

There don't seem a lot of down-sides to the plan in general - the details, of course, will need to be fought over.

The Wealth Spread Index - The Fairness Bourse

2008-06-10T22:23:00.006+10:00

A friend of mine and I went out for drinks recently. While we were speaking about politics, economics and how to solve the future... he gave me a great idea for a use for something I've been messing around with.

The History

Wealth Distribution - how we compare

Some short time ago I was doing some research on wealth distribution. I wanted to come up with a way of comparing countries directly.

Recently, I heard a talk from Paul Krugman, a Professor of Economics from Princeton University. In fact, I've written on that talk before.

What had stuck in my head from Krugman's talk was the issue of "wealth spread" and "fairness" within an economy - we should have a way of comparing different economies directly.

More specifically - while I "know" from common understanding that the US economy has become much less evenly spread over the last couple of decades, and many of the Scandinavian countries have maintained their even equality of wealth - I wanted to be able to calculate the situation more accurately; to clearly measure and compare the different economies; possibly work out where Australia is on that scale, right now.

I looked around and couldn't find any consensus on the issue - no standard way of measuring what I wanted to measure.

After some hunting around and a little experimenting I came up with with a basic model/system of my own.

Now at that point I had no idea what to do with it. It was interesting to me and I liked to see the results - but I couldn't see what the practical upshot of it could ever be to anyone.

And this is where my drinks with Simon come into it. He gave me the idea of what to do with it while we were talking that night.

Why do we so easily measure a country's health and value by:

GDP Growth
Interest Rates
Inflation
Unemployment Rates
Stock market values

Why can't we talk about "Spread of Wealth", "Long term vs Short Term Unemployment", "Ease of Basic Living"... the simple reason, I would hypothesise, is because GDP, Interest Rates, Inflation and Unemployment all have single numbers attached to them - and the Stock market has the "bourse" value (e.g. ASX200, FTSE, Nasdaq etc.)

All the other issues (Spread of Wealth etc.) have no single number that can be associated with them - and therefore can't be summarised as easily.

One example in support of this theory is the topic of "housing afford-ability". Until recently, in Australia, the issue had never been discussed widely. In order to have the conversation about it - in order to make it news worthy - we needed a specific housing afford-ability index, so that we could compare States with each other, record whether it's gone up or down and by how much... and generally discuss the issues using simple concepts. That's what we did. We made a "housing afford-ability index".

And so... the idea that came out of my discussion with Simon is this:

If we want to have a discussion about "fairness" and the "spread of wealth" in our economy, then we need a fairness bourse... a wealth spread index; a single number that can be compared between economies and over time within an economy.

So - let's make one.

The overview

The original ideas

Using data easily available, I wanted to find a value that would vary within a known range (say 0 to 100) and that would represent the level of inequality within an economy.

So allowing for the idea that the "worst" possible economy is one in which the bottom 60% of the population own nothing at all and the "best" economy is one in which everyone owns a completely equal share of the wealth - it was fairly simple to come up with a reasonably basic way of scoring economies within the given range.

With a tip of the hat to Ghandi's/Churchill's/Truman's quote (see many confused references to this quote across the internet - Florida Today, Ask MetaFilter, Memorable Quotations, Askville to list a few):

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members"

the formula I used gives more weight to the fairness imparted on the bottom feeders than the big end of town. So while an economy could improve its rating by decreasing the amount of wealth that is "soaked up" by the richest people, it will improve its index value far more quickly by improving the lot of its worst off inhabitants.

Here are the initial results:

All of the initial results were between the values 57.5 (Turkey) and 77 (Slovakia) (represented by the red bars).

These values can, alternatively, be viewed by stretching them out between 0 and 100 so that the lowest scoring economy always receives a score of 0 and the highest 100 (represented by the blue bars).

Some notable scores amongst the list are:

America - 23.08

2nd worst score

New Zealand - 38.46

I was surprised by how low NZ scored

United Kingdom - 38.46
Australia - 53.85
France - 64.10
Sweden - 87.18
Japan & The Czech Republic - 94.44

2nd highest score

On a comparative basis - I think this system of scoring shows some merit and represents a step forward in finding a single value to represent the spread of wealth within an economy.

However both systems show some limitations.

The first version, with values between 57.5 and 77, show little absolute variance and gives the mistaken impression that there isn't much difference between these economies in the terms being measured.

The second version with values between 0 and 100, tries to deal with that limitation, but suffers from, or emphasises, a few more:

it stretches out values at the bottom of the range and compresses values at the top
it could make countries in the lower values appear as if they were improving or slipping faster than they are
it could mask improvements/drops in countries with higher values by making the changes seem smaller than they are
one country slipping at the bottom or the top could make the others appear as if they were improving when they weren't
one country improving at the bottom or the top could make all the others appear as if they were slipping when they weren't

The final solution

It soon became clear why these systems each had these particular problems.

They treated "100" as an attainable goal, as if the "perfectly fair" society was something reachable.

In order to make the scale work like a normal bourse, the "perfect" solution needed to remain something unattainable. Something that everyone aims for, but no one can ever reach - stretching into infinity.

Taking this into account allowed me to calculate these values:

The final results varied from 5.0 up to 22.23 and will increase in rate of growth (approaching infinity) as the economies being measured approach "perfect".

Some notable scores amongst the list are:

America - 6.2

again, 2nd worst score

New Zealand - 8.26

again, surprised

United Kingdom - 8.26
Australia - 8.9
France - 11.5
Sweden - 17.4
Japan & The Czech Republic - 22.23

Now the highest score

The Details

All calculations were based on details of the relevant economies from this UNICEF web site:

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/industrialized.html

The calculations are based on 2 main values:

Low = the % of the nations wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population
High = the % of the nations wealth held by the top 20% of the population

The accuracy of the figures, and how up-to-date they are are somewhat irrelevant at this point. The point was, and is, to come up with a reliable, convenient and illuminating way of measuring an economies fairness.

The values actually used were as follows:

Country	Low	High
Australia	18	41
Austria	22	38
Belgium	22	41
Canada	20	40
Czech Republic	25	36
Denmark	23	36
Estonia	19	43
Finland	24	37
France	20	40
Germany	22	37
Greece	19	42
Hungary	23	37
Ireland	20	42
Israel	16	45
Italy	19	42
Japan	25	36
Korea, Republic of	22	38
Latvia	18	45
Lithuania	18	43
Netherlands	21	39
New Zealand	18	44
Norway	24	37
Poland	19	42
Portugal	17	46
Slovakia	24	35
Slovenia	23	36
Spain	19	42
Sweden	23	37
Switzerland	20	41
Turkey	15	50
United Kingdom	18	44
United States of America	16	46

The Final Results

The fairness values calculated, in order form "worst" to "best", were as follows:

Turkey	5
United States of America	6.2
Israel	6.3469387755102
Portugal	7
Latvia	8.06382978723404
New Zealand	8.26086956521739
United Kingdom	8.26086956521739
Lithuania	8.46666666666667
Australia	8.90697674418605
Estonia	9.5
Greece	9.74418604651163
Italy	9.74418604651163
Poland	9.74418604651163
Spain	9.74418604651163
Ireland	10.9047619047619
Switzerland	11.1951219512195
Canada	11.5
France	11.5
Netherlands	13.2105263157895
Belgium	13.9230769230769
Austria	15.1666666666667
Korea, Republic of	15.1666666666667
Germany	15.6285714285714
Hungary	17.4117647058824
Sweden	17.4117647058824
Denmark	17.969696969697
Slovenia	17.969696969697
Finland	19.3636363636364
Norway	19.3636363636364
Slovakia	20.6774193548387
Czech Republic	22.2258064516129
Japan	22.2258064516129

The Final Calculation

The calculation used was as follows:

((100 - High) + Low^2)/((High - 20) + (40 - Low))

The Reasoning

The reasoning is as follows:

The value of "High" varies between 20 -> 100
The value of "Low" varies between 0 -> 40
In the "perfect" situation - High = 20, Low = 40

(High - 20) + (40 - Low) = 0

In the "worst" situation - High = 100, Low = 0

(High - 20) + (40 - Low) = 120

The inverse of (High - 20) + (40 - Low)

maximum (infinity) in the "perfect" situation
minimum (1/120) in the "worst" situation

To further increase the exponential effect of both "High" and "Low" (but particularly of "Low") multiply the above calculation by ((100 - High) + Low^2)

And you are left with final calculation:

((100 - High) + Low^2)/((High - 20) + (40 - Low))

The Conclusion

After some experimentation and testing with varying values around the current "correct" values, I am convinced that this is a valuable way of calculating the over-all fairness of an economy.

I would be very interested to hear any feedback, comments or findings related to the calculation - how its adoption could be encouraged, and what might improve its usefulness.

Tracks from Returning Beauty

2008-05-28T20:40:00.019+10:00

This isn't my usual kind of post... but I felt like making these available.

A few years ago, for my wife's birthday, a bunch of my friends, and hers, got together and made an album, as a birthday present.

Here are the tracks I can supply. The others, unfortunately, fall under some form of questionable copyright. I tried to get a license to release the covers, from APRA, but it was too expensive to make it worth it - unless I was going to actually sell the tracks, which seemed more trouble than it was worth at the time...

So, here they are:

St James Infirmary Blues

Performed: Nicholas Gledhill (vocals, guitar), Joshua Shipton (guitar)

Evening Prayer

Performed: Catherine Lockley (vocals), Ruth Lockley (vocals, piano)

The Lady of Shallot

Performed: Anthony Hunt

Bitch in a Manger

Performed: Bobbie Scarlet (vocals, guitar)

Kevin Rudd on Funding for the ABC

2008-05-07T23:09:00.009+10:00

Half way through March last year, I wrote to Kevin Rudd - the, then new, Labor Leader - about funding (or the lack thereof) for the ABC... your ABC.

He wrote back.

Well, someone from his office, with official access to his email wrote back, anyway.

He (or they) did the classic politician's thing of rewording the answer to suit the question he wanted me to ask. Some of his response is about the process by which the ABC board is stacked. To be honest, I think this is an important issue as well... and I agree with Kevin Rudd's assessment of the situation. It makes my original letter sound more broad ranging than it actually was, which is fine by me.

Click here to see a list of the statistics on funding for the ABC that I sent in my letter to Kevin Rudd.

Not only did I get Kevin to say he thought the ABC was underfunded, he actually mentioned a figure ($100 million), which is more than I ever expected to get in response to my original letter (not the amount, but the fact that he mentioned a specific figure at all).

I realise that there is little chance of the government announcing extra spending for the ABC in this up-and-coming "tight" budget, on May 13 - and, to be honest, Mr Rudd does say "over the next triennium", so he's got a full 3 years to come good on his offer here. (Isn't that now quartennium? What happened to Kevin's promise to make Australian political terms a fixed four-year affair... I should do a post on that sometime soon...)

Here is the email I got, from Kevin:

Dear Nicholas

Thank you for your letter highlighting the importance of adequate funding for the ABC and the need for the ABC to be free from political interference.

Labor shares these principles.

The Howard Government has starved the ABC of the funding it needs to produce decent public broadcasting services. After coming to power the Howard Government cut ABC funding by $66 million over two years. This funding has never been fully restored. In real terms, the ABC has less money to make programs than when John Howard came to office. As a consequence, the production of Australian drama has fallen to record lows.

The Howard Government has also has repeatedly sought to stack the ABC Board with its political mates.

Labor is deeply concerned with the Howard Government’s attempts to bully the ABC and undermine its independence. This is a worrying threat to Australian democracy.

Labor is committed to ending the practice of Governments making political appointments to the ABC Board. Under Labor, appointments will be based on merit, not mateship.

Since 2003 Labor has argued that there should be an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board. Vacancies should be advertised and there should be clear merit based selection criteria. Labor's policy provides for an independent selection panel to undertake a proper shortlist selection process.

Most importantly the selection of the shortlist would be independent of the Minister. If the Minister does not appoint a short listed candidate he or she will have to table a formal statement of the reasons for departing from the shortlist to the Parliament.

This process will make it virtually impossible for a political crony to be short listed for an ABC Board appointment.

Labor's policy will enhance our democracy. It will foster an environment where the ABC can be fearless in its approach to news and current affairs, and critical of both sides of politics whenever necessary.

Labor is committed to a better, stronger and independent ABC. During the last election campaign, Labor pledged to begin to restore the ABC's finances by injecting an additional $100 million over the next triennium. Labor will review the funding requirements of the ABC in the lead up to the next election. ABC must be properly funded so that it is able to fulfil its charter to inform, educate and entertain all Australians.

Kind regards,

Kevin Rudd
Federal Labor Leader
Member for Griffith

So where to now? I guess we see how the next few budgets treat the ABC. To see the statistics I sent Kevin in my original letter, see here. They're quite enlightening, still, I think.