Journal of Farcical Exuberance

What Queensland could become post floods

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:42:00 +0000

My previous blog post on the rare opportunity presented by the floods in Queensland made reference to the development of cities such as Chicago or San Francisco.

The author was fortunate enough to visit both US cities. Below is a panoramic photo of downtown Chicago, a great example of what community will power to rebuild and succeed can lead to. Lets hope Queensland, specifically Brisbane, can some day achieve such feats.

Queensland floods: opportunity as opposed to disaster?

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:44:00 +0000

Adversity breeds opportunity.

Many cities became great cities because of adversity. Two such cities come to mind; Chicago and San Francisco.

In 1906, San Francisco suffered an earthquake and combined with the resultant fires (from the earthquakes). This natural disaster caused the greatest loss of life in Californian history, with other 3,000 deaths with an economic impact comparable to that of Hurricane Katrina. One commentator described the tragic event as follows:

Not in history has a modern imperial city been so completely destroyed. San Francisco is gone.

In 1871, a fire burned through the entire Chicago central business district causing widespread destruction from October 8 to October 10. The fact that only a handful of buildings survived the fire is symbolic of the degree of devastation that engulfed the city.

Both Chicago and San Francisco regrouped and rebuilt themselves promptly into better and more modern cities. In fact, the rebuilding in Chicago almost immediately spurred Chicago's development into one of the most populous and economically important American cities.

Thus the Queensland floods, while tragic, could be a great opportunity to create a better and more attractive State. What is needed is community spirit and the vision to take Queensland to greater places in the new decade.

Andrew Wilkie ‘Confusion’: Standing for Stable, competent and ethical government

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:59:00 +0000

Julia Gillard today inched closer to the 76 seat majority required in the House of Representatives to form government. Ms Gillard and the ALP can count on the support of Greens MP Adam Bandt and now independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Is any of this surprising? Not really, the Greens have always supported the ALP. The story is, however, quite different for Mr Wilkie.

Andrew Wilkie, a former member of the Liberal Party (who missed out on pre-selection), former Greens candidate for the seat of Bennelong and now the independent federal member for Denison, Tasmania.

Mr Wilkie grew up supporting the Liberal Party, joining the Young Liberals and subsequently becoming a member for the party. After failing to win pre-selection, he joined the Greens as a candidate for Bennelong, John Howard’s previous seat. He was then nominated as the Green’s second Tasmanian candidate for the Senate before finally running as an independent for the division of Denison in this year’s election. Interestingly, Mr Wilkie only received 21.28% of first preference votes in his favour, relying upon the preferences of his previously beloved Liberal party to get across the line.

It is unclear where Mr Wilkie’s political persuasion lies. He has now officially supported the three major parties in some form over his political career; running as a Liberals and Greens candidates and now supporting an ALP government. His confusion about his true political persuasion can perhaps be seen through his lacklustre commitment to the ALP government. Mr Wilkie signed an agreement with the Gillard government to guarantee supply and to reject any unwarranted no-confidence votes, but stressing that he would consider ALP policies on their merit.

He then proceeded to make the same guarantees to Tony Abbott if the Coalition were to form government.

Mr Wilkie is a confused man. He publically declared that he wanted what was best for his electorate of Denison, but rejected $1 billion of funding to upgrade Royal Hobart Hospital because of his concern that this money would be taken away from other electorates. Surely if his primary concern is that of his electorate, it matters not where or how this $1 billion is found or raised?

On the 7.30 Report, Mr Wilkie also expressed his displeasure at the ‘unethical’ invasion of Iraq, which he described as ‘grossly unethical behaviour’ by the Howard government. Just three days ago he stated that Australian troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Gillard government’s reasons for non-withdrawal as one of the “great lies of the election campaign”. He then gave his support to a party which supported the Iraq and Afghan wars, despite being apparently displeased with both invasions. He is a confused man, and is unable to stand up for his own beliefs.

This shows that Mr Wilkie is simply desperate to be heard and desperate for power that he is willing to please all parties. May be there was a secret deal allowing Mr Wilkie to gain pre-selection as a Labor candidate in the next election? The more likely (and rational) reason for Mr Wilkie’s support of the ALP appears to be a lingering displeasure with the way he was treated by the Howard government after his whistle-blowing against the Howard governments reasons for going to war in Iraq. I am sure that the people of Denison are questioning their vote for Mr Wilkie (the 21.28% who did vote for him), hopefully they will reconsider their vote if a new election is required.

The Hon. Wayne Swan MP, BA (Hons)

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:25:00 +0000

Much of the focus of this election has been on Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, and rightly so. The ALP, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan in particular, have continuously mocked and ridiculed the Coalition’s economic credentials. In fact, Messr Wayne Swan has been quick and swift to describe almost all Coalition policies as “comical” or “farcical”. A fairly limited vocabulary it seems.

Wayne Swan has a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Public Administration. More specifically, a Bachelor of Arts with Second Class Honours from the University of Queensland. Julia Gillard has a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws. Outside of public office, these credentials would not get either employed at any bank. Yet the Australian public have been asked to believe that Ms Gillard and Mr Swan have the “economic credentials” to lead Australia into the future. In fact, just two Labor ministers hold degrees in either economics or commerce: Chris Bowen and Craig Emerson.

On the contrary, Tony Abbott has Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Law and was a Rhode Scholar. Joe Hockey has a Bachelor of Law and a Bachelor of Arts and worked as a banking and finance lawyer. Andrew Robb has a degree in economics and agricultural science. If anything, on paper at least, the Coalition boasts a stronger economics prowess. Unsurprisingly, these are backed up with their stronger economic policies.

Let us consider a fundamental principle of allocative efficiency. We live in a capitalist and free market world. Competition drives out inefficiency and a free market is (or should be) allocatively efficient. That is, productivity is maximised as the capital is allocated to those who are able to deliver the best product for the lowest price. In simple terms, a market where companies can compete to provide services (for example broadband infrastructure) will deliver the “best bang for your buck”.

This fundamental principle is reflected in Coalition policy. Mr Abbott has revealed that major infrastructure projects such as broadband infrastructure would be partly funded by private sector investment or private enterprise. The private sector investment would be allocated to a company or syndicate that could deliver the same infrastructure asset for the lowest price. The fact that an Abbott Government would fund part of the project enables and gives Government a monitoring role over the project, while allowing private enterprise to utilise their competitive advantage in building of project specific infrastructure.

The alternative is for a government funded investment, such as the Building Education Revolution (School Halls program) and the Home Insulation Program (Pink Batts program), where fully funded government investment result in ripoffs of the Australian people because this form of investment simply isn’t allocatively efficient. In effect, tax payer money is being put on the table inviting every Tom, Dick and Harry, who may or may not be qualified builders or insulation installers, to take as much of this money as they can. The fact that the government put money on the table as an invitation for Australian tax payers to get ripped off.

Today, Mr Abbott unveiled a plan for the use of infrastructure bonds to fund infrastructure projects. Mr Swan, as usual, described this as comical. I would implore Mr Swan to consider the ingenuity of the Coalition’s policy before making such off-hand remarks. Infrastructure bonds would allow Government to finance projects at a fraction (being the coupon payments) of the price. Furthermore, this would entitle investors in such bonds to a tax rebate plus the added security of an almost risk-free investment. It also adds liquidity and size to the Australian Debt Market. How, possibly, could such a policy be comical?

So what we have is a second class liberal arts student in Wayne Swan purporting to govern US$1 trillion Australian economy who does not understand fundamental economics and does not understand the basic finance theory. Is this someone we can trust to lead Australia into the future? Mr Swan, the only thing that is farcical and comical is your lack of economic credentials.

Et tu, Julia Gillard? An Australian tragedy

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:39:00 +0000

"Et tu, Brute?", Caesar uttered as Brutus delivered the final blow to Julius Caesar. Welcome to the Australian Labor Party's depiction of the Greek tragedy starring Kevin Rudd as Julius Caesar, Julia Gillard as Marcus Brutus and the "faceless men" of the Australian Labor Party.

As the Journal of Farcical Exuberance campaigned for Kevin Rudd's removal from office, it seems that Julia Gillard and the "faceless men" of the Labor Party were plotting Kevin Rudd's dismissal as well. At the time, the government faced criticisms on, amongst other things, immigration, the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT), climate change and excessive government spending. Unable to "stand idly by", Julia Gillard felt it necessary to get the government (and Labor Party) back on track.

"I came to the view that for the Australian nation I had a responsibility to step up, to take control and to make sure that this government got back on track ... I have taken control for that precise reason."

Ms Gillard and the rest of the Labor Party feigned their support for Kevin Rudd while they secretly conspired against the then Prime Minister, elected by the Australian people. In response to continued questioning about potential leadership changes, Ms Gillard responded that those rumours were "completely riduculous". Ironically, as the plot unfolded, Gillard emerged victorious as Rudd lay sick in hospital.

If information leaked to Laurie Oakes are to be believed, Ms Gillard's betrayal of Kevin Rudd may be more dramatic than that of Julius Caesar. Ms Gillard remains tight lipped as "an appropriate mark of respect between colleagues".

The more pressing point, however, is whether Julia Gillard can be trusted to take Australia into the future.

Recent events suggest that Julia Gillard may be the new queen of spin. In attempts to seem real and for Australians to connect with the new Prime Minister, Ms Gillard stated that she would ensure the "real Julia" would be on display for the Australian people.

"It's time for me to make sure the real Julia is well and truly on display, so I'm going to step up and take personal charge of what we do" (emphasis added)

A simple contextual analysis of Ms Gillard's words reveals several pertinent issues. "Real Julia" implies that there is more than one Julia Gillard persona. "Display" suggests that Ms Gillard has been putting on a "face" or "show" to mask her true persona. "Personal charge" indicates that decision making and statements by Ms Gillard have been driven by other person(s) behind the scenes. More bluntly, is Ms Gillard is a puppet for "faceless men" of the Australian Labor Party?

Labor's re-election bid may indeed be in "deep-trouble". Ms Gillard is up against a Coalition leader who has already claimed two scalps; Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd. Tony Abbott's campaign against Kevin Rudd's "great big tax(es)" and the labelling of the Labor Party as being "more spin than substance" brought about the subsequent downfall of Kevin Rudd. Mr Abbott opened the eyes of working families to the unfulfilled promises and excessive spending by the Labor Party, which as to be funded by two potential great big taxes on Australian people and businesses.

Kevin Rudd's ousting may not have changed much about the Labor Party. As the new Mining Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) reveals, the Labor Party is content to purchase the support of Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Xstrata while disregarding the interests of emerging Australian mid-cap or small-cap resource companies. Ms Gillard opposed paid parental leave and questioned increases in pension payments to the elderly as "elderly voters did not support Labor". A recent Australian National Audit Office report revealed that the government's stimulus package spending had been skewed in favour of Labor electorates.

One can only quesiton whether this government is truly concerned about the well-being of working families.

Kevin Rudd: Australia's real Robin Hood?

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:29:00 +0000

While an Australian actor (Russell Crowe) may play the character of Robin Hood in the new Hollywood film, back in his homeland, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appears to have taken a liking to to the character. However, this Prime Minister possesses other significant qualities not present in the original Robin Hood. Robin Rudd is also the master of "spin", that is, misusing the English language to convince the more ignorant that his policy is for the greater good.

The Labor leader and his government have decided to impose a new "super profits" tax on mining companies, which according to the Prime Minister, will pay for State infrastructure funds, a 2% decrease in the company tax rate and a 3% increase in Superannuation for all Australians. In response, 9 billion dollars was wiped of the Australian sharemarket to our Prime Ministers announcement. Stop. This Super tax has already resulted in the abandoning of two mining projects in Western Australia, it has wiped off 9 billion dollars of our money. It will cause a loss in jobs, sure employees will get more superannuation, but they are likely to suffer pay-cuts if they are lucky enough to keep their job. Businesses that service the mining industry will suffer. This is a mere ploy by the government, as is its new cigarette tax, to grab as much of our money, to fund its failed policies. Make no mistake, this government must go.

Mr Rudd once described climate change as the "greatest moral challenge of our time", and that he would make Australia a global leader in climate change. His Government then rushed out a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) which lacked both clarity and details. I blogged previously about Penny Wong's refusal to answer the simple question, "by how much will electricity prices increase post 2013?" The Labor government threatened the then Liberals Leader Malcolm Turnbull with a double dissolution if his party did not agree. Apparently, climate change is no longer the greatest moral challenge of our time, the Government is rolling out ill-thought through policies to ensure Robin Rudd remains Prime Minister.

Previously, in response to the turmoil surrounding the global financial crisis, a $42 billion "rescue pack" was rushed. The author concedes that this made perfect sense and is indeed grateful for the cash received (which did not get spent in ways which would stimulate the Australian economy). Nevertheless, fiscal stimulus to aid an ailing economy was the right thing to do. Once again, the Labor government rushed through policies such as the insulation schemes and the "Building Education Revolution" (BER). The BER suffered shocking cost blowouts and in at least one case the BER attempted to knock down perfectly functional school gym when what the school required was a new library. The insulation scheme was plagued by the death of a number of insulation installers. As it turns out, dangerous foil insulation was installed creating health hazards thus forcing the government to spend more tax payer money to fix the problem it created.

Peter Garrett was at that time described by Robin Rudd as a "first-class minister", yet Mr Garrett was subsequently demoted from this senior position. Julia Gillard vehemently denied any cost blow-outs prior to the whistle blowing of several school principals. Penny Wong staunchly refused to give more details about the government's proposed CPRS. Australians deserve to hear the truth, while this Labor Government may fool the more ignorant, most Australians are beginning to see through Labor's veil. The lastest Newspoll affirms this; with voter satisfaction with Robin Rudd falling to 39%. Two weeks ago it stood at 50%.

Last month, Labor purported to act immediately (again) with a new Health reform scheme whereby States were to surrender 30% of their GST entitlements to the Federal Government. Once again, Kevin Rudd was at his menacing best; threatening a "referendum" if States did not agree to his plan. The Labor government just has not learned; rushed policies are failed policies, and indeed, the Health Reform was not achieved in its entirety as Western Australia did not give in to Mr Rudd's threats. As an astute user of the English language, one cannot but wonder why Mr Rudd does not understand the idiom: More haste, less speed. In fact, Mr Rudd threw more taxpayer money at the States in an attempt to get their co-operation. As Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia described it, "twenty pieces of silver won't work with Western Australia". This government cannot be trusted to deliver the policies vital to the Australian people, nor can it be trusted with our hard earned money.

Now the Government wishes to impose a new super tax on resources companies. Coupled with an increasing cash rate (interest rates), this spells trouble for the Australian public. Yet one must wonder why Robin Rudd would even consider an imposition of a new tax. Obviously, the extra funds are required to fund its failed insulation schemes, building education revolutions and all the extra funds used to "suck" States into agreeing to his Health reform. The Liberals have called for fiscal stimulus to be wound down or even stopped, but this Robin Hood is stubborn, despite increasing inflation rates and interest rates, this government has refused to do what is right for the Australian people. Instead, it has attempted to rush through further policies in a last grasp election-year attempt to sway voters. The government has attempted to "spin-doctor" its policies as being "for the greater good" or even attempting to avoid responsibility for its failed policies. In the age of globalisation, Australian industries must compete with developing countries such as China or India in the provision of professional and manufacturing services. These new policies will drive jobs overseas, as we have seen with the Gorgon Project in Australia's North West Shelf. The greater good will be served with a new government, one that is not run by the Australian Labor Party. This is the end of the tether; this government must go.

Kevin Rudd's great big deceit

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:39:00 +0000

On International Women's Day, Tony Abbott announced a new Coalition policy pertaining to paid parental leave scheme. This scheme would provide mothers with six months of paid maternity leave at their normal salaries up to $150,000. The scheme appears to have been concocted without much support from big businesses or from the Liberal party itself. On the face, the policy does not appear to conform to traditional conservative and liberal policy.

However, debate about the paid maternity leave policy can be seen as a success from Labor's point of view. Lest we forget, two years ago Kevin Rudd described climate change as the "greatest moral challenge" of our time. The Government has attempted to divert attention away from the failures of Copenhagen and its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) by announcing new policies on health reforms and paid maternity leave.

Kevin Rudd's popularity with the Australian public has fallen significantly since the days of Kevin '07, with the Prime Minister becoming better known for being "all hat and no cowboy". Kevin Rudd has failed to deliver upon numerous election promises including the CPRS and hospital reforms. Peter Garrett was "demoted" after the national insulation scheme debacle which further dented the public perception of the government. Finally, KRudd has failed to handle contemporary issues such as rising national debt levels arising from "excessive" economic stimulus and asylum seekers.

In fact, in a recent Q&A program on ABC, when questioned on his handling of the health system Mr Rudd blamed the delay on his predecessors for "ripp[ing] a billion dollars out of the public hospital system". In response, one member of the audience remarked that:

"Didn't you say when you were going to reform the health system that the buck would stop with you, yet you've made two references to the previous government's decisions, and I note you didn't reference the previous government's surplus they left you in terms of the economic crisis. But you said the buck would stop with you, so will it, or are we going to keep hearing that the previous government did this, the previous government did that?"

Mr Rudd was not able to respond coherently to that question. Similarly, Climate Change minister Penny Wong's interview on ABC's Lateline could be described as nothing less than "excruciating". The Federal Minister refused to answer questions put to her by Tony Jones regarding the increased electricity costs to the Australian public which would result through the implementation of the CPRS. The questions put forward include:

TONY JONES: The Prime Minister has spelled out that in the first two years of your emissions trading scheme, electricity prices would rise by 7 and then by 12 per cent in the second year; a total of 19 per cent by 2013. What happens after 2013?

TONY JONES: I’ll just interrupt there because you put out some of the modelling. There’s no modelling, is there, that we’ve seen or that I’ve seen beyond 2013?

TONY JONES: Yes, understood. That’s the difference as you paint it. But let me ask you this: you say that the big question is about the two schemes, but actually one of the big questions is about the costs. So what happens after 2013? What does Treasury model tell you? For example, if your targets go from 5 to 10 per cent, does that mean automatically and exponentially you get a doubling in the cost of electricity from 20 per cent increases to 40 per cent increases?

TONY JONES: Yes, but the open question is: how much will you have to increase? You must have Treasury modelling which tells you what a 10 per cent reduction would be, a 15 per cent reduction, a 20 per cent, or even a 25 per cent reduction in emissions would cost in terms of cost-of-living increases. Do you have that modelling?

TONY JONES: That’s not the only policy question. The policy question that is on a lot of people’s minds at the moment is what this is going to cost. And so I’m asking you: do you have Treasury modelling that tells you what the additional costs will be to electricity and cost of living if your targets increase from 5 to 10 per cent, from 10 to 15, or even to 25 per cent, as you’ve canvassed, if the rest of the world moves?

TONY JONES: Alright, but before the voters go to an election with an emissions trading scheme, potentially, as a virtual referendum on how to deal with climate change - before the voters go to election, are they entitled to know what your modelling is telling you about what different targets would do to the cost of electricity and the cost of living?

TONY JONES: OK, but what happens? Is there an exponential change to the cost of electricity? Does it double from a 20 per cent increase with a 5 per cent reduction in emissions trading to a 40 per cent increase in electricity costs with a 10 per cent and so on, up to 80 per cent with 20 per cent reductions? Does it work like that, or is it somehow different? What does the modelling tell you?

TONY JONES: OK. But before people vote for this in an election, as they are likely to do this year, do you commit to giving the complete Treasury modelling to the public so they can see what happens at the different targets that you’ve proposed?

TONY JONES: Will you release the full Treasury modelling about the potential cost to electricity and cost of living with the different targets?

TONY JONES: But they won’t know prior to the election, based on what you’ve just said, what the potential economic impact is of higher targets.

TONY JONES: Yes, but you’ve already told the rest of the world that you’re prepared to go to 25 per cent if the rest of the world moves. You’ve also set a target for 2050 of 60 per cent, so there has to be large reductions over time, and don’t the public have the right to know what the cost of those increases will be?

TONY JONES: Well, no, we don’t have to, I was just trying to get to the bottom of whether you’re prepared to release that modelling. I think the answer is no.

TONY JONES: If that is the issue, let me ask you this: is it now standard practice to pass confidential departmental briefing documents to the press, or to sections of the press, I should say, as part of a media strategy to undermine the Opposition’s position?

TONY JONES: No, no, I’m not talking about honesty. I’m talking about the way in which this information was released. And isn’t it precisely the sort of thing that infuriated you about the previous government: the use of confidential departmental material to undermine the Opposition’s case?

What we have is a Government who is deceitful and cannot deliver on its promises to our nation. Mr Rudd has purported to paint himself as a contemporary leader, one who is in touch with the younger generation of voters. He has failed, and is now attempting to divert the public's attention away from his failings by announcing new policies.

Rudd versus Asylum Seekers, Asylum Seekers Win

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:42:00 +0000

The average Australian earning over $35,000 a year is taxed at a rate of 30 to 45% by the Australian Tax Office each year. This money is used to fund, amongst other things, the Christmas Island detention centre to process asylum-seekers seeking refuge in Australia. It was estimated in 2004 that each detainee was costing the Australian people up to $725 per day. More recently, it has been revealed that the Christmas Island detention facilities had cost the Federal Government $45 million more than it had budgeted for this year. More taxpayer money is being pumped into the centre to boost its capacity.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously stated that the Christmas Island detention facility was bad policy and that it was a "white elephant". He is now being forced to pump more taxpayer money, money which the taxpayers have had to work hard to earn, to support a bunch of asylum seekers who have not followed the proper policies laid down by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In fact, the recent standoff by the Oceanic Viking and the subsequent granting of asylum to two Sri Lankans demonstrates Mr Rudd's inability to defend the sovereignty of Australia.

One of the most fundamental rights of a Sovereign State since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) is the right exercise supreme authority over all subjects within its territory, including the power to make and enforce its laws. While the issue of asylum seekers is a global issue, Mr Rudd's lack of a coherent policy to tackle this problem has exaggerated the issue for Australia. As Opposition Leader Tony Abbott aptly described it:

"[This] shows that Mr Rudd was blackmailed ... effectively blackmailed, into giving people what they wanted ... they held that ship for about a month and that shouldn't have happened. It seems every day another boat (carrying asylum seekers) arrives".

Furthermore, Mr Rudd's policy of redirecting the boats to Indonesia creates two problems. Indonesia is apparently justified in processing these asylum seekers because of the monetary assistance Australia has provided to fund its detention centres. This doesn't solve any problems, it is merely passing on the issue to Indonesia. It also strains relations Indo-Australian relations. Secondly, as Mr Abbott rightly points out, it sends the wrong message to asylum seekers that "if you get to Indonesia you also get to Australia, because of the deal that Mr Rudd did with the people on the Oceanic Viking".

Kevin Rudd is "pretty smart"

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:29:00 +0000

Here is some good advice for all history students, memorise your American history and in particular, George Washington's strategy to defend New York from the British in the American War for Independence. The easier alternative is to simply visit wikipedia before having breakfast with Bill Clinton. These skills will hold you in good stead in the off-chance that you meet Mr Clinton. Kevin Rudd's ability to describe the American War for Independence in "excruciating detail" has led Mr Clinton to describe the Australian Prime Minister as being "pretty smart" and "one of the most well-informed, well-read, intelligent leaders in the world today."

We in Australia have no such history, no wars fought for independence, no tea parties where we proclaim, "no taxation without representation!" Australian's enjoy their tea too much to throw it into the sea, we do however, have a well publicised apology made to the indigenous people of Australia (made by KRudd). But Mr Rudd is the Australian Prime Minister, not the US President, yet he was described by Mr Clinton as an Australian who "knows more about America than they know about Australia".

Perhaps a contextual interpretation should be afforded for Mr Clinton's statements; that is, Mr Rudd is well-informed and well-read on American history. The critical question, however, is how will Mr Rudd's knowledge of American history benefit Australia? It won't, but it will promote Mr Rudd's image in the US after relations were strained when a sensitive phone call between Mr Rudd and the then US President George W Bush was leaked to the media where Mr Bush purportedly said, "whats the G20?".

Tony Abbott (a Rhodes Scholar and arguably more intelligent than Mr Rudd) cannot claim to have received the Clinton stamp of approval as one of the world's most intelligent and well-read politicians. Mr Abbott gave credit where credit was due yesterday and agreed that Rudd was indeed a smart person. He said,

"No one's ever criticised Kevin Rudd for being unintelligent. Dull? Yes. At times incapable of expressing himself clearly? Yes. But no one's ever said that he's not smart."

This is unlike the current Labor federal government, who only recognises and promotes their achievements, but does not give credit to achievements by other political parties. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard's recent statements suggesting that the Howard-Costello governments played no part in the development of Australian economic policy of the last decade are the best examples of our government's lack of humility.

Public servants going above and beyond their duties

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:33:00 +0000

Adair Turner, Baron of Ecchinswell, an academic and chair of the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority (regulator) has made the headlines again, this time propounding that banks should use their profits to strengthen their finances as opposed to paying out lavish bonuses or stock dividends. These comments are very noble coming from someone who was once part of the banking profession himself. Amongst other thing, he has proposed that taxes be increased on financial transactions and increase that the capital requirements of banks, thus shrinking the financial industry in the UK. He said:

"[Banks] need to be willing, like the regulator, to recognize that there are some profitable activities so unlikely to have a social benefit, direct or indirect, that they should voluntarily walk away from them.”

Mr Turner has also proposed a Tobin tax; a tax intended to put a penalty on short-term speculation in currencies. It is difficult to understand why Mr Turner has suggested that banks should not profit from activities that have no social benefit. A fellow student suggested to me that this meant that pharmaceutical companies should not make abortion pills and should voluntarily walk away from these activities. Mr Turner's suggestions go against the most fundamental reasons of incorporation; limited liability and the enterprise and risk taking it encourages.

Of course there is little chance that tax or proposals will receive any international support. The power of banks was well demonstrated by the limited restrictions placed on recent bailout funds as the banks regarded themselves as being "too big to fail". So this begs the question as to why Mr Turner made these comments; the NY Times reported that Mr Turner was probably more interested in the reaction and "outroar" that these comments may incite. Mr Turner's comments make little sense and have even been described as "stupid", but this is precisely what Mr Turner anticipated when he made these comments. He is trying to venture into the area of politics.

This was also seen by Ken Henry, Australia's Treasury Secretary, who has been described as an "ambassador" for the Rudd government following comments defending the government's decision to impose economic stimulus. More recently, he has reject calls from the Opposition for these stimulus measures to be withdrawn, notwithstanding that these stimulus measures would impose dangerous debt burdens on future generations and deficits for at least six years. However, is it really a public servant's best interest to make these sorts of comments in public?

Public servants like Ken Henry or Adair Turner venture into dangerous territory when they assume the roles of politicians and espouse ideas or opinions such as describing recent stimulus packages as "the most effective use of fiscal policy we've seen in our lifetimes". Former Treasurer Peter Costello lay the blame back on the Rudd government for bringing Ken Henry into the political arena. He wrote that the government had attempted to "capture some economic shine from Henry" and therefore was inevitable that they would face political questioning. Very aptly, he stated that

"Public servants are there to advise; politicians are there to make decisions."

Perhaps both Ken Henry and Adair Turner could learn from Mr Costello's wise advice. Stick to your own jobs of providing advice to politicians, and refrain from taking their ideas or recommendations to the public arena. Leave the difficult decisions to the politicians.

The noble art of the physician: Hippocratic or hypocritical oath?

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:52:00 +0000

The legal and medical professions often do not see eye to eye. In university, they argue over who has to work harder. When they graduate, the argument pertains to who earns more money, or who has the higher societal standing. Given my background in law, it would be prudent for me to refrain from expressing my opinion on the matter. So one can imagine the doctors' disgust at frivolous lawsuits brought about by lawyers seeking an outcome for their clients. "These lawsuits are unethical!" the doctors cry. We all know that doctors take what is called a hippocratic oath to always practice medicine ethically. Many people don't know that lawyers are bound by strict rules of professionalism and actually face disbarment should they contravene these sets of ethical rules.

It came as a surprise to me when I was referred to a New York Times article suggesting an overhaul of the malpractice system in the US. President Obama famously appeared five times on different broadcasting stations on a Sunday to further his push for Health Care reforms in the US. Studies have shown that the malpractice system had imposed additional costs on medical treatment because of doctors' fears of being held accountable in malpractice suits. The result is additional and unnecessary tests being ordered to cover their bases, and thus higher health costs for the American people. This is more commonly known as 'defensive medicine' and is estimated to cost the American people in the region of US$60 billion a year.

But would an overhaul of the medical malpractice system reduce these costs? Doctors are paid more when they do more. Of course the extra tests and procedures are good for their patients but it is also good for the doctors. Furthermore, it will help protect doctors from lawsuits. If doctors are negligent then they should be held accountable for their actions. In any case, it is their insurance companies which bear the costs of any settlements or damages imposed by courts. Who says these extra tests and procedures are unethical? It is in the patient's well being and it helps protects doctors from lawsuits, never mind that it also earns the doctors significant amounts of money. Doctors took an oath to act ethically at all times, a tradition that goes back to the 400BC, they would never act unethically.

So what is there to complain about malpractice suits? When a doctor is negligent and causes injury to a patient, lawyers are brought in to obtain reasonable outcomes for their client. If a doctor is not negligent, then there are no suits. It isn't the lawyers and medical malpractice lawsuits that impose the costs on the health care system, it is the incompetence of doctors who are unable to uphold their duty of care to their patients. The predicament was well summed up by the NY Times which wrote, "The goal, remember, isn’t just to reduce malpractice lawsuits. It’s also to reduce malpractice."

The situation is no different in Western Australia. Last month it was revealed that many doctors and nurses had exploited a salary packaging system aimed directly at benefiting health care providers. It was reported that several workers had claimed up to $100,000 from birthday parties, weddings and barbecues as entertainment expenses. Of course the hippocratic oath only applies exclusively to medical practice. Nevertheless, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) had the nerve to ask for an 'amnesty' to avoid harm to the Western Australian health system in general. That is, these health care workers should not be held accountable for their deliberate tax fraud (which in certain cases may be criminal) because it is in the general good for Western Australia.

The Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) was "appalled" by subsequent sackings that came as a result of these tax frauds. ANF State secretary Mark Olson said, "I know that in many cases with these nurses we're only talking a couple of thousand dollars." Only a few thousand? No apologies have been proffered by either the AMA or the ANF, in fact, it wasn't the doctors or nurses fault at all. AMA State president Gary Geelhoed said that people were not clear about what the rules were, and thus did not knowingly breach those rules. I beg your pardon? What about the person who claimed his/her entire income as a meal allowance? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

What we have are health care workers intentionally exploiting systems created for the benefit (in the case of salary sacrifice tax systems) and accountability (medical negligence laws) of health care workers. Who bears the cost of their exploits? The tax-payers, higher medical costs, higher medical insurance fees and ultimately, less resources available for the development of infrastructure for the greater economy (which I might add, is facing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression).

Climate change ultimatum

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:21:00 +0000

Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong have issued an October 20 ultimatum to the Opposition, requiring that the Opposition finalise its proposed amendments to the governments legislation by that date. Mr Rudd remarked that "[t]his is not just a piece of political slap and tickle you know, this is a serious piece of legislation." Of course it is serious, it is a serious dud. It will lead to higher costs of energy and consumption for the Australian people without delivering much (if any) effect on net carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, if the legislation does not go through, Rudd has stated that it would be in the national interests to hold a double dissolution election.

What? Since when did it become the in the "national interest" of Australia to impose greater taxes on its people and increase the cost of living for the sake of passing legislation that will have little, if any, effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? China, the largest greenhouse gas emitter, has stated that "we will endeavour to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level". Notice that China will "endeavour" as opposed to "commit". Kevin Rudd wants to be seen as a global leader of climate change at the expense of Australians and our well-being. This may also explain why Penny Wong's "ETS letter" was somehow leaked to the media before it reached Mr Turnbull and the Opposition. Very bona fide indeed.

Pardon the sarcasm, what I meant to say was that Senator Wong actually wrote to Mr Turnbull to state that the Government would negotiate in 'good faith' on the ETS legislation, if and only if, the Coalition had finalised their position by October 20. But the Opposition already had a plan in place (prior to this letter) to get amendments before the partyroom on October 19 and Mr Turnbull also gave an undertaking to Penny Wong to negotiate amendments in good faith. Of course this isn't "political slap and tickle", it is a political stunt to make the Labor party seem active in pursuit of a climate change policy.

Why should the people of Australia tolerate this insincerity conducted by our Government? Mr Turnbull in response stated:

"Her letter is really just a bit of bluster because she seems to be proposing that we adopt the process that we have already said publicly we are going to adopt ... this is a rapidly moving situation with new developments every day about what is likely to happen at Copenhagen, it makes absolutely no sense at all to be forcing a vote on this in November when you could do it in February when you are fully informed ... if they insist on proceeding with a vote in November then we will engage with them."

The Opposition has stated that it would not rush to meet the "threats and ultimatum" set by Penny Wong, and rightly so. The Government wants to rush through legislation to the detriment of the Australian people for the purpose of furthering our Prime Minister's international standing as a climate change leader. Mr Rudd wishes to enter Copenhagen negotiations with the ability to state that Australia has implemented an ETS. This is not about you Mr Rudd, this should be about the Australian people and our well-being.

Australians are a supplier of salient ideas

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:35:00 +0000

So what exactly does Australia contribute to the world? Why should other countries listen to what our politicians have to say? Kevin Rudd is by no means an investment banker, but Mr Rudd was in the United States pitching Australia as an investment safe haven because of Australia's perceived resilience in a time of great economic uncertainty. The pitch was made in the offices of Private Equity (PE) partners Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR) and there were representatives from Moody's, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and various other PE firms.

Strangely, according to Kim Beazley, Ambassador designate to the United States, Australia is a "supplier of salient ideas" and that this could be seen through "the responses of President Obama to [kevin rudd ] in the last couple of days on the G20 issues and the global warming issues". Mr Beazley was probably referring to Australia's proposed compromise deal under which developing countries would set their own binding schedules to cut carbon pollution. However, the United States has merely described this idea as a "constructive proposal".

What exactly was Kim Beazley implying when he said that Australia was a "supplier of salient ideas"? The natural interpretation would be that Australia simply provides good ideas, the other interpretation is that Mr Rudd is a "legal internationalist". That is, someone who is preoccupied with processes, forms and structures and spends little (if any) time thinking about the outcomes. Alternatively, to be blunt, Mr Rudd merely talks the talk, but does not walk the walk.

Evidence to back up this point can be seen from Mr Rudd's ambitious reform agenda aimed at lifting Australia's influence in international affairs, including the creation of an Asia-Pacific community (similar to that of the EU) or the establishment of a nuclear non-proliferation commission. His diplomatic background was supposed to improve foreign relations with Japan, China and India. Two years later, none of above have eventuated. In fact, Australia's relations with Japan, China and India have arguably deteriorated as Liberal Senator Russell Trood stated in an interview with The Weekend Australian.

With regards to Rudd's climate change policy, he is happy to force the Australian people and corporations into higher costs of energy and ultimately higher costs of living despite the wrath of the global financial crisis. Furthermore, he was happy to force Australians to accept this predicament despite having little international support to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions trading scheme (ETS) was tested in the European Union and failed, so why would it succeed in Australia? The ETS is really a scheme that proliferates the free market into environmental policy making. Ultimately, corporations or groups which do not pollute will sell their carbon credits to the highest bidders (usually the highest polluters). The net carbon reduction is negligible, but the costs are borne by consumers and corporations to the benefit of the government.

Hopefully, kRudd's ETS is just another of his "salient ideas" and that a climate change policy based on legislation and regulation forcing the reduction in fossil fuel extraction and pollution and the shifting resources towards research and development of renewable energy sources.

Welcome!

noreply@blogger.com (N.T.) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:20:00 +0000

This is the Journal of Farcical Exuberance. This blog was previously located here but has now moved to this site which is relatively more readily accessible to the general web-browsing population. As you may or may not know, the name of this site is a play on the Journal of Financial Economics, regarded as a top tier international finance journal. The purpose and motivation of this blog is simple; to speak out against the incongruities occurring in the world of politics and financial economics.

It is inconceivable that in this day and age, the youth of today (leaders of tomorrow) have little say in issues that will affect them, and their children, in the future. There are few forums for their opinions to be heard, and if they are heard, little importance is attached to it. This generation, Generation Y or the Millennial Generation, will be the generation that bears the failures of governments today to address pressing issues such as climate change, renewable energy sources or financial regulatory framework.

We are fortunate to live in a country with universal suffrage, yet the politicians who we elect are either incompetent or are more interested in pursuing their own self interests. Kevin Rudd is an example of both. The Australian reported:

"One of the biggest challenges Rudd faces is controlling his own ego. But if you believe you are always right maybe it doesn't present itself as a task that needs addressing. Rudd's treatment of the public service as shirkers because they are not as work-obsessed as he is and his gratuitous advice to our influential neighbouring countries on how to better run their regional affairs gives substance to this conclusion."

This sort of behaviour is typical of the ALP. Mr Rudd and his party have been abusing the systems of Parliamentary question time, by treating questions with arrogant disdain. Julia Gillard is a prime example, instead of answering legitimate concerns about the "Julia Gillard School Building Program", she has chosen to torture the Coalition about their decision to vote against the $14 billion school upgrades bill. The Government must be held accountable for its use of tax-payer funds. Questions pertaining to spending of tax-payer money to fund the demolishing of four classrooms, to build four more classrooms are legitimate and should be answered.

More astonishing is the ALP's audacity to appoint Kim Beazley and Brendan Nelson for diplomatic ambassadors. Both men are former political foes of Mr Rudd, Mr Beazley a former leader of the ALP and Brendan Nelson a former Liberals leader. The appointment of Brendan Nelson appears to be a rare act of bipartisanship, but is also a sign of kRudd's absolute political supremacy. Only a Prime Minister who is confident of his own standing with the voting public could make such appointments.

Let us not forget that the ALP hold government by only eight seats. Mr Rudd's famous Kevin07 slogans may have dazzled and won over the hearts of many young Australians. However, the author is most dazzled by the number of promises made by Mr Rudd and the failure to live up to these promises. Lower fuel prices was one such promise, and we all know how well Mr Rudd's proposed 'fuelwatch' scheme went. Broken promises, incompetence and arrogance do not go well together.

Malcolm Turnbull summed it perfectly when he said, "Our vision of government is to enable and to empower, Labor's is to direct and command". Mr Rudd's 'Presidential' style of leadership and preoccupation with the micromanagement of government has left many voters wondering if they made the right decision in the previous elections. This blog, amongst other things, will be seeking to remind its readers of the short-comings of our Prime Minister and highlighting evidence pertaining to his arrogance, incompetence and his lack of vision for our nation.