Bulletin 7 - 30 May 2023

admin — Mon, 29 May 2023 21:29:36 +0000

The community radio station where I broadcast, Radio Skid Row, is having a fundraiser! You can just donate, but there's also plenty of perks you can get too. My show is "Roving Spotlight", and I say it is Ripley's believe it or not for ideas, along with all the letters to the editor that I never had published. You can check it out here.

On this website, I recently wrote an article on Modern Monetary Theory, https://johnaugust.com.au/article/modern-monetary-theory . I hope to have a discussion about it with Gene Tunney, host of the "Economics Explored" podcast. You can find a past discussion I had with him on my own Roving Spotlight show here: https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-24-may-22-post-electio...

Here's a few topics I've covered recently, and the shows concerned:

Bureaucracy and Courts gone wrong

In recent shows, I look at how the NSW Trustee and Guardians office have made some significant mistakes, and also a story of John's experiences with the courts not listening to him resulting in what was in his opinion a definite injustice. Then there's my own story of how I crashed into a car from behind and proved in court it was their fault:

https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-28-mar-23-trustee-guar... ; https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-14-feb-23-nsw-liberals...

Ukraine, AUKUS and all that

My view is "neither US, nor China, nor Russia". But, having Lithuanian heritage, I'm well aware of Russia as a threat, much as the US may be playing geopolitical chess along the way, and the experience of people of Greek background is that their only experience is of local communists helping fight the Nazi occupation, not communists invading, and being the victim of geopolitical games by the West at the end of WWII. And then there's taking a l look at Australia foreign policy, AUKUS and Paul Keating's comments into the bargain. You can check out the shows:

https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-9-may-23-ukraine-compu... and https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-28-mar-23-trustee-guar... and https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-11-apr-23-troy-stolz-p...

Technology

Along with Lisa and Tyrone we've taken a look at breaches both recent and history, along with AI and similar. I've also taken a look at a few excesses in the corporate world and on the internet. You can check out the shows:

https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-7-mar-23-govt-prayers-... ; https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-9-may-23-ukraine-compu...

Religion and Politics

Together with Graham Hoskin, we took a look at the "US religion" and how the US tries to coerce other nations into following its lead on Israel, along with the influence of religion on politics generally, and some historical theological tensions in the Christian Church. There's a past compilation and some more recent interviews:

https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-18-apr-23-graham-hoski... ; https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-2-may-23-graham-hoskin...

I also made some comment on the discussion between Dawkins and Lennox on religion: https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-14-feb-23-nsw-liberals...

Politics in NSW

There's Troy Stolz, anti pokies campaigner who stood for the NSW election, and my more general comments about how the election went, and a look at Mark Latham:

https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-11-apr-23-troy-stolz-p... ; https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-11-apr-23-troy-stolz-p... ; https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-7-feb-23-iran-latham-a...

Lots and lots

Continuing, I discussed Hannah Arendt with Lev in Melbourne: https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-4-apr-23-lev-and-hanna... - and also stuck my oar in on nuclear power : https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-14-feb-23-nsw-liberals... - then there's stuff on India and Iran : https://www.mixcloud.com/Johnorg/roving-spotlight-7-feb-23-iran-latham-a...

Bulletin 6 - 30 January 2023

admin — Mon, 30 Jan 2023 01:21:53 +0000

I've recently been interviewed on the "Northern Vibe" podcast. The original interview was a lot longer, but here we talk about when you can do yourself harm and it be appropriate. You'll find it here.

Going back a bit further, I was commenting on politics and SF at the "Year of the Stainless Steel Rat" internet convention, looking at SF, Cyberpunk and other issues. Is our current era of manipulative advertising and stuff like Facebook being able to predict our behaviour better than we can - is that presaged by "Cyberpunk"? Well, actually, I thought of it more in terms of Phillip K. Dick; his idea became the film "Blade Runner". You can read more of my thoughts here . I was also talking about various Pirate Party and other ideas too ... my comments start around page 39, part of that pdf.

On the show broadcast Tuesday 31st January, I'll be doing an outline of some ideas of Australian Aboriginal ( Koori ) astronomy. We also have some other bits and pieces - including a past look at Mark Latham. I hope to take a look at his past book "The Latham Diaries" on the show on the 7th of February. Noon-2pm Sydney time, broadcasting on 88.9FM and streaming on www.radioskidrow.org .

The 7th of February should also include a discussion with Nicky and her offsider, talking about the marches in support of Iran in Sydney. There's some real problems there - tune in and find out!

On 12th February, I'll be giving a talk on the scientific and philosophical status of evolution at the NSW Humanists Darwin Day event - look into it yourself, but you'll also find stuff on meetup here.

Continuing with the evolution theme, on the 21st February show, I'll be commenting on a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, "Has Science Buried God"?

You'll also be able to hear an interview I did with John, who had an unfortunate collision with legal system. His defence - which I found entirely credible - was completely ignored by the Magistrate. Have a listen and find out.

Also on the 21st Feb show, I plan to give my latest comment on Nuclear Power. You can hear a past show where I made comment on nuclear power.

Bulletin 5 - 9 December 22

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2022 06:23:41 +0000

On Tuesday's show ( 13th December ), I'll be interviewing Lisa Navarro about the recent Optus breach. Lisa was able to figure out the breach had taken place even before it was publicly acknowledged, and there's quite a story about her attempts to let Optus know were lost in a bureaucratic quagmire. Yes, we all make mistakes. But, Optus' mistake was made worse in terms of how it was hard to let them know something was wrong, and how they pushed back at any attempts to monitor and regulate them. I've looked at the Optus breach in a past show, and I also previously took a broader look at the internet.

I also plan to interview Margaret Hogge from the Non-Smokers' Movement of Australia, and we'll have a poem from Margaret Walters on Putin and Ukraine - hopefully more poems, too.

I've also written an article on so-called "Modern Monetary Theory". We also discussed the issue in a past show.

Speaking of economics, I previously wrote about housing affordability. It's a complicated story, but hopefully I've added something.

Don't forget to check out the Pirate Party Australia You Tube Channel, where you'll find a few past speeches I gave, along with events and presentations by others.

Modern Monetary Theory

admin — Sun, 04 Dec 2022 18:39:25 +0000

I've been interested in economics for some time. I heard about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) recently. Much as I challenge numerous elements of "mainstream" economics, Modern Monetary Theory that just didn't ring true. As I looked into it further, I found that Modern Monetary Theory had less and less validity, and a lot of the historical claims about money didn't make sense either.

But, first, let's take a look at history going back a long way. There's the claim by MMT advocates that historically it was taxation that gave money "legitimacy". But what I can see from history really doesn't mesh with the claims. There are also claims that the first use of writing were to track transactions. In fact this was true for one civilisation, but it wasn't the only way writing developed.

Earliest Egyptian writing was around labels for jars and descriptions of the efforts towards monuments - not transactions or money as far as I can tell. There doesn't seem to be any mention of transactions in reviews of early Egypt.

Early civilizations had several problems - describing religious worship, marking temples, doing administration, keeping track of what in what jar and where it came from, and keeping track of transactions - it was coincidence that Mesopotamia started out with transactions, it did not have to be that, as it was in Egypt. That occurrence in Mesopotamia was a roll of the dice, not some sort of obligatory outcome.

Ancient Egypt had a developed civilisation with state rule and control of the economy. Grain was created by the farmers, and taxed based on how much the Nile flooded. Given how this was at the root of the economy, it made sense to transact based on this grain. Commodity money co-existed with the state. Also, as an adjunct, oil was used as commodity money.

In fact, a lot of historical references to money were based around grain - whatever tokens existed were "linked" to an amount of grain. Another important linkage with money was around weight - the "shekel" was originally a unit of weight, and when it was linked to money, it was to a weight of some precious metal.Michael Mann, writing in "The Sources of Social Power" says the early Mesopotamians had transactions, but they were in terms of precious metals - a commodity currency, not coinage or "money".

So, we had different ways of performing transactions - by the exchange of quantities of grain, oil or precious metal.

Coinage was, however, a practical innovation rather than something where its legitimacy resulted from taxation, as MMT advocates would suggest. Precious metals were used, but had the problem of needing to weigh it in order to transact it. If you made the metal into a coin of a fixed weight, you could just count the coins without needing to weigh the metal.

Coinage was - at least at first - something that was valuable only because of the value of the metal out of which the coin was made, and the stamping with the image of the emperor or leader meant you could be confident that it really did weigh what was claimed. The emperor may have held the grain stocks and run the stamping machine, but the coinage did not gain legitimacy because of taxation, but rather because of convenience and the king or emperor would be the most powerful person who actually controlled the grain silo and could afford to maintain a coin stamper.

Coinage "inherited" the value of the underlying metal, with the identification of a given mass being the thing that made it worthwhile. It was not a function of taxation. The Government may have provided credibility, in that you could believe there was a given amount of metal, but tax had little to do with it.

Roman coinage was different, because the value of the coin separated from the value of the underlying metal. The value was transitioning to "fiat" currency, but it had its origin in coinage being the "mere identification of a given mass of valuable metal". Roman coinage was also linked to taxation, yes. But that was a new development, not anything that was necessarily linked in history.

The next issue is around what goes on in the economy.

On the one hand, as some MMT advocates would claim, yes the constraints on the economy are around the available resources and the available possibilities, not so much financial as such. We can make a mistake of looking to the money when the possibilities it represents are the important thing. Nevertheless, this mapping does help us allocate those possibilities. Money may not be ethical or perfect, but it does sorta do this job, IMO. There may be some ethical commentaries to make, but that's separate to the nature of money itself.

At any given time, though, the economy can only do so much. This can be adjusted, re-allocated and even grown gradually. While money is a claim to those possibilities, that does not stop those possibilities from being the limiting factor. Now, we can imagine situations where there are things the economy could be doing that it is not doing, and we have depression or financial stagnation. Where there is spare capacity, we could re-allocate activity and get more happening, working within the constraints of the whole economy I have mentioned. Yes.

However, the point is that printing money will not in and of itself mean the economy can do more. That's where MMT advocates have it wrong. To a first approximation, I embrace Friedman monetarism - if you print money at about the same rate at which the economy is growing, you won't have inflation. Having said that, my understanding is that it has been practically very difficult to actually know what's going on in order to know how much money to print. So, it is less useful as a prescription for what to do, but it does properly identify an underlying relationship.

Now, MMT advocates talk about hyper-inflation, and how the risk is way overstated, that by itself money printing does not get you into hyper-inflation. And you know what, I agree with them. Yes, that only happens in exotic conditions. I agree with that element of the MMT story. However, the point is that money-printing in a "regular" context does not have the threat of hyper-inflation. It has the threat of "rather too high inflation" along with "stagflation" and "wage-price spirals" around "inflationary expectations". Having said this, I believe these concerns are not constraints on reasonable wage increases, which I'll get to later. But, they do represent concerns about the sort of money printing MMT proponents advocate for.

Historically, stagflation was said to have two causes. A first was too much money printing. A second was a feedback loop involving inflationary expectations. For sure, inflation has multiple origins. However, inflationary expectations - people's state of mind - is important.

There was the so-called Volcker disinflation which was an economic intervention that "cured" inflation. There seems to be a reasonably straightforward mainstream explanation on why it worked. It seems to me too much of a coincidence that the Volcker disinflation did what it said it would do.

Now, I'll take a bit of a look at labour and other issues. There are certainly some problems which need to be engaed with, but they don't mean the MMT approach is valid.

There's the so-called non accelerating inflation unemployment rate ( NAIRU ). In other words, we need to keep people unemployed in order to keep inflation under control. You could label this as pandering to asset owners / the ruling class, but there is a link to worker conditions - if we don't keep inflation under control, you'll eventually have a lot more unemployment. That's possible, though yes, managing the social condition is also a worthy goal.

But, in any case, our current situation is different to the one where wage increased caused a wage price spiral and locked in stagflation. First, we have the situation where productivity has increased, but business owners have absorbed this as increased profits rather increasing wages. We could increase wages by reducing the rate of profit without causing inflation. And, by some arguments, this would be good for the economy as it would grow it, with more money being in the hands of workers. But, the second factor is that unions do not have the clout they had decades ago. They'll press for wage increases, sure but they won't be as able to get them as they have in the past. A deeper issue, as I see it, is that wages are to some degree allocated based on power differentials rather than what can be "afforded" in any meaningful sense. And the power balance between employers and employees has swung significantly in employer's favour over the last few decades as the result of ongoing Government policy. However, that's a few steps removed from the MMT debate.

In fact, given some of the labour shortages in elements of the economy, increasing wages - particularly in those sectors where there are labour shortages - would means a better functioning economy with fewer supply chain issues. In fact, I understand there are employers who would like to offer higher wages, but are being held back. We don't even need to force employers to increase wages - in a lot of cases, we just give them the freedom to follow market incentives.

So, yes the economy is an issue, and we do need to be worried about social welfare along with wages and inflation. But, that doesn't mean that the MMT prescription is valid.

Abiogenesis - the Chemical origins of life

admin — Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:44:24 +0000

I've been interested in Abiogenesis, or the chemical origins of life, for quite some time. It was something I struggled with, but the explanations I heard around the traps just didn't cut it - there wasn't enough detail, at the same time as I'd struggle with the advanced chemical papers.

But over time, I did develop some familiarity with the ideas. I gave a talk to the Sydney Futurists on the subject here. My views have developed a bit since then.

I was originally overwhelmed by the Wikipedia reference on the subject - - it is in fact good stuff, though reading Wikipedia can be a bit like trying to drink from a fire hydrant. But I didn't rely on Wikipedia ( Ian Woolf tells me that's very naughty). Still, after I'd struggled with the ideas for a while, I then stumbled over the pages origins and probabilities which do help a lot in putting things in perspective.

Still, I hope I'm bringing things together in an interesting way, one that makes this article worth reading if you're trying to get your head around ideas in abiogenesis.

While I'm not trying to disagree with the creationists, some material is as a rejoinder to their ideas. At times the commentary by creationists - while wrong - is considered and shows a degree of finesse in its chemical understanding.

The main point I make against creationists is that although it is difficult to imagine natural conditions which make all the amino acids, all DNA/RNA base pairs, and long chain proteins, it is possible that a more limited chemistry could naturally arise - using not all the currently used amino acids, not all the currently used base pairs and using shorter chain proteins than are currently in use - which would be able to sustain the generation of information bearing molecules of increasing complexity - where at some later stage the developed chemistry ( no longer "natural" in a constraining fashion ) - might then support difficult facets of current life forms ( all the amino acids, all the base pairs, and long chain proteins ).

I'm assuming that you know something of DNA, amino acids, proteins and catalysts - but not that much - hopefully it will make sense as time goes on. I'm particularly appealing to you if you're a science fiction enthusiast or generally interested in science and the origins of life. I'm trying to fill in the details of the story, not particularly "prove" a case. I'm not seriously trying to "argue" with the Creationists, but I did use some of their arguments as a springboard to develop my understanding.

In putting this together, I've mostly embraced mainstream biochemistry, though I do go out on a limb in speculating that single strand DNA was able to help in the catalysis of reactions which store information, but do not store information by itself. Of course, my ideas might well be blown out of the water by credible recent research - who knows - but you've gotta start somewhere!

I do emphasise talking about catalysis and the ATP molecule. To my way of thinking, we should not just think of "DNA and amino acids" as important to cells, but we should think of "DNA, amino acids and ATP" as having similar importance - but some mainstream researchers might even agree with me there.

But, before we go into the these ideas, my plan is to look at some of the important things current life does, and how early life might have done them.

Cellular life as we know it
Catalysis : Concentration alteration
Catalysts : higher energy states
Energy for reactions. Food for the city.
The polymerisation challenge
The Dynamic Selective System - reducing the effects of formic acid
Early life - a metabolism first approach
Chemical innovation and the "Wheel of Fate"
References / Inspirations / Further Reading

Cellular life as we know it

I define life as "The duplication and maintenance of information-bearing molecules, and the related supporting chemical processes and infrastructure."

Cells currently set up a very specific chemical environment to support this process, and make use of energy in the environment. In imagining early life, we think about reactions that may not have taken place in cells, but nevertheless led to these reactions. The cell may thus be seen as something which :

Extracts energy from the environment
Maintains a cell wall and chemical environment separate from the surrounds
Duplicates information

... And needless to say a lot goes on to maintain this.

Normally, we think of a "cell" providing these functions. However, depending on the chemical environment, it might be possible to "lean on" chemicals outside to provide energy, not bother with a cell wall, and just be a molecule ( or set of molecules ) which duplicate yourself, relying on the surrounding chemical environment for energy and raw materials.

Current cells duplicate DNA and use information in the DNA to synthesise proteins which catalyse reactions. However, this process takes energy. Energy is extracted from the environment to make ATP molecules, which do the "heavy lifting". Carbohydrates are a "store" of energy, but the energy must be converted to ATP for the cell to use it.

One approach is to take carbohydrates from the environment. Another is to use photosynthesis to generate carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and water in the environment. A third is chemosynthesis, where I understand energy molecules other than carbohydrates are used as an energy source to form ATP.

The conversion of carbohydrates to ATP is called the Citric Acid or Krebs Cycle. Depending on the microbe and the environment, a microbe may use fermentation, reacting the carbohydrate to alcohol, lactic acid or some other compound; or it may combine the carbohydrate with oxygen in "respiration", generating carbon dioxide, water and rather more energy.

There are 3 reactions in cells : condensation - lengthening of carbon chains, spltting - the reverse; polymerisation - joining a chain through oxygen or nitrogen, hydrolysis - the reverse; and also oxidation and reduction.

Catalysts are an important part of the picture - there's so many possible reactions, and you want to focus on a few which contribute to the cell. However, there's more to the picture - a chain of DNA base pairs, or a chain of amino acids has more energy than the individual components. So, while we normally think of catalysts as "helping the chemicals to a lower energy state", there's a lot more to the picture - we have to think about catalysts a bit differently. So, let's first look more closely at catalysts.

Catalysis : Concentration alteration

You may have heard that catalysts speed up chemical reactions - that's true, but it's also misleading. Importantly, catalysts change the relative concentrations of different chemicals. We're used to the idea that chemicals react together, with only one way to react. But, if you have a lot of chemicals together, they'll form a random distribution of products, based on what chemical reactions are available.

We see this in the Miller-Urey experiment, where under the right conditions, amino acids will form from their precursors. Here, molecules randomly collide with each other and will build up into more complex molecules - including eventually amino acids.

What you'll have is a mix of all the random chemical combinations that can be formed - as a child might assemble lego blocks randomly together. They can be connected together in a multitude of different ways. More obviously, different sequences of the same set of amino acids will behave differently. One might be an effective protein, others will just be a random string of amino acids.

Rather than a random combination of molecules, catalysts will increase the concentration of a particular product. Yes, we've increased the speed of the reaction. But metabolic reactions like fixing nitrogen involve the hydrolyis of the equivalent of 16 ATP molecules. The original rate of reaction would be so close to zero as to be pretty much zero. While technically we might say the catalyst "speeds up" the reaction, in this case it is pretty much a meaningless notion. Here the catalyst "enables" the reaction.

It's worthwhile comparing this situation to a "regular" chemical synthesis, at least as happens laboratories and industry. First, we purify the reagents. Then, we react a few reagents together. We might just mix them, we might heat them to help the reaction overcome activation energy barriers, and we might also add a catalyst to help this along. Then, we have the products. Sometimes there are impurities. We remove them.

This is in contrast to a cell, which is not a collection of "pure" reagents in the way that we understand the notion, but rather a mixture of lots of potentially reactive components. Rather than "purifying" the mixture, the catalysts, through selecting the components of the chemical reaction, perform a "virtual purification" role.

How do catalysts work ? One way of looking at is that the catalysts have depressions which match the molecules in the reactions; the reactants fit into these depressions, and then react to form a new compound because they are in close proximity.

So, over time our chemical soup will form lots of chemical compounds. Over time, it might randomly put together compounds whose shape is able to catalyse another reaction. It is this process that may have been one of the main steps towards life. Our reactive pre-life soup is searching out the information space of available compounds, looking for compounds that have a catalytic reactive linkage.

We can imagine going one step further, that catalysts catalyse other reactions which eventually form more of that catalyst, and we have a runaway loop. The researchers Manfred Eigen and Stuart Kaufmann investigated the idea of "catalytic loops" in more detail, suggesting they were important to the formation of life.

Of course, there a bit of a step between molecules involved in autocatalytic reactions and cellular life as we know it. But one thing at a time.

Catalysts : higher energy states

One issue with the whole "catalyst" picture is that what you're trying to build molecules which have higher energies than the original components. How does that work, if catalysts normally work to rearrange atoms into lower energy states?

Consider "normal" chemical reactions as we understand them. "Normal" endothermic chemical synthesis involves increasing the temperature, with the equilibrium at this higher temperature including more higher-energy products. Because the molecules are moving more rapidly, they can collide with each other, overcoming the repulsive force and have surplus energy to feed into bond formation. Once we lower the temperature, the high-energy state is locked into the chemical structure, because of the activation energy needed to change the state.

The problem with this "thermal" approach is that it is a very blunt instrument. Much as you may make some products, that's a statistical result - you'll have a lot of products you don't want. Further, at the same time as worthwhile chemicals are being made, existing chemicals you've made so far are being degraded. If you have a set of pure reagents and a narrow range of reaction paths, not a problem. However, with a cell you have a lot of things you want to keep at the same time as you want to push other molecules into a higher energy state.

Now, I've told a story about molecules being "randomly put together like a child putting lego blocks together randomly". And indeed, this sort of thing can happen. The problem is, under normal conditions it will only happen when moving molecules have thermal energy corresponding to bond energy - there needs to be a "high temperature". There's also some other issues, about the removing the resultant water molecule and similar ( it is called a "condensation" reaction, after all ). There might be some catalytic aspects helping things along, but most reactions will be of this "spontaneous random" variety.

This "spontaneous random" reaction environment will generate some strings of molecules - so called peptides, short chain amino acid sequences. And, yes, the problem is that along the way, those same reactions which create also destroy. ( Sorta like the two aspects of the Hindu God Shiva. ) However, all is not lost. It is a statistical game, and we're fighting against a steeper incline. At some stage, we can expect there to be a combination of molecules we want - it is just they will be in shorter supply.

However, in conjunction with a catalyst, at low temperatures we can use mechanical "pushes" to overcome the repulsion and provide energy to make up the bond energy. How is it that energy is "used" to "push" molecules together into a higher energy state ? You have what is effectively a "mechanical explosive" element. The enzyme has to hold the two precursors and an ATP molecule, which then "explodes", pushing the precursors together in a way which overcomes the repusion, forming a higher energy molecule.

So, we've now talking about a 4 way convergence - the shape of the two precursors, and the shape of a molecule which decays to provide energy, and the enzyme which has a "reverse template" matching the shape of all three molecules.

The ATP "energy-bearing" molecule is the one I've been making all the fuss about so far. Other molecules, like carbohydrates, may well store energy - but ATP is one of the few molecules ( maybe the only one?) which can be used to help other chemicals increase their energy without heating.

While the reaction increases the energy of the precursor chemicals, joining them together, it does in fact reduce the chemical energy of the whole set of molecules including the ATP molecule. The catalyst is still facililating progress towards a lower energy state overall - the ATP molecule loses more energy than the precursors gain - so reducing the overall energy ( Well, actually it reduces the chemical energy with more thermal energy - total energy is still conserved ).

More information on how the catalyst is more of a "jig", holding together ATP molecules alongside the precursors is contained in : http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8076/how-does-atp-transfer-en...

Energy for reactions. Food for the city.

By some calculations, it takes a lot of energy to replicate a cell. However, you'd need less energy to reproduce a few molecules. There are some approaches hypothesised which "actively" pull energy out of the environment. In between though, molecules might "scavenge" energy from their environment. One possibility is a "convection current" which "recharges" ATP in a thermally hot area, then directing them to a colder area where the ATP is used to make molecules.

If we know enough about physical chemistry, maybe we can label something as "impossible". However, it does seem to me that current chemistry focuses on ezyme mediated reactions in life as we know it now - it does not consider how it might be for life in times past. ATP is known to be made biologically in two ways, involving enzymes. There's little consideration on how ATP might be made naturally without enzymes.

Certainly, if you've demonstrated a reaction approach in the laboratory, that's good. But it is important to recognise that the reduction of carbon dioxide with hydrogen was originally thought impossible by some - but eventually it was found that some microbes performed just this reaction.

It is a matter of taking energy bearing molecules, and using that energy to store information in higher energy information bearing molecules. There's information in a particular sequence of molecules - and then there's "energy" - getting that particular sequence of molecular units joined together. When you have your own energy processing, rather than relying on background energy, you can increase the reaction rate.

A recent paper by Lane and Martin ( http://www.nick-lane.net/Lane-Martin%20Cell%20origin%20membrane%20bioene... ) goes into how ATP molecules might be generated, not through "heat" and "convection currents" in the way I imagine, but rather through proton gradients which reside in naturally occuring chemical complexes. This could be an important part of the picture - but there's still the story of how the reaction which utilises ATP develops - assuming we have sufficient supplies of ATP. Do ATP based reactions only develop when we have a Lane-Martin setup generating the ATP? Or could there be other approaches developing ATP before Lane-Martin synthesis becomes dominant?

The polymerisation challenge

There are three challenges in polymerising amino acids - the first is getting the energetics and chemical environment supporting polymerisation. The second is to reduce the impact of the generated water molecules in "blocking" or "reversing" the reaction. The third is to reduce the impact of terminating reactions.

Once you have enzymes forming other proteins, and ATP molecules helping this along, all well and good. But how about before this? How do we get things started? Where did the proteins come from that we could then use ATP to make other proteins? They must have come from another source.

These can form thermally, but there are other approaches to help things along - there's super-critical water, which at high pressures and temperatures behaves differently. There's ice based reactions, where surfaces behave differently. There's catalysts like clays and pyrites, which facilitate condensation reactions. You have shock synthesis, the result of asteroids colliding together, which have been investigated in nature geoscience . And there might be others out there too, which may or may not have been written about.

The polymerisation reaction generates water, which can potentially block the further reaction. ATP facilitated synthesis does not have this problem, but it's otherwise an issue. Clays and pyrites can help to remove the influence of water, but importantly, colliodal reaction environments might also do this. The point is that this is a challenge, not a show-stopper.

Amongst these "natural" peptides, you need either one or more which form as "initiators". These peptides catalyse either copies of themselves or other peptides which end up catalysing more copies of themselves. But, at the same time, these peptides also create imperfect copies - fine so long as the concentration of the "unaltered" peptide continues to grow - with these imperfect copies searching out the space of possible relationships between catalysing molecules and reaction products, in order to find molecules which act to create more of themselves, and hopefully able to do something differently or more rapidly than the original set of molecules.

I assume that - perhaps with the help of ATP molecules - protein can catalyse reactions which result in more of that same protein. There's been a demonstration of such effects by Ghadiri and others back in 96/97.

Eventually, you would find a catalyst which could make use of ATP molecules to create molecules which form part of the catalytic loop. On doing this, you'd then be able to continue the reactions in a less "exotic" realm, where a supply of ATP facilates progress, rather than needing surface catalysts, supercritical water, high temperatures, or what have you.

Having reached this point, you'd then be able to search out the protein space far more effectively, with longer molecules approaching the length of current proteins, and much more "efficient" chemical reactions.

The Dynamic Selective System - reducing the effects of formic acid

Via the Muller-Urey experiment, we know that - at least in a reducing environment - it is possible to make a good quantity of amino acids. There's some controversy over just what our historical chemical environment was like, and whether there was a "primordial reducing ocean with lots of lightning". Well, maybe not. I'll leave the details of that argument to others. But what I claim is that somewhere on planet earth there was an environment which made amino acids naturally, with the Muller-Urey experiment providing some insight into that environment, though it was not necessarily an exact match.

One issue, however, is that the Muller-Urey experiment generates chemicals like formic acid, which are said to terminate peptide chains. This may be an issue if the chemistry is much like the Muller-Urey environment. However, it could be different in a way which makes the formic acid less relevant. Being acidic ( well it is called an acid after all, you know ), it could react with other molecules in the environment, taking itself out of the picture. Or, the environment could prefer reactions which do not involve the generation of formic acid. But, anyway, let's assume there's a decent amount of formic acid hanging around.

We normally think of a reaction using up the reactants, reaching an endpoint, and that's it. If some reactants are favoured, they will dominate the system. For this reason, you might think terminating species like formic acid will stop interesting reactions. However, we can imagine a more complex early chemical reaction taking place around a sea vent, near catalytic minerals, with colloids etc. etc. and with continuous circulation and recycling.

We need something which decomposes some of the reaction products ( say, amino acids and things of similar complexity ), so things can "recycle". Essentially there are two components :

A condensation site, where molecules are joined together , and;

A destruction site, where molecules are broken down.

Sarfatti claims that prebiotic experiments generate at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. Not a problem. It becomes a statistical game. Because while "terminating" molecules represent the majority of molecules, once we have some catalysing molecules, their ability to generate more is related to their concentration, so they can eventually get a foothold - even with the generation of a single molecule.

Imagine a system with 20 different polymerisation molecules. 15 of them are unifunctional molecules, which stop chain development, and 5 are amino acids of interest. Assume we want a particular 10 amino acid peptide chain which can catalyse itself. The chance of it forming is (1/20)^10, or roughly 10^-13. Parts-per-trillion ( 10^-9 ) is the lowest concentrations people are able to measure readily, and this would be well below this limit, but it will still be relevant. We'll have this concentration, assuming all reactions are equally possible.

Assume we have 10^20 molecules in our system - a small fraction of a mole - that's 10^7 of the catalytic peptide. Lots of molecules, but a tiny proportion of the whole.

Next, assume we continuously decompose 10% of the molecules, and then the process restarts with these new molecules. While the terminating molecules are generated in accordance with their original proportion - blocking 3/4 of the possible reactions - if 90% of the catalytic molecules survived, they have the chance of operating on the molecules just released, with the catalyst concentration being a multiplier, to the extent they will collide with existing molecules and provide a faster reaction than the "natural" connection rate ( it is a catalyst, after all). So, as the result of this, while 3/4 of the reactions are blocked by the formic acid, the concentration of the catalyst might perhaps double. Eventually, you might get to the point where the catalyst takes up an eighth of released reactants, and the concentration in the whole collection of molecules might rise to perhaps 10%.

Of course, along with the "perfect copies", contributing to the cycle, there will be "imperfect copies", searching out the solution space. Continuous "recycling" means that even with one molecule ( it has a 90% chance of surviving the "convection cull" ) it could get past the formic acid blockage.

This "recycling" approach is one way of selecting for self-reproducing chemicals. "Spiegelman's Monster", RNA based, shows an analogous approach. Here, a molecule in a "reactive combinatorial environment" was able to explore the solution space and change its chemistry to something more effective. Here, samples which represent the "endpoint" of a reaction are introduced to batches of "new reactant" sucessively. There was a very particular chemical environment that was set up, giving the RNA strand the "raw materials" ( and presumably energy ) it needed to reproduce. However, it is possible to imagine my "recycling approach" might also have provided Spiegelman's monster with the raw materials it needed on an ongoing basis.

The point is that when you have the chemical environment set up properly, reactions can progress which increase informational complexity and allow the exploration of the space of available compounds and possible catalytic relationships. You just have to have that chemical environment. We can do it artificially - we just have to imagine it developing naturally.

Anyway, the point of this analysis is to show that even with a large number of other molecules generated, a selective environment can increase the number of catalytic peptides formed - and the recycling would mean mutation could allow the formation of other interesting proteins.

So - we imagine an autocatalytic set of proteins, operating to preserve the information stored. Further, however rapidly the system cycles through, even if the reactions took a few hundred years to develop - not a problem, there's a sterile environment. The crucial element for effectiveness of the catalysis is that the catalyst forms more than one copy of itself before it decomposes. This means its "efficiency" can be ridiculously low compared to catalysts used in current living cells - so long as there is an increase over time.

Early life - a metabolism first approach

Life nowadays is very complex. We can speculate on the overlay of past and present chemical approaches. For example, some RNA based catalysts are thought to have very early origins. Many forms of life exhibit the same "body plan", and all forms of life use the citric acid cycle. We see history before us, in the chemical record.

But as stepping stones towards current life, we can imagine chemical approaches which are no longer seen anywhere in current life, and do not exist in the fossil record. These stepping stones were superceded by more efficient processes now used in current life. While these stepping stones are no longer in evidence, the important thing is that they were closer to reactions which could have developed from naturally available compounds.

I see early life dominated by protein catalysts. Here, protein preserves information, and causes the continued generation of information storing protein. It does not push information onto DNA/RNA, though at some later stage DNA/RNA would cooperate in the process, building new information.

So, my preference is for a "metabolism first" approach, with RNA and DNA added later. Keep in mind, though, this "metabolism" involves information processing - you're not talking about a "blind undirected" metabolism. At a later point DNA/RNA did obtain a monopoly on information storage, and this approach became obsolete.

As you look into the details, you can find details of an "RNA world", a metabolism first world, an Iron-Sulfur world - the list goes on. But I'll leave you to look into that - hopefully this article has set you up to explore the information space yourself.

Chemical innovation and the "Wheel of Fate"

We borrow the idea from Stephen Jay Gould of the "Wheel of Fate" - namely, that some approach developed for some purpose might find itself adapted to a different purpose when the opportunity arises. Here, we apply it to chemical processes. The idea is that some current metabolic process might have its origins in the use of those chemicals for a quite different purpose.

Take DNA. Currently, it is used to store information and as an intermediary towards protein production. Part of the reason why it stores information is because it is readily duplicated. However, we can imagine it being used for some other purpose before its ability to duplicate came into prominence.

Its use might have been as a catalytic intermediary and template for the production of information bearing molecules. I understand the RNA base units cytosine and ribose are very difficult to make naturally. The mistake is to assume that we could not make an effective precursor RNA system with just guanine and uracil. Cytosine and ribose could come later. The point is, with just two molecules, you can have a single strand molecule with a "zig-zag" profile.

This deviates from current thinking about catalysts - that a single strand of DNA can catalyse a reaction. This isn't known, but there does not seem to be much research into single strands of DNA either. Most of the time DNA is paired in a spiral.

We know that a single strand of DNA has "active" edges - that are able to bond to the "opposite" base pair. However, if it has such "binding ability", then we can imagine it could bind to protein fragments. Things would not "lock into position" as with current catalysts, but rather they would "flap about" on the DNA chain, eventually colliding with each other and completing the reaction. You could even have exploding ATP-like molecules giving one "lobe" velocity compared to the other, providing kinetic energy to increase the bond energy of the target molecule. Compared to "regular" catalysts, this would be slow - but that's not the issue. The issue is whether this would contribute to a net increase in information bearing molecules over time.

References / Inspirations / Further Reading

I acknowledge the ideas of Predator, a Sydney activist who first put me onto the idea that chemical compounds could contain information - something that started me thinking about "proteins searching the space of available reactions". I also acknowledge discussions with RH, which helped me develop my perspective on abiogenesis.

I read the books "Origin of Life" by Leslie Orgel, and also Microbiology and Infection Control, Gary Lee & Penny Bishop. I've also read and asborbed lots of other stuff all over the place; I can't really articulate where from.

The Wikipedia article on abiogenesis is good stuff. Also, the two pages origins and probabilities represent a good outline of possibilities.

Bulletin 4 - 14 November 22

admin — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 03:15:25 +0000

On Tuesday 15th, Neil Ashworth will host a Roving Spotlight show, together with Sylvie Ellsmore, Deputy Mayor of City of Sydney, and Judy Hopwood, ex Liberal Party member for Hornsby - talking about housing - owned, rented or just plain missing. I'll be sticking my oar in, too. Noon-2pm Tuesdays, 2RSR www.radioskidrow.org

I've released two recent shows to mixcloud - most recently, I discussed Covid with Professor Tony Blakely of the University of Melbourne. Even after all this time, people are saying things I find problematic, and we take a look at a few things, including adverse events, and whether people are "dying of" or "dying with" Covid. I take a look at the recent Federal Court case claiming Covid measures were unconstitutional ( amongst other things ) along with positions put forward by politicians and others. Into the mix, we have pieces from Everald Compton on our Constitution's preamble, and Malcolm Crompton from cyberbeat on Clearview AI.

A few weeks ago, We had Ian Rose from the
Support Assange and Wikileaks Coalition. Amongst other things, we took a look at a recent article by Laurie Patton on the New Daily. Prof. Noam Chomsky spoke about teenage girls and mobile phones when he was in Sydney. There's a look at how "Cambridge Analytica" came about. Along with that, Hitchens on the Earth's geology, me on the shrinking earth, a look at Seattle's unique construction, plans to seed the ocean with iron and other approaches to climate, and saving birds using feathers treated with insecticide.

From more than ten years ago, I've resurrected an article I wrote on Aboriginal Art in Australia, focusing on the work of artist Gordon Syron.

Aboriginal Art and Australia

admin — Fri, 11 Nov 2022 01:35:17 +0000

Back around 2010, I wrote this article on Aboriginal Art in Australia, focusing on the artist Gordon Syron. It was originally published on the "Home Page Daily" website, I've since found an original copy for this website.

Gordon Syron is an Aboriginal artist who understands the market better than most, having run an art gallery in conjunction with his partner Elaine. It's a closed shop - particularly for Aborigines. Gordon : "the whites have stolen our land - and now they're trying to steal from our culture as well.". Internationally, Italians and Greeks are involved in their art and sculpture, but Australian Aborigines are not involved in the selling of their art. It's partly the vestiges of a "Mission Mentality" - of "telling the black fellas what to do", but it's certainly a good earner for those involved.

It's about productive Aborigines claiming a fairer share of the value they create. Gordon thinks that just as Australia "rode on the sheep's back", it has also "ridden on the black's back" - with unwaged Aborigines working as stockmen to even have that wool based wealth. So what is the total value of all the Aboriginal art produced in the last few decades ? How much stayed in Australia ? How much stayed in Aboriginal hands ? How many Aboriginal groups have been able to preserve and show their own art ?

In addition, though, it seems that very little has remained in Australia - with international art dealers denying not just Aborigines, but also the Australian economy, of almost all of that value (To be fair, in the 1990s the Australian Government prohibited the export of art worth in excess of $20,000 without paying tax.)

Some "dealers", who Syron calls the "Carpetbaggers", tour the outback and (for example) buy art for $300 that they sell at overseas auctions for up to $30,000. At one stage Syron was circulating, buying art on a much more honest "advance-plus-commission" basis.

The "Carpetbaggers" were not impressed - one said to Syron that he could get shot saying what he did. Syron said he did record the conversation because he'd had personal experience of the homicide squad. Syron had previously served a life sentence in prison.

Syron learned to paint in prison, reproducing the masters (he also learnt some tip from forgers, too). These "original copies" are much appreciated, and rarely sold publicly, though owners do sporadically surface to verify authenticity.

His signature work, inspired by his experience, is "Judgement By His Peers" - a white person in the dock is surrounded by black figures with a golliwog-like appearance - some are half paying attention to the case - others seem to gossiping. ( see more detail here

Who appreciates art ? Private collectors keep it for themselves and speculators buy it just to sell it later ? Either way, unless loaned to galleries, it's kept out of the public eye. And apart from speculators, some dealers manipulate the market to inflate prices.

In times past, Elaine Syron took early morning photographs of Aboriginal paintings when they made their ephemeral stop in Sydney Galleries on their way overseas, probably becoming lost forever. It was her attempt to keep some record of that art in Australia.

Gordon's art has a biting, satirical style, and was initially difficult to sell - no galleries would provide a private exhibit. They were displayed publicly in the NSW Parliament House - the "Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Exhibition" - but this was not a selling exhibition. So Elaine opened her own Gallery in order to show Syron's work. Things did change. Gordon's work entered the mainstream and started to sell. Over the years, Gordon's work has mellowed (he is now 67). Before 2000, his works focused on "Invasion Day" and similar themes. But since then, Gordon has been inspired to paint the "Aboriginal Fairies" and "Where the Wildflowers Once Grew".

"Black Fellas Dreaming Gallery" started selling work by other Aboriginal artists. And Gordon, like so many passionate artists, became reluctant about selling his best work - and then wanted to keep the better work of other Aboriginal Artists, too. He has a love-hate relationship with the market. To the extent that appreciative, passionate people can pay good money - great - even if there's the bittersweet realisation that the public probably won't ever get to see it. But seeing it dominated by speculators, market manipulators and transient international art dealers makes you feel a little ill.

To display his private collection, they started up the Bangalow gallery. There was no external support, however, and this could not be sustained.

Wanting to move their Art Gallery to the Rocks, they had several meetings with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. The authority was keen at first, but suddenly backed out when existing Galleries became concerned about the possible competition from real Aboriginals. Competition from an Aboriginal who would have shared more of the wealth with the artists themselves, but never mind. It's a closed shop in other ways too.

There were never any Aboriginal valuers of Aboriginal Art - adding weight to the idea that "They stole our land and now they sell our culture". Still, with the help of a white valuer, Gordon is soon to become Australia's first Aboriginal valuer of Aboriginal Art.

And, being fair - some white players in Australian Aboriginal Art have been supportive. A white valuer is sponsoring Gordon's application. The Hogarth and Cooee Aboriginal Art Galleries, while they sold art overseas, were willing to let Elaine photograph it. But such beacons are in the minority. Further, all humans beings - black or white - can be corrupted by money. Gordon has seen a few Aboriginal artists "go bad" in their pursuit of money.

The Syron's collection includes cultural art - rather than the kangaroos and Emus which are the tourist mainstay, it includes representations of sexual organs and reproduction - the so called "Bunda" art. These artworks frequently tell stories with moral and sexual lessons, similar to fables. The NT artist Yirawala retains sexual organs in his work - something the white dealers wanted him to exclude. Unlike other artists, however, he refused to buck under and keep them in.

Then you have "crosshatch style" and "X-ray" art, which does have a traditional origins in Aboriginal culture.

While they have a few "dot" style artworks, they're a recent development - prompted by a non-Aboriginal, Geoffrey Bardon in 1977. It does incorporate Aboriginal influences, of course - but think about all the documentaries you've ever seen on rock paintings - you never see any "dots".

Their collection includes Aboriginal Art from all over Australia - be it contemporary art, traditional art, or cultural art that which has a story attached, or speaks of the history of the Aboriginal people - they plan to found a museum / gallery where this art can be viewed by all Australians, a "Keeping Place" - so that rather being sold into a private collection, it can be kept in the public eye.

Gordon and Elaine's story is a fascinating one. We can only hope that more Aborigines act to wrestle control of the market for Aboriginal Art away from whites - for, in so doing, they can retain more of the wealth they generate - and perhaps "make a good living" as Gordon would put it - and further inject more of that wealth into the economy for all of us.

Bulletin 3 - 30 October 2022

admin — Sat, 29 Oct 2022 22:36:27 +0000

Coming up on Tuesday on "Roving Spotlight", we'll have Ian Rose from the Support Assange and Wikileaks coalition.

Also, I'll point out that today ( Sunday 30th October ), I'll be at Speaker's Corner in Sydney from 1pm to 3pm ( at least, even though it normally starts at 2pm ). You can find out more about speaker's corner here.

But, back to the show ... We'll have a comment from Prof. Noam Chomsky when he was in Sydney, talking about teenage girls and mobile phones. We have a review of how "Cambridge Analytica" came about. Along with that, Hitchens on the Earth's geology, me on the shrinking earth, a look at Seattle's unique construction, plans to seed the ocean with iron and other approaches to climate, and saving birds using feathers treated with insecticide. And hopefully more besides ...

That's Tuesday noon-2pm, 2RSR 88.9FM and streaming on www.radioskidrow.org

I'll give a plug to Dr. Joseph Toscano's Anarchist World this Week, quite an innovative show - though I'd like to think I also provide some useful content (mmm). I've been interviewed on Dr. Toscano's other show about my activism, maybe you'd like to have a listen ...

See you!

Bulletin No. 2 - 21 October 2022

admin — Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:00:18 +0000

Coming up on Tuesday, "Roving Spotlight" will cover a range -

Ukraine saturation coverage, resource wars, Tariq Ali's book "Bush in Babylon" on the Middle East - particularly Iraq.

There's also an extract by Christopher Hitchens, talking about the sins of the Catholic Church. Also the settlement of "New Italy".

That's Tuesday noon-2pm, 2RSR 88.9FM and streaming onwww.radioskidrow.org

I've released two previous shows - last week, with Nicky Danesh, talking about the Iranian protests and Rita Mac on surveilance capitalism and the broken promise of the internet.

There's Ukraine. I'm disagreeing Peter on Danos' show who thinks the Russians will win. I incorporate a look at the history of NATO and the part of Lithuania. There's also bits on land valuation and a nod to EV utes.

The week before, on the place of land in our society & economy, and the obstacles manufacturers put in the way of car repairs.

Going way back to 2011, I wrote on how we were dealing with drugs. More recently, I spoke with Professor Alison Ritter about drug policy on a previous program. I've since discovered a film which develops a worthwhile view drug policy, Half a Million Steps from back in 2021.

Bulletin No. 1 - 17th October 2022

admin — Sat, 15 Oct 2022 23:24:31 +0000

A first bulletin - 17th October 2022

Rather than making the odd update to the front page, I thought I'd put out a regular short bulletin. Here I'll be pointing out recent articles, past articles, and also radio work coming up and past radio work.

For the present, I'll point out that on the show on the 18th of October, I'll have two guests - Nicky Danesh, talking about the Iran situation, and Rita Mac on the Optus hack, data security and similar.

I'll be taking a look at the Ukraine, in particular the views Peter Carantinos, a regular guest on Danos' street talk show, and I'll also do a "fill" on some ideas about land valuation from the last show, together with a bit of a nod to EV utes.

That's broadcasting noon-2pm on 88.9FM sydney, also streaming on www.radioskidrow.org

I've noted that Chomsky has said some controversial things around the Ukraine conflict; I made a general review of him some time ago (nothing to do with Ukraine), which you'll find here

Review of Tim Hollo's Book Living Democracy

admin — Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:10:34 +0000

A review of the book "Living Democracy" by Tim Hollo. It is a work rich in detail, but is wrong in places and biased in others.

Introduction

I'm reviewing the book "Living Democracy" by Tim Hollo. Mr. Hollo looks at many things, and while I can usually see where he's coming from, I really only agree wholeheartedly about 10% of the time. He's very selective, and the tapestry he weaves has plenty of holes.

He draws on a lot of commentators and historical events. But he's cherry picking. For example, he endorses the community governance of Rojava, now called the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. At other times he rails against violence, ignoring that Rojava incorporated an organised military defence. Or, that while Angela Davis said things about prisons that Hollo endorses, she also gave a tacit endorsement of violence at other times.

Normally, its fair enough to cite your references and show where your ideas come from. For Hollo though, the goal seems to be to draw from their status. He frequently goes through part of the picture and then stops suddenly. For example, he rightly talks about diggers and levellers, about the commons and the enclosures, but leaves out the Georgist perspective.

Now, when someone writes something, they can't include everything, they need to make choices. I certainly endorse Mr. Hollo's right to make his own choices. Still, it seems he has chosen to be selective rather than leaving stuff out because he is pressed for space or needs to keep things simple.

He has a biased view of history which takes him speedily to his destination, and he quotes controversial views held by one individual that nobody else in the field supports. Now, maybe they're right and everyone else is wrong, but you're given the impression it's a summary of a generally supported position. When I look at that same history, I see something very different.

Then you have Mr. Hollo's narrowness based on his own experience, much as he quotes widely otherwise. He emphasises Non-Government Organisations, or NGOs he has been directly involved in. Much there are some interesting stories, the only other NGOs he mentions seems to be ones that made an international splash. Otherwise, his focus is on groups he's been personally involved with.

It all leads to a viewpoint based on the Green pillars. However, on closer examination, there's a lot more going on. To the extent these observations point in a Green direction, they point in a lot of other directions too.

Now, Mr. Hollo is up front about his background in the Greens, and fair enough that he writes from that inspiration. But emotionally the book feels strange, because he's also trying to claim a degree of objectivity. He mentions some initiatives of the Green Institute. Now, right at the front of the book, it does mention he's an executive director of that Institute. However, when he talks about speaking at a Greens Institute meeting, he doesn't ( even in brackets ) mention that he's an executive director; you get the impression that the meeting was something the Institute did separately to him, and he just happened to be there.

So, in sum, Mr. Hollo cherry picks and is selective. It's certainly a concentrated, diverse and intriguing collection. But, it is such a tangled mixture of truths and distortions that it leaves you wondering.

1. Introduction
2. Contents
3. Complex systems and cooperation
4. Deterministic history
5. Anti-ecology
6. Nature of capitalism
7. Administration and abuse
8. Nature of economics
9. Violence
10. Indi and Teals
11. Steggall
12. Teals
13. Conclusion

Complex systems and cooperation

Now, looking at early civilisation, Hollo talks of people "running away" as it developed. But, early history is of local agricultural productivity being a magnet rather than a wall. There's the early settlement of Caral in Peru. It was an open plan city without walls or defences, and was the result of an economic synergy with a local fishing community. Ancient Egypt had the fertile flooding of the Nile. Yes there were slaves, but many were prisoners of war and purchases from elsewhere rather than locals. It seems to me Egypt started as an area of local prosperity that attracted people to it.

Hollo notes that during the Paris Commune, there was disagreement about how they should be organised - centralised or distributed. Drawing from evolution and politics, Kropotkin developed ideas of mutual aid and cooperation, in contrast to social Darwinism. More recently, we've developed ideas like Group Selection, and the Price equation gives us further insights into cooperation. Here I mostly agree with Hollo. I side with left Anarchists, I challenge the goal of centralised control, and note how Anarchist Maknovists were important during the Russian revolution.

There's complexity theory. Sure, there are emergent properties, and that's interesting. But Hollo claims complexity theory is the foundation for us rebelling against oppressive authority. It seems a bit superstitious and reminiscent of popular authors hanging all sort of weird claims off the magic dust called "quantum mechanics".

First, a lot of history was not oppressive like Hollo makes out. It wasn't the only game in town. When we rebelled against oppressive authority, we rebelled against it because it was oppressive, you don't need to add extra layers.

Inheritance made sexism worse, that's a story I'm happy to endorse, much as there were societies where your adopted heirs could have a status that exceeded that of your own children. But Hollo goes out on a limb, endorsing the narrative of Marija Gimbutas' about the nature of past religions and that there was a lost civilisation was cooperative and feminine. Well, there might have been something like this, but many other anthropologists - including women - think that Gimbutas' position was way overstated. You can see details of a critique here. Hollo continues to reinforce and overstate his case.

Deterministic history

Hollo rightly notes that Marx and others felt that history was deterministic - that society was inevitably inching towards revolution, but there was no evidence for this, and there was debate over how much active encouragement of class awareness was needed for revolution. Separately to revolution, there were other claims that history unfolded on a fixed path.

Together with Rocco, we made an analysis of the Russian Revolution on my community radio show, and concluded that it was an accident, but I do agree with some of Hollo's story.

Gramsci had a better approach, thinking that you needed active intervention for revolution. Hollo echoes David Graeber saying that history is not deterministic, and is full of playful possibilities. Into the mixture, Hollo notes that political language has been much abused, with the word "socialism" being used in so many ways as to be useless. For sure, you still have people who think you can wag a finger and claim others are "communist" and still make people rise up in disgust. OK, there's a few things I can agree with.

Anti-ecology

Along the way, Hollo talks of the problem of limitless growth and people dominating the world, all incorporated into a so-called "anti-ecological" push. While he may make some valid points, it makes your head spin. He claims Locke and other thinkers in history experienced brutality, and assumed that people needed externally applied order. Then there was a supposed push towards selfishness that drove the market. I see the story as a lot more complex, with good and bad coming out of the innovative thinking of the time. The development was a lot less narrow.

Hollo recognises the enclosure movement in contrast to the commons. The commons was well, just that - common land, available for use by everyone and not walled off for exclusive use. This was an important part of history, but Hollo overstates the case, claiming a clear thread of conflict between the commons and enclosures going back deep into history. Early on, civilisation was about the magnet of increased localised fertility, not walls. For sure, though, conflict around the diggers, levellers and the Ranters was part of the story, but only at times.

There was a poem from around 1764, noted in Bollier's book Silent Theft:

      
      They hang the man and flog the woman
      That steal the goose from off the common,       
      But let the greater villain loose
      That steals the common from the goose. 

      The law demands that we atone
      When we take things we do not own
      But leaves the lords and ladies fine
      Who take things that are yours and mine. 

      The poor and wretched don't escape
      If they conspire the law to break;
      This must be so but they endure
      Those who conspire to make the law. 

      The law locks up the man or woman
      Who steals the goose from off the common'
      And geese will still a common lack
      Till they go and steal it back.

There was a critique of the commons made by Garret Hardin, the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons". He said that commons were a shared resource that would inevitably be abused because everyone would grab what they could without further reflection. We've seen this happen in fisheries, both internationally and in places like Nova Scotia, Canada. That's something Hollo ignores while trying to pump up the case for the commons. Hardin was wrong too. Where you have community agreement, it is possible to effectively socially manage a commons. Hollo emphasises that Elinor Ostrom developed this viewpoint and won a Nobel Prize. I'll note that trusts, narrowly tasked, can manage a commons effectively without the need for markets or commercial property rights. Sure, Hardin was wrong to think such problems would always occur, but he did identify something that can and does happen. Hollo misses out on the bigger picture.

Supposedly this history was behind a multi faceted amalgamum, with a disconnection from the world, an endorsement of limitless growth, the extraction of resources, a takeover by enclosures as compared to the commons and an identification of humans as being selfish with no other things going on. Marx identified the metabolic rift and soil exhaustion, but this nascent identification of environmental concerns was dominated by his other thrusts. In times of plague, there was in fact a labour shortage. In the US, there was the idea of the frontier, ignoring that you're killing off or at least displacing the indigenous people and would eventually run out of frontier. The point is, the recognition that limitless growth underlay all this was a relatively recent discovery, and I disagree with Hollo here.

While there's some truth, Hollo's story seems one dimensional. Yes, commons were important, and there have been flawed critiques. At the same time, there have been pushes back. In times past in the US they were hand-wringing about "The Gilded Age". There were the hippies. In contrast to Hollo's claims that intellectual thrusts were had the goal of making us look at everything - including generosity - in selfish terms, people have and do emphasise community. More recently the middle class wrings it hands about people pursuing money at the expense of what's important in life, and you still have vestiges of the hippie approach to life, with people downshifting and making sea changes.

Going beyond the commons, there are so-called Georgist perspectives around land value taxation and a broader economic view. This shines a light on the philosophical ambiguities over just what it means for something to be valuable. It's not without its own problems, but it's still a promising way of looking at the situation, and it's conspicuously absent in Hollo's review. I've written about housing affordability, incorporating a look at the Georgist picture here

For sure, cooperative ventures can have an energy which challenges the push from the market. Here it's not so much the abuse of an existing commons so much as generating a new commons, or just new possibilities. Urban agriculture can be a good thing. Holo notes buy-nothing groups, a worthwhile initiative and something he has personally been involved with. I see the worth in repair cafes.

Hollo rightly points to how Canberra's original plan meant that suburbs were well laid out and very liveable, and that over time this original initiative was diluted. While free market apologists would claim these later developments improved affordability, Hollo does seem to make a credible point that the supposed more expensive development still yielded a better outcome overall.

However, there's another important factor in Canberra's history - how it dealt with land titles. Originally you didn't own your own title, you could only lease it from the Government. That approach was strongly Georgist, but it is strangely missing from Hollo's narrative. Sure, urban planning was good in times past, and it's sad that approach has been lost. But it wasn't the only thing going on, and Hollo again typically focuses too narrowly.

Hollo also talks about the inherent worth of the appreciation of nature. He does have a point, and it's a worthy aspiration. It's possible that you have a downwards spiral - a lack of appreciation of nature results in more social unrest and inequality, which makes us even worse off.

Nature of capitalism

Considering extractivism and limitless growth, Hollo further develops his critique, criticising corporations and economics. Yes, corporate power can be ultimately self defeating and destructive, undermining its promise. Yes, the green bans were innovative. Yes, government has been subverted by resource companies. Yes, Global warming is a thing, and corporations push back like they did with smoking and cigarettes. Still, the corporate world can facilitate good. There's a conflict between innovation, wealth creation, equality and rent seeking or other abuses.

Indeed, you could cut the Gordian knot and just say it is not sustainable and stop the story there. Nevertheless, it feels like Hollo is being too simplistic.

Administration and abuse

There's a broader concern over how government has been captured by business, which I agree with, together with Government projects that steamroller over the community.

Yes, there's lip service to consultation, with the promise being subverted. Equally, there's NIMBYism too. Pirates are broadly concerned about the problematic growth of bureaucracy. We see a great deal of bureaucratic indifference everywhere, along with the abuse of privacy, data harvesting and so on, which I won't go into here. Yes, bureaucracy around unemployment and indue and robodebt is bad. There's a problematic media commentary around "winners and losers", and sure, it would be better to emphasise how we're all in it together, but I don't think this sort of commentary is totally useless either. Hollo imagines a broader agenda trying to make us all think about being adversaries rather than cooperating.

Hollo imagines a cooperative model of democracy, that will turn things around. I hope for the best, but see more to the picture. While at times Hollo talks about the worth of diversity in political viewpoints and approaches, and for sure it is bad if economic focused views dominate, at the same time, right wing views are a part of the political landscape. Sure, let's get rid of abuses and excesses. But those right wing views will not magically disappear. I worry that open decision making will not help when there's a fundamental clash of interests. There seem to be deeper issues at work. Sure, when it is just a decision amongst many with minimum costs, sure. But I can't see that Hollo's approach will be a magic wand.

Nature of economics

For sure, GDP is a problematic measure, and Hollo rightly puts a spotlight on it, and draws on the ideas of Kate Raworth. There's problems with economics, but equally it is a tool, and it can be useful. I've spoken about some of the abuses of GDP and other numbers from a Pirate perspective

Yes, idea of value is rubbery. There's much dodginess and arbitrariness in economics. There's the simplification of homo economicus, turning us all into selfish automatons. The issue is not whether there are simplifications, but rather whether we can still do something useful with economics in spite of them. For me that's a more interesting question, but Hollo seems to have a focus on identifying problems and then dismissing all of economics.

Hollo talks about sustainability, but in fact there's confusion between sustainability and renewable resources as compared to inter-generational equity and non-renewable resources. When it comes to things like fishing stocks, we can only remove so much in a given year. There you have the issue of sustainability. When it comes to fossil fuels, there's only so much out there, and how much we can extract in a given year depends on the size of the global economy and how it is configured. But, eventually we'll run out, or there will be greenhouse consequences. Here, it's not so much a matter of sustainable extraction, but rather intergenerational equity.

Yes, there's wealth inequality. I agree we've ended up in a strange place. There's advertising, where the competition is over the ability to manipulate rather than the quality of the product. Yes, political consultation has been subverted. You have Government herding people into a room, telling them what they're going to do, not listening, and then claiming they've "consulted". We do need to be on the lookout against language control. These are valid concerns, but Hollo's approach is a mixed bag.

There's Universal Basic Income. The Pirate Approach includes a Negative Income Tax and draw on the reality of incentives, not a bad thing in isolation, though yes sadly the idea of incentives are also used to justify some pretty regressive policies. Still, it is good to see Hollo supporting a Universal Basic Income.

Violence

Now, violence. Rather than looking at some violence as being more justifiable, Hollo seems to take a viewpoint of total purity. That any violence, whatever the origin, must necessarily corrupt everything then and ever after. This is strange given how Hollo celebrates Rojava. Even the Paris Commune needed to look at self defence.

Australian aborigines have the violent tradition of payback. Hollo endorses Indigenous views of the land owning us, and are held in contrast to western ideas about owning the land. Now it may well be that aborigines have a useful perspectives on how to relate to the land. To be sure, there have been positive initiatives like the Mt. Theo. campaign against petrol sniffing and Opal petrol. And it may well be that we need to respect this violent tradition of payback. But there's a strange blindness and selectivity in Hollo's book.

There's a lot more violence out there. Anarchists support coordinated defensive violence, much as at other times anarchists like Kropotkin and others are paraded by Hollo. Back in 2017, but there was an article in Slate, entitled Yes, What About the "Alt-Left"?, which outlined what the religiously inclined protesters were doing in response to the white nationalists in Charlottesville at the time:


 Resident Rebekah Menning wrote: 

     I stood with a group of interfaith clergy and other people of faith
     in a nonviolent direct action meant to keep the white nationalists
     from entering the park to their hate rally.  We had far fewer people
     holding the line than we had hoped for, and frankly, it wasn't
     enough.  No police officers in sight (that I could see from where I
     stood), and we were prepared to be beaten to a bloody pulp to show
     that while the state permitted white nationalists to rally in hate,
     in the many names of God, we did not.  But we didn't have to because
     the anarchists and anti-fascists got to them before they could get
     to us.  I've never felt more grateful and more ashamed at the same
     time.  The Antifa were like angels to me in that moment.

For sure, non-violence may have been more effective at creating change. But I think you need to look at the situation before claiming a universal. Saul Alinsky, a respected US activist writing in "Rules for Radicals", suspects Mahatma Ghandi embraced non-violence because it was the most strategic thing to do at the time, not because of a deep seated conviction against violence.

For sure, there can be problems with US foreign adventures, to casually lean on violence is bad, and use of state coercive force to increase prison populations is bad, something Angela Davis notes and Hollo echoes. Still, Davis did make comments endorsing violence in particular contexts. You can hear it here.

I don't want to endorse violence, but Hollo's purity goes too far, particularly in the face of the lived experience of people whose viewpoints he otherwise endorses. If you look at the book as a whole, the way Hollo looks so selectively at violence, and writers and situations around it, it does seem inconsistent.

Indi and Teals

Now let's take a look at political developments in Australia, going back to Indi and then onto the Teals. Hollo looks at Indi as a model for cooperation driving good politics. Still, he misses a lot. Indi may have been a repudiation of Mirabella, the sitting Liberal candidate at the time, but not so much the Liberal Party or its approach more broadly, or Liberal Party values, where Hollo starts to see things in the shadows. Now, I might point out that I've reached out to Dr. Helen Haines, being happy for her to direct me to someone else in the know, but she could not find the time to answer questions from the likes of me or even pass me onto someone else. Still, I'll do my best regardless to make sense of it.

To shift people from the Liberal Party, you need both a credibility deficit and a credible alternative. Voters did not go to the greens, they went to an independent. It seems Mirabella made too many public insensitive decisions. Supporters could normally make excuses like "well she's busy", but somehow her sins could not be excused. There was perhaps a tipping point, with a sufficient number of credible stories in circulation.

These concerns would have been compatible with many Liberal Party values. Low taxation, restraining wage growth, supporting business and protecting people's asset values would still be endorsed, while other things were not delivered on, like mobile phone coverage, transport and other issues. McGowan was a local, and locally involved. Then there's climate change and same sex marriage, issues people might have thought the Liberal Party would support. Further, the Liberal party claims to endorse some positives Hollo talks about. Community involvement, though in some cases that's around church and groups like Rotary. Maybe that's how Liberal Party voters supported charities. Regardless, it's community, and there's a caricature claims that Liberals don't get community initiatives. Sure, maybe Morrison didn't. But, for all his faults, it's something Abbott did get.

Individuals may not want wealth as an indulgence, or because they're caught inside a hedonic treadmill. They may want sufficient prosperity so as to be secure against falling into poverty. It may not so much be about having a well paying job but rather whether you have a job at all. It's wrong to imagine all Liberal voters are only after excessive wealth. Previous Liberal Governments gifted land for national parks to the state government, purchased copyright on the aboriginal flag, and pushed back against patents involving the BRACA gene. And, if you believe the narrative, by supporting business, we all benefit through the provision of high quality value for money goods and services.

For sure, the Liberal Party has its own contradictions and negatives. But, nevertheless, critics like Hollo paint a caricature which ignores the reality. In the face of all the problems Hollo identifies - some which he identifies correctly - the fact remains that many people nevertheless still voted Liberal. The Liberal Party incorporates a rag-tag collection of contradictions. Different business interests - farming, mining, manufacturing, services, exports and imports. People who cherish freedom and people who favour moral or religiously based intervention into people's lives. Those endorsing religious viewpoints and those taking a secular outlook. Those who endorse a scientific viewpoint as compared to a populist one that attracts votes through dog-whisting. Most of the time you don't see these tensions, but at times they do surface.

Further, less positively and appealing to people's selfishness - the Libs help preserve your asset values, even if the less well off ultimately pay for it. At the most recent election, they spoke about life not being easy under Albanese with a dollar sign replacing the "s", illustrating that they do - deliberately and knowingly - appeal to people's selfishness.

There's a conflict between the Liberal Party pursuing these top level concerns and their ability to engage with local issues. Electors may feel they're being taken for granted. But there's a bit more to it. It's implied that focusing on the whole economy means your asset values will be protected and your interests advanced. That's supposed to be more important than the local humbug you might have to deal with. You're taking one for the team because you want to support the ideology, and that's more important. At least, that's what you're willing to do if you're a supporter.

Rolling the clock forward briefly, Frydenberg did something similar, and not wasn't really worrying about local issues. In the new politics podcast, the hosts noted that even if Frydenberg had kept his seat, rather than strutting his stuff in parliament, he would have had to run around his seat opening halls and similar to protect his much reduced margin, and been forced to live a very different political life.

It's also possible that voters will endorse the candidate rather than the Party. For Turnbull, his lower house vote was about 15% higher than the upper house vote, though certainly both were above 50%. But many people voted for Turnbull and not the Liberal Party. More recently, people supported a Liberal Party candidate not because of his party, but rather because he'd been active in the community. Who was in Government was a secondary issue - they would have voted for a sitting Labor candidate with a similar positive record. Presumably, though, they were willing to tolerate a Morrison Government - it wasn't so scary it made them vote Labor.

The party agenda and your support for the local area are important. If you have a reputation for being arrogant and abrasive, that wouldn't help. As a voter you might be vaguely supportive of Liberal Party values, so long as candidates are also polite and reasonable. Which Mirabella was not. While people sometimes talk about the general rudeness of candidates in parliament, most of the they'll look the other way for their own political party and candidate. But, if your support for a candidate and party is not rusted on, you'll be willing to jump ship.

While McGowan may have gotten her leg up by being consultatitive, Hollo overloads this observation. It was not an endorsement of the Hollo package, but rather a local response to a very particular situation. If Indi endorsed the whole Greens package, they would have voted Green rather than a nuanced independent. Further, a lot of people stuck with the Liberal Party, McGowan won by a small margin - though there was certainly a large swing behind it.

McGowan's vote increased at the next election. Rather than indicating a further ideological drift away from the Liberal Party, I think it was an endorsement her record in parliament. That's reinforced by the fact that McGowan's successor, Dr. Helen Haines, had a reduced vote when she first won the seat which increased with time. It's difficult to believe that the electorate's identification with Liberal Party values varied so strongly - it's easier to believe that the electorate liked what they saw in Dr. Haines and warmed to her.

Steggall

Moving the clock forward to Zali Steggall, rather than her endorsement being a reaction to the broader set of Liberal Party policies, it was a reaction to policies around same-sex marriage and climate change, with Abbott being seen as out-of-touch on these issues. When it came to local issues, Abbott suddenly found the energy to talk about local infrastructure, but it was legitimately seen as convenient - why had he been missing in action for however many years before?

Again, Steggall's endorsement was very particular. She had to present herself as being a better custodian of Liberal Party values than the Liberal Party itself, and Abbott in particular.

Teals

The recent ascendance of the Teals was similarly a particular reaction to current problems with the Liberal Party, not a rejection of what you might think of as residual Liberal Party values, which the Teals claimed to be better custodians of than the Liberal Party itself. And for sure, they had help from Simon Holmes a Court.

There were numerous issues with Morrison - how he dealt with bushfires, Covid, women and climate change amongst others. Some were narrowly Morrison, and some more broadly the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party hosted climate denialists and vaccine skeptics, with Morrison originally wanting to go to the footy in the face of Covid. People did not necessarily want to trash the economy in pursuit of action on climate, but with the Libs hosting climate change deniers and lacking any real action, along with a sudden about turn before the election, it was just not credible. Their line was that hydrogen will be a technological saviour, they'd preserve the economy, don't worry, trust them, it will be fine, a story reminiscent of their past narrative around so called "clean coal".

I also have my own view of tectonic shifts resulting from Covid. Yes, some people did get neurotic about it. To be sure, while I embrace the reality of the Covid threat, and the worth of lockdowns and vaccines, I also see political inconsistency together with leakage from racism and classism in terms of how the situation was dealt with, along with some naivety about how to set up quarantine for what was fundamentally a respiratory disease.

This prompted one end of the population to become paranoid about Covid. But, at the other end, there was an emerging spirit of unity - that "we're all in this together". This meant that appeals to asset values - property taxes and franking credits - had less traction. Also, banging the table about freedom of speech and the woke lefties cancelling people had close to zero traction as far as I could tell, while the Liberal Party was able to lean on this previously.

Mark Gibbons, past Pirate Party Treasurer, had a narky observation to make. A seat that went to Labor might slowly swing back to Liberal. But the seats that went Teal - well, based on past experience, once an independent develops credibility, they can become entrenched till they leave on their own terms, and their goodwill may even pass on to their nominated successor. Of course, the Teals need to develop that credibility, it's not guaranteed, but sure seems possible. So, strangely, the Libs might have been in a better position if Shorten had won the last election. They'd have Labor candidates that could have been more easily unseated over time than entrenched Teals.

Conclusion

So, I'll now conclude. While Hollo says a lot of interesting things, and notes the writings of a lot of interesting people, he nevertheless is very selective in what he covers and how he covers it. I certainly acknowledge he gets some strands correct, but also many wrong. And the tapestry he ultimately weaves from those strands ends up being full of holes. But, at the same time, let me celebrate that he puts things forward as he sees them. I'd never challenge his prerogative to that. Being a teensy bit narky, I'll also observe that he is lucky and privileged to have such a platform with which to put his views forward. Oh boy, to be spat at in the face! But, getting back to his book: if you do give it a read, I would suggest you consider carefully and critically what he does put forward.

Environmental Speech - RHHFFPS 7th May

admin — Tue, 17 May 2022 20:09:19 +0000

This is the text of a speech I gave to the Ryde-Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society on the 7th of May. I was asked to comment on environmental issues, and hope I did a decent job of that.

Hello, I'm John August Fusion/Pirate party candidate for Bennelong. Within Bennelong, I often bushwalk, and have walked here from Cressy Road, I've been on your local walking tours, and have also sometimes dropped in on your outpost down the way. I'm also getting involved with the Lane Cove bushcare group, so have an additional interest in the area. I've had a longtime interest in environmental issues. Up north, the Bramble Cay Melomys has gone extinct, the result of climate change, and I've attended the memorial day - there's a push to found a national museum to extinct and endangered species. We've had pressures on the Pigmy Possum in Victoria - due to a lack of Bogong Moths. That's the result of light pollution - an issue I've also been concerned about. I have a community radio show where I've considered these issues. There's Rewilding Australia - now under the WWF umbrella - amongst other things, trying to rebuild the Eastern Quolls population.

But, not just animals - our customs authorities incinerated unique botanical specimens on loan from France, and also lichen samples from New Zealand. I have more general concerns about the growth of Bureaucracy, which we've seen in how the health system sometimes goes terribly wrong. But it's not just about plants or the health system, but also excesses like Robodebt.

So, this is some of my background. I'll continue, focusing on the Fusion and Pirate perspectives on environmental and climate policy.

You have the problems with invasive species, habitat loss, pollution, and of course climate change. But there's a broader policy context. Environmental work can be complicated. Rewilding of degraded ecosystems requires a long-term approach to stop new waves of invasive species attacking vulnerable and plant and animal populations. Species restoration is also difficult, often requiring vulnerable species to be protected in sanctuaries, or on islands and fenced-off peninsulas until their numbers can recover for their re-introduction. Erratic and uncertain funding makes these things difficult.

We embrace a longer-term approach. Rather than drip-feed funding each year, environmental grants need to be scaled up to the challenge and provided over longer time-frames to enable proper planning and co-ordination. We'd establish an ecology fund, overseen by experts, with the mandate to provide long-term grants for scientific research and community-driven environmental work. We'd want to support a permanent regional workforce supporting rewilding and habitat restoration. We'd ensure that successful initiatives such as the Indigenous Rangers program are expanded and funded permanently, ensuring the cultural knowledge of our first people is valued and preserved.

Now, looking at climate change. Fossil fuels don't just generate greenhouse gases: particulate air pollution from coal burning kills millions of people every year and generates massive volumes of toxic waste.

We have seen some recent dramatic weather events. For sure, our regular ups and downs are in the background. But, they've recently been the worst on record. When they're bad, they're really bad. Firefighters have seen pyro-cumulus formations - bushfires generating their own clouds and weather - as never before. We've had bushfires in Tasmania in areas for the first time in a thousand years. You can have a double whammy - our winters are warmer and wetter, with more growth. Our summers are dryer, drying out that additional growth and setting us up for another disastrous bushfire season.

But there are many opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint. Expanding home solar, batteries and micro-grids provide opportunities. Further, as we develop green industries, we can export low carbon products and energy and effectively yield an 800% carbon footprint improvement. We see a fixed carbon price as important. Predictable pricing provides the certainty which long-term investment requires, and would create a mechanism for energy efficiency and innovation all across the economy. Environmental externalities are a form of privatised profits and socialised losses, which a properly run economy should reject.

We can make other economic changes - on implementing a carbon price, we take away the GST on energy, so providing added incentives for the expansion of green energy. Part of that story is to impose an export charge on coal which we'd then use to purchase UN carbon credits, and remove ensure there are no waste levy exemptions on coal power.

Some claim we're just part of the global environment, and our actions will make little difference. This is very misleading. It's a bit like saying there's no problem with selling weapons of mass destruction to a despotic dictator, because if we don't, someone else will. If we want overseas nations to take action, we need to have our own backyard in order in order to be taken seriously. Then there's the fact that per capita we're pretty bad for the carbon output. There's a lot more to this picture.

So, that brings my review to a close. I hope you will seriously look at voting for me - I bring my own passion and experience together and the strengths of both Fusion and the Pirate Party branch to the table - with a considered vision for how to deal with climate change and the environment.

Bennelong 2022 - Those Damn Preferences

admin — Tue, 10 May 2022 06:56:42 +0000

So, I need to denote preferences, much as we all say "you can choose your own preferences", it seems obligatory. Notably, Labor has been kind enough to put me at 3rd, and I need to do my bit. But, in the fine John August tradition, I can't just make a list, much as know people would put forward that list without the thinking behind it, and say "Aha! Look at John August's preferences! What does that tell you!".

But that assumes someone can be bothered ...

Previously, in the Pirate Party, preferences were determined by a vote amongst all members. In the Fusion merger, it's a bureaucratic rabbit warren, and I'll make my own way, but be willing to be corrected if Fusion or Pirate central pull me up. Needless to say, they're probably preoccupied elsewhere. Separately to my preferences, though, there are the Fusion upper house NSW preferences, which you can look up separately.

If you've seen me at candidates forums, I've said "I don't want to compare myself to the other minor party candidates ...". It's what I'm now doing - with mixed feelings. I'm happy for there to be a box saying "I do not wish to vote for any of the candidates below". I'd hope people would want to vote for me. But, I'm equally understanding of people who don't want to vote for anyone.

I need to be careful. Even though I'm a candidate, I don't want to get myself into legal hot water. If you're wanting to cast a valid vote, you need to number every box. I know that means you reach a point where you don't want to choose between the remaining candidates, thinking them as all equally bad. But, well, the state wants to legitimate Government, and claim that there's been a notional majority electing the representative in each seat. There's a process behind the oppression we endure. Neither you nor I can escape from it.

Perhaps you've heard it before. I'll echo it here. If your first preference does not get in, once it gets down to a two-horse race, the order in which you preference those two candidates will in fact determining who does get in if it's an even split. You don't "waste your vote". Further the Morrison Government claims that voting for independents ( minors too, I guess ...) is "destabilising". It that really means they're running scared. If you want to believe Morrison here, I'll leave that to you. Still, I'll recognise some good points about the Liberal Party, so please don't dismiss my ranking as narrowly partisan. We'll get to that.

First preference: John August. Well, derrr.

Second preference: Kyinzom Dhongdue, Democratic Alliance.

I'm concerned about hypocricy in Australian foreign policy, including Assange, but also Timor Leste, witness K and similar. I've noted Chinese hypocrisy, and gave a speech in support of Hong Kong students at Sydney University. You'll find it as part of the radio show I broadcast, in this recording. Still, we were happy trading with China till what they'd been doing for ages suddenly became a concern, and that just because I challenge China, does not mean I'm pro-US. It's messy. But I do my best.

I've previously covered Drew Pavlou's challenge to Chinese influence at his University, and was certainly sympathetic. I'm likewise sympathetic to the position of his local candidate, Kyinzom Dhongdue. The party stands for good things. I think the Pirate Party has a more detailed and comprehensive position regarding foreign policy, human rights and numerous other issues, but nevertheless sympathise with the the Democratic Alliance, and put Kyinzom at number two.

Third preference: Tony Adams, Greens

While the Greens have an interesting policy package, I nevertheless feel that Fusion has a diverse strength to draw from, while not being stale. We believe in the continuation of the Lucas Heights reactor, and within the Pirate Party branch, don't feel Nuclear Power should be off the table as a solution to Climate Change. We're also pro-market ( with some nuance). You can hear some details of our economic policy in the podcast here. We've also been challenging problems with intellectual property policy, privacy and the regulation of the internet - which the Greens went along with.

Still, they stand for many good things, and so I place them at third preference.

Fourth preference: Jerome Laxale, Labor

Now, Labor have numerous problems, including that Gillard went along with taking a swipe at Julian Assange, and they've gone along with dodgy internet regulations and undermining privacy that the Liberal Party has supported. Still, much as I see the worth in the free market, I also see that the Liberal Party have eroded worker's rights and had their own problematic pro-business bias, with Labor being alternative here.

I've been impressed with Mr. Laxale's record on council, and much as his administration was not perfect, I recall the "bad old days" when Liberal Party aligned people had majorities on Council. Here, things get complicated, because an issue is - can you support Mr. Laxale separately to your feelings about the Labor Party? For sure, I'm more impressed with Mr. Laxale than I am with the Labor Party.

Labor Parties have done dodgy privatisations, reducing the immediate tax burden but condemning us to pay more in the future, and senior Labor Government figures have gone on to work in cushy jobs in the very industries they were regulating. Just like in Nuclear War strategy, you look at the "least worst option", and you can see the present Labor Party in Government as that. But, if they have free reign, that's its own problem. Perhaps you see the current Liberal Government as stale, prompting its replacement. Fair enough to replace them with Labor. But, wait long enough, Labor will become stale, we'll chuck them out and we'll be back where we started. So, while maybe you'd want a Labor Government, if they have a blank cheque, that's its own problem. So, it makes sense to first preference someone other than Labor. Preferably me, of course, but hopefully you see my point.

Fifth preference: Simon Kennedy, Liberal Party

I think the Liberal Party have lost the plot, though they did in the past stand for something positive. But, can you separate out the candidate from their party?

I know people will think that putting Labor ahead of Liberal means I'm necessarily "pro-Labor" and can be therefore categorised and dismissed. But, let me tell you: I look back and think I should have voted for Dr. John Hewson, not Paul Keating. Because, we ultimately ended up with four terms of John Howard, which I think was much worse. And, after the election, I started to reflect. And I realised I'd been sucked in, betrayed by the anti Dr. John Hewson rhetoric by Keating at the time. It was in fact one of my moments of political awakening, and I'd forever look twice at the Labor Party after that.

Then, there's Malcolm Turnbull. I stood against him in Wentworth. But, even then I couldn't help but be impressed. Interestingly, while there was a majority for the Liberal Party in both the upper and lower houses, about 15% more votes went to him in the lower house - there were a lot of people who were willing to vote for "Turnbull" but not "the Liberal Party".

I saw lefties chucking rocks at Turnbull. But I found myself thinking - if we have to have a Liberal Government, Turnbull's not such a bad option. And if you chuck rocks at Turnbull and the Liberal Party too much, eventually they'll tire of the experiment of having a sensible person at the helm, and replace him with someone worse that John Howard.

You know what happened? We got Tony Abbott. ( I wrote about Turnbull and Abbott here. )

I look back to the Menzies Government. It decimalised currency, and increased the pension. It was positive in its way.

But, let's not have rose coloured glasses either. Menzies took us to Vietnam, let the Brits test nukes in our backyard, embraced the White Australia policy and protectionist approaches. Some claim to have reached past the current Liberal Party and be going back to the original Menzies values. But you need to pick and choose if you're going extract a decent set of values from Menzies' heritage.

But, look - initiative, self-reliance, enterprise, resilience - at least on paper, these are positives. But look at the reality under Morrison - a pro-business bias, bringing a lump of coal into parliament, playing to people who want to covet their assets through franking credits and other means, refusing to acknowledge the climate linking to bushfires, turning up to electric vehicle photo ops when convenient, and then proclaiming they would "kill the weekend".

And when it comes to Covid - a string of announceables. Now, the story from the Libs is that we've done well internationally on Covid. But while it has not been a total mess, it could have been a lot better. Remember Morrison wanting to go to the footy? Remember the orders that were supposedly placed for vaccines, and the roll-out that was a lot slower than promised? You could imagine Morrison phoning up the offices of the pharmaceutical companies in Europe at 4am local European time and leaving a message on their answering machine, and then claiming he'd placed an order. It was a real mess. There was the Federal Government app, and we weren't going to get out the woods without it, till it was quietly dropped. So, yes, Covid was not a complete mess. But it really does feel like a lame defence when you look closer.

For Covid, I recognise it as a threat, along with worth of vaccines, stay at home orders and mask mandates. But, at the same time I look at how Government handled it and shake my head. Doctors who immediately grasped it was a respiratory illness were shaking their heads at the inept quarantine that was set up.

Then, you have the people claiming it was an affront to our personal civil liberties and Government over-reach. Most of them, though hadn't really noticed how the Government had dealt with Mr. Assange, Witness K, or the Assistance and access bill. But, once the Government was affecting you, well they must be channeling Chinese totalitarianism.

But, as has been noted here, that's a false dichotomy. Democracies have long been doing this sort of dramatic intervention, it's just that we've forgotten the last time they did. You can be concerned about personal freedom and make some necessary interventions without ever thinking you'll do the multitude of invasions of personal liberties that are part and parcel of Chinese society. ( that's another podcast from the person who interviewed me above, I'd better acknowledge that. )

So ... Covid was a real and legitimate threat. Vaccines were always going to reduce it getting bad when you did get it, but their ability to stop it from propagating was limited. However, at the same time, Government really stuffed up, and you can see that some of that resulting from the leakage of their pro-business bias. And, to be sure, there's lot's of other Government initiatives, like for example, the Assistance and Access Bill & the treatment of Witness K, that are representative of a trend of creeping totalitarianism. But not Covid initiatives by themselves.

So, now we get to the local candidate, Mr Simon Kennedy. First, is it legitimate to separate his candidacy from the status of the Morrison Government? To some degree that's up to you. You can of course put Mr. Kennedy ahead of Mr. Laxale. You can also vote him as first preference. That's your choice.

I've outlined the issues I have with the Morrison Government above. And, if you accept Mr. Kennedy's position, he has a considered and positive approach to global warming, with business experience to back that up. Still, you can see the Liberal Party being dominated by anti- global warming forces till recently, and wonder if the pro-global warming forces in the Liberal Party have any effect so far, or indeed will ever. The writing was on the wall; the Liberal Party reacted to that; the pro-global warming forces within the Liberal Party were always irrelevant, and you could reasonably imagine things staying that way. But ... maybe Mr. Kennedy has a point?

If the Liberals end up in power by a good margin - say 5 seats or so - maybe it will be good to have Mr. Kennedy as a part of that Government. However, the better option may be for there not to be a Liberal Government in the first place, and that's an important crux to consider. It depends on how you weigh up the two possibilities.

Mr. Kennedy has made two other observations of current politics; I'll now comment on them.

The first is that his candidacy was the result of an internal election by the Bennelong Liberal branch, while Laxale was the result of an invitation by Albanese. Well, keep in mind that Morrison has made controversial captain calls elsewhere, like Katherine Deves in Warringah ( if you know you're going to lose, make sure you do it in style ...). For sure, that's not the case here in Bennelong, but it's not like it's representative of what Morrison is up to everywhere either.

Yes, Mr. Laxale was invited by Albanese. Still, he does have a history of being active in the area; we're not talking about someone "helicoptered in" from outside, normally the cause for additional criticism. I don't know the machinations in the local Labor Party branch. Was some up and coming individual sidelined by Albanese? Maybe. Still, have you been to one of those AGMs for a community group where everyone looks at each other and says "OK, who's going to be President this year?". Maybe there was no problem with what Albanese did, though we can see problems with what Morrison did elsewhere.

Then there's how people have been harping on about Morrison, and it has been personal personality politics. Now, to be sure, Mr. Kennedy has not done those personal attacks. But let's roll back the clock to Abbott and Gillard, with the repeated claims of "Liar" and "Ditch the Witch" and so on. I can sorta see where Mr. Kennedy is coming from, but to more credible he should have recognised that the Liberal Party have done this sort of thing in the past, and then say it was sad wherever and whenever it happened. Not as dramatic a claim, but much more defensible.

I look back on John Howard's negative campaign when he entered parliament. I look back to Keating's negative campaign against Dr. John Hewson. And, I think, John Howard must have been taking notes. Learning from the master. And not just notes. Copious notes.

I was in fact impressed Mr. Kennedy's credentials, combining an environmental and business approach. However, there's also his interactions with anti vax groups, where he says "I'm pro-individual freedoms, I'm anti-mandates". Further on, the recording claims he's willing to cross the floor. There's a bit of a jump in the recording, and you wonder why.

On being challenged about this, I recall Mr. Kennedy saying he was willing to stand up for what he believed in. Now, it's great that you're willing to stand up for what you believe in, but what you believe in may be its own problem. Again I'm critical of the Government's response to Covid, but also have problems with Mr. Kennedy's approach. His audience also mentions the Canadian academic Jordan Peterson. I've had my issues with his approach.

So, I have problems with both the Morrison Government and Mr. Kennedy's overall position. But, for sure, you may feel differently, and I can understand that. Assuming you're willing to vote for me, feel free to flip Mr. Kennedy's and Mr. Laxale's positions. Or, indeed vote for Mr. Kennedy outright. It's up to you.

Sixth Preference: Dougal Cameron, Liberal Democratic Party

Now, Mr. Cameron ... I was originally tempted to put him above Mr. Kennedy.

For some things, there's an overlap between the approach of the Pirate Party and the Liberal Democratic Party. We've in fact been impressed with the way the LDP articulated how the state and religion should relate to the institution of marriage. We sympathise when the LDP talks about insidious bureaucracy. We sympathise when the LDP talks about individual freedom. But, we do believe in public health, public education, and a Guaranteed Minimum Income.

And, Mr. Cameron's YouTube channel talks about him going to a "Socialism" conference. Now, being left libertarian, I likewise found myself a bit of a fish out of water at this conference. It was hard to contribute as an outsider, but people would try to be friendly with you, approaching you out of the blue in the foyer. People would phone you up invite you to successive conferences, and I'd tell them I was a pirate, each year it would be a different person and it would be news to them. But in spite of hearing about the Pirate Party for the first time on the phone from me, they remained confident there would be stuff of interest to me at their conference. I tried to talk to Jeff Sparrow at that same conference. I'd been intrigued with his writings on "The Weaponisation of Atheism", much as I'm also a fan of Christopher Hitchens and have misgivings about US foreign policy. But he didn't want to know me. Never mind. I've been ignored by much more famous people than him. While I think Dougal was trying to be polite, they were also being provocative in their way in turning up to the conference, and were thrown out. It's an interesting narrative. Sure, maybe it was appropriate to get them to leave if they were actively disruptive, but it seems all they were doing was being there. Point is, in isolation, I have to be impressed by this sort of initiative. I myself would have liked to have seen an interaction. But there's more to the picture.

If you check out Mr. Cameron's position, he seems to be an unabashed fan of China. Sure, you can see China's economic policy as having reduced their poverty. Yep. But, you also have the Chinese abuse of human rights. Remember the Tienanmen Square Massacre? Their oppressive one-party Government? As an outsider, it seems strange to me that a party that so claims to promote human rights and the prerogatives of the individual has a candidate that is blind to the more general human rights abuses in China. He seems to be so much in favour of a market economy that it stops him from seeing anything else. Maybe I don't understand, but that's sure how it seems to me.

I understand from Kyinzom that she was disappointed that Mr. Laxale had the LDP candidate placed above her. I appreciate that Mr. Laxale put me in number three position, but ... struggling to keep so many balls in the air at once ... I don't want to repeat his mistake when it comes to the LDP candidate. Keep in mind my criticism is not of the LDP or this candidate's approach more generally, but just his blindness about China.

Seventh Preference: Rhys Collyer, United Australia Party

I see the UAP as promoting the financial interests of Clive Palmer, and of taking advantage of unrest around Covid. Still, in times past Mr. Palmer has had a quite positive approach to refugees. Their policy around interest rates and housing seems misguided to me. Our approach looks at the history that has brought us here - Howard's changes to the tax system. I think it helps to be historically informed.

Still, Mr. Collyer seems a decent person who pointed out to me an update in the questions at a recent candidates' forum. I left home that afternoon and was unaware of that update when I reached the forum. I'm puzzled at the fact that someone medically qualified would get involved with a so called "Freedom Party", but I'll leave that as something between him, his party and you a voter.

Eighth Preference: Victor Waterson, One Nation Party

This is another case of the candidate vs. the Party. Pauline Hanson originally was concerned about Asian refugees, and then Muslims, wearing a Burqua in Parliament. Some time ago she was against vaccines, but supporters who were concerned about regional hospital facilities and wanting to be sure their children were vaccinated got the jitters ( yes, things have changed). And then, into the mix, Ms. Hanson has opportunistically had a go at other minorities ... including at one point, Autistic people.

If you can put all that to one side, and you see Mr. Waterson in person, he does sometimes say something sensible about urban development. At the same time, he jumps around a lot, and has the sin of "whataboutism". ( I say more about such "clangers" in Australian political debate here) Sure, the thing we're talking about may not be the only bad thing, but I never claimed it was. I think that making a difference here would be a good thing, which is not to claim there are no other problems. Surely, though, you can start somewhere ...

Still, in spite of giving Mr. Waterson some credit for things he says sometimes, I'm not will to look past his association with One Nation, and the history of Pauline Hanson. He seems to think that Ms. Hanson's record is of saying one thing some time ago, but I see things differently. Though for sure, if you see that Mr. Waterson's position makes sense, you can vote for him ... just as you can vote for any candidate.

Including me too, needless to say.

Authorised by Roger Whatling, 4 Merewyn St, Burpengary QLD

I'm Being Spammed!

admin — Sat, 30 Apr 2022 02:12:10 +0000

I'm receiving multiple similar emails from different people about the same set of causes. Sites like getup.com , dogooder.com and advocacysender.com These sites offer to back causes, monetising your desire to change the world for the better. That's quite a reasonable thing to do. But there's a lot more to the picture.

While politicians traditionally took letters from constituents moderately seriously, and also petitions, the rise of internet based petitions has debased the currency. There's something in the investment you make in writing a letter, or signing a petition. But, if it's so easy to sign an internet based petition, and is more the result of someone "marketing" the option to you rather than you taking the initiative, the significance of the gesture is much reduced.

This means politicians take such internet initiatives a lot less seriously. Originally there was getup, but lots more players have entered the scene, offering to "run campaigns" for dollars you put in, or indirectly through donations. But, the better option for trying to change the world is to take an activist stand yourself, and taking an interest in politics between elections, perhaps even joining a political party yourself, or at least a movement that reflects your concerns.

As Dr. Joseph Toscano would say, citizens become activists, consumers complain.

As someone who is trying to change the world, I've written paper letters to my local members, and I've joined a political party, the Fusion / Pirate Party, which tries to articulate answers to problems we see as relevant. You can find out more about Fusion here, the Pirate Party Branch here, and also about my own candidacy here.

But let me be honest. We can't be all things to all people. We try to do our best, but there's a great diversity of concerns. In the face of us trying to identify a set of concerns, I find myself faced with a great many people with their own particular concerns. I sure hope some people vote for me. For me, and my fellow Pirate / Fusion candidates. I hope that's because the Pirate Party policy package appeals, and what I add to that likewise also appeals.

But, just like the Party itself, I cannot be all things to all people.

I am just one person running my candidacy. No staff, no helpers at this stage. Sure, it is something I want to do. But, think about it, you've probably found yourself barraged by spam and/or junk mail. How does that feel? That's exactly how I feel. Sure, I'm standing for election and doing my best to appeal to people and change the world for the better. But I also need to covet my own sanity, and not get burnt out along the way. Now, if people make an attempt to understand what the Pirate Party is about, and then write to me asking a particular question based on our policies and where I stand, I am certainly happy to do my best to reply. Not mentioning any names, but I think amongst the sea of emails I've received, I've only had one such email. I now cherish that one email, as challenging as it was.

It seems these sites seem to give you our contact details without providing you with any way of finding out about our parties or our stated positions. Perhaps that's the point. People are passionate about their concern, and don't want to grasp the broader details of the world around you. Look, it's fine to be passionate about a particular issue. But, in order to be effective, you need to get a handle on the world around you too. If the sites did not want to be intrusive and overwhelming, they could send updates of the number of people who have indicated their concerns. That would be another possibility. But that's not what they've chosen to do.

I've had many different emails. But the ones which I found most notable asked about our position on Mr. Assange. Within the Pirate Party, I've been involved in media releases on Assange, I've covered the issue numerous times on my community radio show, and I have also written to Mr. Assange in Belmarsh prison. I've mentioned Mr. Assange in a speech I gave in support of Hong Kong students at Sydney University.

And people are writing to me, urging me - even demanding me to take action about Mr. Assange! Now, what do you think I'd do in Parliament, based on this record?

And our party has considered positions on climate, a Bill of Rights, the environment, considered foreign policy, refugees, the list goes on. And we do our best. In many cases, our policy positions may well speak to your concerns. But we can't do everything, and needless to say, while actually preparing our policies, we were welcoming of input about how to shape them. But to make a nod to a torrent of appeals coming in during an election? Is that what it means to have a party policy?

I've written about bureaucracy. I note just how easy is for things to fall through the cracks. There will always be problems to deal with. Because of my position around bureaucracy, because I don't believe that my election will be a magic wand that solves all problems, as compared to thinking you'll ride in with your ideology behind you and that mere fact will make all the problems disappear. I expect I'll be more circumspect and be able to appreciate the many problems out there. But I can only point to this personal aspiration. It does not mean I'm willing to make all those many commitments requested of me here and now. It does seem to me that lobbying and communication is becoming superficial. And if were to mindlessly give a nod to every request coming to me, I'd find myself drawn into that same whirlpool.

Now, part of the position of the Pirate Party is around advertising and the internet. We worry about how companies are compiling data around our every move. We worry about the plethora of signs springing up everywhere, in contrast to Sao Paulo where they've banned billboards. We worry about junk mail.

And we worry about spam.

And, set me call this out for what it is : spam. Corporations monetising your desire to change the world for the better. And we candidates become the meat in the sandwich.

Look by all means, think about the issues, review what the platforms are of the different parties and candidates. I recall doing that way back when, when I was a voter not involved with any political party. And then decide on your vote. Perhaps if you are in Bennelong, you will indeed, vote for me. If not, I hope you will be able to find a candidate you feel comfortable supporting, and wish you the best regardless.

However, I have decided to cease answering in any detail these numerous emails, and direct the emailers to this article. I will continue to challenge the corporations who profit from others, including their passions. Remember the maxim "angry people click more". And, by all means, be passionate about changing the world. I know that's what brought me to politics. But, at the same time, take care with others who will profit from your passion, and harvest your emotions for their own financial gain. Try to look towards the future, not just the present.

This is the modern age, the world of the internet. There are problems in the world, for sure. And there are people willing to take advantage of that fact.

Vote for yourself, and make it count. Maybe that means you won't be voting for me. No worries! Just don't let any snake charmers draw you in!

2022 Speech to Eastwood Chamber of Commerce

admin — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:20:49 +0000

Here's the speech I gave recently to the Eastwood Chamber of Commerce on the 11th of April. At the time, I made the point of recognising that there can be good people in the Liberal Party, and good candidates , but that was in the broader context of the Morrison Government and its record. For sure, I did not want to directly have a go at the Liberal Party candidate next to me. Trying to further illustrate this duality, I noted that Menzies increased the pension and decimalised currency - but also took us to Vietnam and invited the Brits to test their nukes in our backyard. Apart from this difference, what follows is pretty much what I said :

I'm John August, candidate for the Pirate Party branch of Fusion in Bennelong. There's many things to criticise about the Morrison Government, and many reasons to vote fusion if you normally vote Labor, Greens or other. But, with 4 minutes, I'll focus on why we're a good alternative to the Liberal Party.

Even if you might be otherwise sympathetic to a Liberal Government, Morrison and his predecessors have let us all down. Partly, it's the vacuous narrative around support for business. When they talked about dropping business taxes, some owners noted taxes were only one of many business costs, including rent, interest, insurance, utilities and labour. These costs were also important. Even if hiring staff was cheaper, you could only fit so many people into a cafe or even a hole in the wall. Significantly, though, profitability was dependent on the prosperity of customers. How much they had to spend after necessities. The Governor of the reserve bank noted how wages being held back held back the whole economy.

Affordability of accommodation is important. Sure, there's been improvements elsewhere, but it's the thing. Changes in rents and median property prices compared to median incomes shows just how deep it runs. It's not just people struggling to pay their accommodation - as customers, they have less to spend in your business.

How do we turn things around? We emphasise innovation. We want to re-pivot our economy around innovation. That's not just silicon valley innovation, which you're maybe familiar with. If you open up a green grocer in response to an opportunity, that's being creative. It's creativity we need to encourage.

Further, we want to pivot our tax system towards land value taxation. Rather than people coveting their assets, there's real innovation. Wealth circulates amongst consumers at large, and there's a healthier economy.

For sure, Government talks about growth and innovation. But, when you look closely, it's spin and vested interests. Deals with dodgy Cayman Island entities around water. Favors for sectional interests. Privatisations based on incomprehensible financial arrangements no-one understands. Artificially propping up the use of coal when the market is looking elsewhere. Compared to the Government, if you look closely - I think you'll see our approach is superior.

There's bureaucracy. Government might claim to be against it - but there's the bureaucracy their mates suffer under - and what the rest of us have to deal with. Customs incinerated irreplaceable botanical samples from France, and there was also Robo-debt. The Pirate Party believes in some regulation, but we don't believe in laying it on thick either. We believe in personal freedom, from Government manipulation or the intruding eyes of corporations. But, importantly, that's also the freedom to run a business.
Our approach to tax and welfare is founded on a negative income tax and a guaranteed minimum income. Whatever your situation, work a bit more and you'll have more to spend. You don't lose your benefits and fall into a poverty trap. For higher income earners, there's a flat increment to taxation, so incentives are maintained.

Not just economics, but Government surveilance, treatment of women, empathy training, transparency of Government, foreign policy, journalists and witness K, dealing with bushfires, going to the footy followed by an unending stream of covid announceables that took a whole lot longer to eventuate if they did at all, and about turns on global warming and electric vehicles. The Morrison Government really has lost the plot.

It's worth supporting Fusion if you're concerned about social welfare. However, if you're thinking the Liberals are on nose, I'd suggest Fusion better encapsulates your concerns. Yes, there's other parties too. For sure, look at everyone's policies - including ours. I think you'll find our approach best meets your needs and provides a positive future for Australia.

I think you'll find that when you're at the ballot box, thinking about your options, and the signal your vote sends - a vote for Fusion makes the best statement you possibly can, in support of a prosperous, ethical Australia and your own future.

Bulletin 7 - 30 May 2023

Bureaucracy and Courts gone wrong

Ukraine, AUKUS and all that

Technology

Religion and Politics

Politics in NSW

Lots and lots

Categories:

Bulletin 6 - 30 January 2023

Categories:

Bulletin 5 - 9 December 22

Categories:

Modern Monetary Theory

Categories:

Abiogenesis - the Chemical origins of life

Contents:

Categories:

Bulletin 4 - 14 November 22

Categories:

Aboriginal Art and Australia

Categories:

Bulletin 3 - 30 October 2022

Categories:

Bulletin No. 2 - 21 October 2022

Categories:

Bulletin No. 1 - 17th October 2022

Categories:

Review of Tim Hollo's Book Living Democracy

Categories:

Environmental Speech - RHHFFPS 7th May

Categories:

Bennelong 2022 - Those Damn Preferences

Categories:

I'm Being Spammed!

Categories:

2022 Speech to Eastwood Chamber of Commerce

Categories: