Peter Gallagher

No need, no gain, no glory

2010-08-25T13:25:49-07:00

Only nine years late, we are to have a Parliamentary debate about our involvement in the Afghan conflict! What has bought our leaders to consider, at last, owning up to their duty to explain their policies which have so far killed almost twenty Australians? They felt no such need during the election, so it can only be the confounding election results that have bought about this attack of transparency.

I agree with Brendan O'Neill: it really appears that both major political parties continue to endorse Australia's participation in the bloody Afghan war to save face.

The war is widely considered un-winnable including by experienced military leaders; it is unnecessary for our security, and; far from 'fighting terrorism', the former head of the UK security agency MI-5 believes that it is consolidating islamic disaffection and radicalism.

Doesn't everyone know (I'm sure Abbott and Gillard must know), after half a century of U.S.-led regional conflicts against ill-defined and even imaginary enemies, that just two or three years after we have withdrawn the only legacies of this war will be death, disability and the physical devastation of one of the poorest countries on earth?

It is intolerable that we should continue to send young Australians to be killed in such a pointless, ill-considered venture.

Let Gillard and Abbott in their statements to Parliament describe the better world that we and the the Afghans will enjoy after we limp from the field. Let them tell us why a probable triumph for the jihadism sustained by our invasion is a victory for peace and stability in Afghanistan or Australia. Let them explain why we should believe that, after raising the hundreds of millions of dollars (at least) needed to fund their guerilla on the back of bitter islamic resentment at the US/NATO/Australian attacks, the 'insurgency' will dissolve quietly, leaving us more secure.

Academy of alarm

2010-08-18T19:14:00-07:00

What does the Australian Academy of science think their role should be? To inform or to frighten? To elucidate public policy issues from a scientific viewpoint? Or to indulge themselves in scaremongering so unsupported by facts that it borders on irresponsible?

Their latest climate-alarm pamphlet contains appalling rubbish, including claims that the world will warm by up to 7° C in the next ninety years! This goes beyond marketing (for their research grants) and beyond beyond rational science.

"Climate models estimate that, by 2100, the average global temperature will be between 2°C and 7°C higher than pre- industrial temperatures, depending on future greenhouse gas emissions and on the ways that models represent the sensitivity of climate to small disturbances." Extract from The Science of Climate Change

The scientists of the Academy must be aware that, as forecasts, the IPCC models are bunkum: they are "scenario projections" not initialised to observations of the climate as Kenneth Trenberth, one of their chief defenders, acknowledges. In other words, they have a tenuous connection with reality; they are nothing more than policy 'what-ifs' not the basis for any realistic 'estimates' such as the Academy pretends.

The models exclude details of known key drivers of the climate such as clouds (!!), aerosols, albedo and (any mention of) the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is known to have a significant effect on medium-term variability. For the Academy to base alarming 'estimates' of a 7° C increase in temperature on the IPCC models, as they have done would be nothing more than laughable spin if it were not for the fact that we are supporting these people with public funding. This pamphlet damages their authority and their credibility.

Even when they stick to the facts, the Academy can't resist breathless alarm Here's what they have to say about sea-levels

Public data from Google

2010-08-01T16:53:35-07:00

Google's Public Data 'labs' access and map data from sources such as the World Bank's World Development Indicators.Great fun

Feather duster ambush

2010-07-22T15:11:26-07:00

Of course, the Labor party would not have needed to "back down" if it hadn't inflated the issue with worse-than-WMD hysteria, religious zeal (cf. Ross Garnaut's invocation of Pascal's wager) and contempt for contrary evidence.

"Julia Gillard has put the pretty wrapping paper of conviction and consensus around Kevin Rudd's emissions trading backdown. But inside it's the same poll-driven backdown." Extract from Lenore Taylor | SMH —new policy same old delay on carbon price

Kay on the theory of value

2010-07-20T15:28:19-07:00

Brilliant summary of the interaction between differing preferences and judgements in error.

"Wherever there is uncertainty, market prices reflect the beliefs of those who are more than averagely sanguine. The result is a reserve of illusory value, constantly depleted by events and replenished by fresh uncertainties. That is why markets display a systematic propensity to boom and bust." Extract from FT.com—It may be a Rembrandt to you, but markets can beg to differ

Led by lunatics

2010-07-20T15:14:24-07:00

Mark Lawson's new book "A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy" (ConnorCourt Publishing, 2010) arrives with brilliant timing, just as Australia gets another chance to make a choice on climate change policies in the 2010 election. Based on his credentials as a respected journalist -- he's a leading science journalist and editor for the Australian Financial Review -- Lawson has a great opportunity to influence the uncommitted voter on a crucial point of difference between the parties and leaders.

A climate ambush

2010-07-20T15:16:01-07:00

When she took power, Julia Gillard said she wanted a national conversation and 'deep community consensus' about climate change. What she has given us, instead, is an election campaign that is, by its nature, guaranteed to produce neither.

“I was concerned that if you were going to do something as big to your economy as put a price on carbon, with the economic transfer that implies … you need a lasting and deep community consensus to do it,” she said.“I don’t believe we had that last and deep community consensus.” (Gillard on the Nine "Sunday" program on 27 June)

In place of the consultation Gillard promised, she has produced an ambush. Even if—as now seems likely—her policy will be to propose a future consultation leading to a carbon tax, there is no chance of a detailed debate over the next five weeks on the necessity or sufficiency of that policy as a response to the "greatest moral challenge of our generation". The 'deep community consensus' on substance will be at best postponed and at worst abandoned under cover of an indeterminable "mandate" on climate for whatever party wins government.

This is a betrayal of both sides of the aborted dialog. It will no-doubt disappoint the faithful that after a full term in government Labor's policy will be no more detailed and inspirational than the sort of non-committal mashup found in 'fiscally responsible' electoral platforms. It will certainly disappoint the sceptics (and taxpayers) that a jumble of slogans and half-explained ideas could be all the justification given for a radical and burdensome 'tax reform'.

Given that the Cabinet spent some time debating climate policy last week (with the coming election in mind), the failure to spell out a plan suggests that, contrary to her leadership mantra, Gillard has not restored a sense of direction (on climate, at least) to the party that had "lost it's way".

Watch this

2010-07-15T16:36:08-07:00

Revenue strong; dividends down. Google invests in ideas you wish you'd had.

"Patrick Pichette, chief financial officer, said Google was investing for what it expected to be a big expansion in online markets in the next decade. ‘We think it’s the right thing to do at the moment in the company.’ " Extract from FT.com—Google profits fail to meet expectations

Krugman’s take on protection

2010-07-20T15:16:45-07:00

It seems Krugman will say anything to score a point. He wants to argue that insufficient demand (unemployment) is a problem and that redistribution (trade taxes) is not.

"…the attempt to place blame for the Depression on protectionism is a sort of Noble Lie, an attempt to scare people into trade policy that’s good for other reasons" Extract from Hayek, Trade Restrictions, And The Great Depression - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

An attempt to scare people? I suppose he'd know.

But this is drivel. Opening (and maintaining open) markets is not "good for other reasons." It's good precisely because markets where there is competitive supply sustain surprising (innovative, bigger-than-you-expected) growth. The opposite of depression.

Trade ‘imbalances’ are misleading

2010-07-20T15:17:59-07:00

Alexandro Jara, the Deputy Director-General of WTO

"[R]elying on conventional trade statistics gives a distorted picture of trade imbalances between countries. As we saw when looking at the Chinese content of the iPad, what counts is not the imbalances as measured by gross values of exports and imports, but how much valued added is embedded in these flows.

The WTO estimate, based on IDE-Jetro data, estimates that 80 per cent of the value of the goods exported by the US had a domestic content. The comparable figure was 77 per cent in the case of Japan, 56 per cent for Korea. It was about 50 per cent for Malaysia and Chinese Taipei, meaning that half the value exported by these countries originated from other countries.

Using conventional trade statistics would overestimate the US bilateral deficit vis-à-vis China by around 30 per cent as compared to measuring in value added content based on input-out matrices. The official figures for the bilateral deficit would be cut by 50 per cent when the activity of export processing zones in China and Hong Kong, China, re-exports are fully taken into account. By the same token, measured in domestic value added content, the bilateral deficit of the US with Korea or Japan, the main providers of electronic parts in our iPad example, would increase in proportion to the reduction of the US — China deficit. " Extract from Address to the World Input Output Database conference, May 2010 [emphasis added]

Why the Doha Round is failing

2010-07-20T15:19:05-07:00

The usually well-informed ITSCD Bridges Newsletter tries to explain it with a bit of tabloid alliteration: 'Political Paralysis Poisons WTO Agriculture Talks'. Nah! It's a political choice to put the talks on life-support and it will be a political choice to pull the tubes. It's Doha that's in rigor, not the pollies.

The Doha Round fizzer is an embarrassment. The past sixty years of GATT and WTO negotiations have seen a lot of rocky moments but talks have never died. Governments dont't want to damage the brand, so they go on resurrecting their 'determination' in press releases from the G-8 or the G-20. But they've privately calculated the Doha plan doesn't warrant the political effort and attention required to get it done.

Guess what? They're right (yes, the politicians know their own business)! Doha has run out of demand.

Revisiting the climate evidence

2010-06-29T14:46:18-07:00

Julia Gillard's determination as Prime Minister to revisit the debate about an Australian response to the potential dangers of climate change calls for a review of the evidence to ensure that any response is proportionate and effective. In my view, the relevant data show less and less reason to attribute recent warming to human activities ('anthropogenic warming').

Although empiricism probably underdetermines the truth about climate—and as we know from Ross Garnaut's report, underdetermines climate policy—it is worth laying out the reasons seriously to doubt the 'man-made climate' claims once more because Gillard says she is seeking a national consensus. I think we should take no steps other than to seek a better understanding of climate; but I fear that a Labor party that is fond of condemning 'denialism' won't include such contrary views in the 'consensus' discovery processes.

Argument

The imposition of a tax (or administered price) on an element that is not only essential to current production but the very stuff of a big proportion of Australia's national product is an extraordinary measure requiring extraordinary reasons. But those reasons are not evident in the data; on the contrary:

Forward to the past with the NBN

2010-06-29T14:47:28-07:00

Although details are still sketchy, Henry Ergas points out that in one of his last acts, Rudd apparently saddled us with a return to a government-sanctioned oligopoly at the heart of our telecommunications market. Worse still, it will be taxpayer-funded.

"Central to those outcomes is the heads of agreement, which has two basic components. A first, valued at some $5bn, is a payment for NBN Co's use of Telstra's infrastructure. Fair enough. Given the decision, however questionable, to build the NBN, let it not duplicate facilities it could share. The remaining $6bn, however, is deeply problematic, for at its heart is an agreement to suppress competition." Extract from We'll pay dearly for this NBN folly | The Australian

Why we should pull out of Afghanistan now

2010-06-22T15:48:56-07:00

There can be no stronger argument for our withdrawal from combat (along with Netherlands and Canada) than this arrogant martial nonsense from Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC "Q&A" program on 21 June

"We are in a war, a global war against terror, and the battle in Afghanistan is the front line, so we have a vital interest in winning that battle, and the mission that Australia has and our allies have there, is to create the space that will enable the Afghan nation to put in place its own security forces and take over the job of managing the security and peace for that country, so that’s the exit strategy, Graham. The exit strategy is to ensure that the Afghan state is strong enough and secure enough to take over the job. That being done, then the foreign forces can leave."

The echoes here of the horrifying, pointless American/Australian war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s are too loud and too precise to ignore.

Then we were fighting the chimeric threat of monolithic 'world communism'; now, the non-existent threat of global islamic terrorism. (How does Turnbull account for the funding of the Taliban's war? Does he see what we have created by meddling for four or five decades in Afghanistan and Pakistan only to turn against former allies-of-convenience in a form of anti-nationalist crusade? Inevitably an affront to muslims everywhere; by no means in Afghanistan alone).

Then, in the 1960s, we were told to fear that the 'dominoes' of South East Asia would collapse to crush our fragile Western outpost; now it's Pakistan, (for goodness sake) that we fear will be 'lost'. As if that mulit-ethnic crazy-quilt of energy, aspiration and incompetent government were some jewel of the Western crown (when, in reality, it is a paste-work long-ago shattered by US interference).

Then, through more than a decade we enthusiastically slaughtered Vietnamese of all ages and genders to create a space for "democracy"; now we're remotely rocketing villages, ploughing the desert with bombs and machine-gunning marriage processions to prop up an erratic, ineffective and thoroughly corrupted Karzai administration (read that NY Times portrait and try pretend that you want Australian kids to be smashed up and to die securing that man's power).

Today, we sit in front of our LED TVs', thirty years after our battle against the unstoppable forces of Vietnamese nationalism—maddened, ideological, vicious nationalism; call it any names you like— brought bitter and useless loss to that country and to ourselves, only to hear the identical blithering, come-what-may, pseudo-strategic idiocy from another generation of political patricians.

ACTA is an attack on the WTO

2010-06-29T14:48:21-07:00

India has complained in the recent TRIPS council that the ACTA provisions modify the balance of rights and obligations established by a multilateral agreement (TRIPS) covering the same domain. The secret negotiation of this plurilateral agreement by a cabal that included Australia is an attack on that balance and hence on one of the pillars of WTO.

"Countries excluded from the ACTA process have to come to recognize the serious threat it represents both substantively as well as for the future of multilateral organizations. " Extract from Michael Geist - India Comes Out Swinging Against ACTA at WTO

This agreement was not justified by the claims made on its behalf; the allegations of copyright losses were chimeras if not frauds. Joining the talks has been a shameful turn in Australia's trade policy which has, up to now, been marked by inclusiveness, a respect for evidence in the analysis of policy and for transparency in the representation of commercial interests.

Predictably, it seems that the proposed ACTA agreement will introduce new restrictions on trade—including an obligation to provide for seizure of goods in transit (i.e not in the commerce of the country authorizing the seizure) that are suspected of infringement of a private beneift in some other country. This commercial blagguardry will further undermine the miniscule (possibly non-existent) public benefits of TRIPS to developing countries.

India will not be alone in its objections.

How to prepare for FTA negotiations (Part III)

2009-04-17T18:28:59-07:00

{teaser}

How to prepare for FTA negotiations (Part II)

2009-04-17T18:29:35-07:00

{teaser}

How to prepare for FTA negotiations (Part 1)

2009-04-17T18:29:21-07:00

{teaser}