A minor diversion this week - as some of you may or may not know Team Moo are about to pack up and move (again) to the bright, sweaty lights of Singapore. Primarily to escape this the bitter Australian winter, spiraling government debt and of course the swine flu (in an ironic twist of fate we recently have started referring to Hayden and Holly as ‘H1H2’).
Anyway as I am sure many of you have experienced, moving is both sad and exciting at the same time. I don’t think we have a word for that in English, so I’m coining “sadxciting”. Sad because you are leaving things, people, places behind. Exciting for the unknowns and new adventures you are about to embark on. Even though this is our fourth move in four years, the feeling is still the same – I guess the only difference is that moving so frequently really forces you to take a long hard look at all your stuff and work out what you really need and cherish and what you can live without.
For me it’s actually a rather cathartic experience biting the bullet and turfing things you have been clinging to for too long and for no good reason. Like that grubby old t-shirt which you thought you could use for painting, even though you don’t own paint brushes, know how to paint or what type of paint to buy, never have painted in the first place and in all likelihood never will paint at any point in the future. I guess what you realize is that they really are just ‘things’. The only important thing you can really take with you (apart from your treasured electronic light-saber) is what’s between your ears and the lessons you have (hopefully!) learnt along the way.
Having said all this, after moving away and back so recently you really get to appreciate life down under and all the things you take for granted in this wide brown land. Sitting here on the floor of our place surrounded by bubble-wrap, and the soothing sound of packing tape being applied to boxes you can’t help but to get a little misty-eyed and sentimental. So I thought I would throw together my Top 10 random things I am going to miss about my life here in a quiet little the corner of Oz (in no particular order).
My beloved Adelaide Crows. Go you Crows.
Lammy, Tank, Schokers, Nat, Lulu, Damo, G-Force, Lozza , The Book and everyone else still inside Fortress Silver Donut. Keep snacking and remember to stand up to the fun police.
Those brilliant blue Sydney days (where have you gone!)
Pub Meals - $10 Wednesdays at Carrie Ryan’s in the Rose Bay Pub, $10 steaks at The Eastern. And as a blast from the past - a good old Griff Burger.
On the Couch, Insiders, Lateline, The Sunday Roast
The Escher-esque Westfield Bondi Junction. What level are we on?
Reading about the antics of Rugby League players in the Sunday papers. Pooing in a hotel stairwell – priceless.
Rat Rolls, Chicko Rolls and Frozen Chicken Pies.
The unique smell of Sydney trains in the afternoons – a heady mixture of soot, sweat and Mx.
Easy, cost effective access to a big bad Coonawarra Cab Sav
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Confessions Of A Climate Change Skeptic
In the heady days of the last boom, long before some selfish Americans stopped paying off mortgages they could never possibly afford, people had lots of time to worry about the big issues. Issues like - Why has Britney gone off the rails? Plasma or LCD? Is it pretentious to dress your kids in Burberry? Another trendy issue which was very popular back then was ‘climate change’ or ‘How you and I have fucked up the planet and what we should do about it’. Everything green or even slightly tinged with green was suddenly gold. Stuff like hybrid cars and carbon off-set air-travel. People demanded that governments took action to combat climate change and carbon emissions. Every corporation was trying to out-green the next one. Then along came the GFC and changed our priorities somewhat.
I guess a carbon free future is a nice idea, but a future full stop is nicer.
Anyway, today I’m coming out as a climate change skeptic. It’s not so much that I don’t believe that something is happening to the climate - it’s just that to be honest I don’t really care or believe in the hype surrounding it. I don’t know about you, but I find it difficult enough to think about what to have for lunch today, let alone a few extra degrees in 2020. I certainly can’t speak for the majority, or anyone else for that matter but I get the sense that addressing climate change is something that we’d like governments to take care of so that we can all go back to worrying about what to eat and wear. From my admittedly basic perspective, I’m still to be convinced that that we can start drawing conclusions about a changing climate over such a short time frame (say 100 years), compared to the overall age of the earth (give or take 4bn years). And even worse, making predictions on future climatic events based on what has come before in such a ridiculously complex and dynamic system. We’ve sure got a great track record in predicting the future to date.
Before I go on, I’m going on the record right now to say that I haven’t taken the time to properly understand either the science underpinning the cataclysmic forecasts or the legislative steps governments around the world are taking to address it. Sure there are a more hurricanes nowadays, a few polar bears have lost their habitat and I’ve heard that some pissy island nations could disappear underwater sometime in future. But really - how is this going to affect your average punter here and now? For me, the whole concept of ‘carbon credits’ and ‘emission targets’ is too just hard to get my head around, not to mention make me tune out. Do I now have to send a couple bucks to the government every time I drop one? Should I start charging my kids if I do the ‘pull my finger’ joke?
Just to consider things seriously for a second, how are we going to realistically ‘set a price’ for carbon? How do we monitor emissions from factory X versus coal mine Y? Who is going to administer all this? I guess the only thing that we know for sure is that you and I are going to pay for it through a comprehensive government advertising (sorry education) campaign and an undoubtedly bloated bureaucracy. But more than that, I’m skeptical that we as Australians can really do that much to change things for the whole planet. As an island nation with a population smaller than some cities, how exactly do we hope to do effect change by ourselves? I know, I know - if we all had that attitude nothing would get done. But this is one case where I don’t think anyone is going to give us a big pat on the back for being climate change martyrs. I’m pretty sure carbon molecules don’t respect national boundaries. Or respond to ‘climate change leadership’. Call my cynical, but I don’t think 2 billion odd Chinese and Indian folks who are busily trying to pull themselves out of abject poverty care that much about the size of their carbon footprints…in a more basic but no less important way, they too are more worried what to eat and wear.
In our need to be seen as doing something ‘pro-active’ (is there a more grating buzz-word apart from ‘synergy’?) about climate change, I’m just skeptical that the committee’s response we are going to end up with will be of any benefit to anyone. In fact I’m worried we will get some sort of shitty hybrid model whereby we make compromises to various interest groups and it ends up being an administrative, enterprise-killing burden that doesn’t reduce our reliance on fossil fuels or make one iota of difference to a global climate. In my simple mind if you want to increase the cost or something that’s bad for you (e.g. tobacco) shouldn’t you just put a tax the bloody thing, instead of trying to introduce some fancy-schmancy cap and trade system that no one understands and costs lots of money to run?
But hey - at the very at least 20 years from now we will all be able to look our kids squarely in the eyes and say we took strong and decisive, if pointless action.
I guess a carbon free future is a nice idea, but a future full stop is nicer.
Anyway, today I’m coming out as a climate change skeptic. It’s not so much that I don’t believe that something is happening to the climate - it’s just that to be honest I don’t really care or believe in the hype surrounding it. I don’t know about you, but I find it difficult enough to think about what to have for lunch today, let alone a few extra degrees in 2020. I certainly can’t speak for the majority, or anyone else for that matter but I get the sense that addressing climate change is something that we’d like governments to take care of so that we can all go back to worrying about what to eat and wear. From my admittedly basic perspective, I’m still to be convinced that that we can start drawing conclusions about a changing climate over such a short time frame (say 100 years), compared to the overall age of the earth (give or take 4bn years). And even worse, making predictions on future climatic events based on what has come before in such a ridiculously complex and dynamic system. We’ve sure got a great track record in predicting the future to date.
Before I go on, I’m going on the record right now to say that I haven’t taken the time to properly understand either the science underpinning the cataclysmic forecasts or the legislative steps governments around the world are taking to address it. Sure there are a more hurricanes nowadays, a few polar bears have lost their habitat and I’ve heard that some pissy island nations could disappear underwater sometime in future. But really - how is this going to affect your average punter here and now? For me, the whole concept of ‘carbon credits’ and ‘emission targets’ is too just hard to get my head around, not to mention make me tune out. Do I now have to send a couple bucks to the government every time I drop one? Should I start charging my kids if I do the ‘pull my finger’ joke?
Just to consider things seriously for a second, how are we going to realistically ‘set a price’ for carbon? How do we monitor emissions from factory X versus coal mine Y? Who is going to administer all this? I guess the only thing that we know for sure is that you and I are going to pay for it through a comprehensive government advertising (sorry education) campaign and an undoubtedly bloated bureaucracy. But more than that, I’m skeptical that we as Australians can really do that much to change things for the whole planet. As an island nation with a population smaller than some cities, how exactly do we hope to do effect change by ourselves? I know, I know - if we all had that attitude nothing would get done. But this is one case where I don’t think anyone is going to give us a big pat on the back for being climate change martyrs. I’m pretty sure carbon molecules don’t respect national boundaries. Or respond to ‘climate change leadership’. Call my cynical, but I don’t think 2 billion odd Chinese and Indian folks who are busily trying to pull themselves out of abject poverty care that much about the size of their carbon footprints…in a more basic but no less important way, they too are more worried what to eat and wear.
In our need to be seen as doing something ‘pro-active’ (is there a more grating buzz-word apart from ‘synergy’?) about climate change, I’m just skeptical that the committee’s response we are going to end up with will be of any benefit to anyone. In fact I’m worried we will get some sort of shitty hybrid model whereby we make compromises to various interest groups and it ends up being an administrative, enterprise-killing burden that doesn’t reduce our reliance on fossil fuels or make one iota of difference to a global climate. In my simple mind if you want to increase the cost or something that’s bad for you (e.g. tobacco) shouldn’t you just put a tax the bloody thing, instead of trying to introduce some fancy-schmancy cap and trade system that no one understands and costs lots of money to run?
But hey - at the very at least 20 years from now we will all be able to look our kids squarely in the eyes and say we took strong and decisive, if pointless action.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
A Demon Of Our Own Design
Let’s face it – there’s a lot of crap on TV. I should know – I watch a lot of it once the kids are sleeping. Actually that’s not quite true. I’m more aware of crap on TV whilst I flick past on my way to a random documentary about a bridge or some nerdy panel discussion on the ABC. Oh and ANTM. Anyway, for those of you outside the country, last week on The Chaser there was a skit about dying kids which set off a moral outrage shit storm to end all moral outrage shit storms. It ultimately lead to an apology, the demotion of a bureaucrat and the programme being removed for a few weeks so we could all think about how we could better spend our taxpayer dollars whilst we basked in the warmth or our own self-satisfaction.
I can certainly understand how people were offended by the skit – there is nothing inherently funny about dying kids. But the skit was so ridiculously OTT that to interpret it as a dig at the kids expense, or charities that help them, is perhaps missing the point. For me, it was a swipe at the cult of celebrity that can surround charities like this – that visiting a kid in hospital whilst the cameras are rolling is just part of your personal branding. Of course I could be wrong about the actual point they were trying to make – I’m sure there are other interpretations out there - but for a second let’s put aside this two minutes of TV and look at it in a wider context.
When you watch The Chaser, or any TV show for that matter you pretty much know what you are going to get. And in many ways isn’t that why we watch TV in the first place? To get a nice hour of flashy, predictable entertainment from the comfort of our own couches? Someone falls in love, someone solves a murder, someone gets voted off the island, someone gets into an awkwardly comedic situation. When you flick to the Chaser you are going to get a skit show about current events – skits ranging from silly to clever, sometimes funny and often controversial. In the very same episode, there was musical parody about Joseph Fritzl and incest. The week before, a skit about the Catholic Church and child abuse. Are these two topics any less ‘outrageous’? For whatever reason this skit managed to ignite the flame but lets not be surprised with what gets dished up when you turn on the Chaser.
I guess what really amuses me most in all this anger is that you can find exactly the same controversial stuff in other shows, in the same satirical vein, which seemingly fly under the radar of the Moral Police. If, like me, you are a sucker for all things animated then you will know what I’m talking about – Family Guy and good old South Park (just to name two). Both shows push the boundaries, both shows have their fair share of ‘bad taste’ jokes and adult material. As I mentioned earlier, when you tune in you know exactly what you are going to get. If this sort of thing doesn’t tickle your nipples, well it’s pretty simple. Don’t watch it. Change the channel. In Australia, codes of practice under the Broadcasting Services Act determine the standards of programming for Television and Radio. They take into account “community attitudes with regard to violence, sex, offensive language, drugs and the vilification of particular groups”.
So whilst there are things on TV like The Chaser which may offend some, there were over a million of us ‘in the community’ who watched the show, who were OK with the content and will continue to watch it when it comes back.
This brings me to my final point. Running along side all of this was the media (both TV and radio) adding fuel to the outrage fire by continually playing the offending clip in news bulletins and talkback shows throughout the day (and it’s still being replayed a week later). In a delicious bit of irony, the skit itself was pulled from the show’s website and further repeats on the ABC. If it was really that offensive to everyone– why continually show/play it? Was there the same outrage about the clips being repeated and discussed ad nauseam? I guess we shouldn’t be surprised if commercial networks put ratings (and profits) over alleged morals…but maybe it’s more a reflection on us as consumers. Are we really that disgusted, or is it more that we all enjoy shouting at the TV and having something to complain about until the next non-news story comes along?
Like any other commercial operation, TV is about selling a product to a consumer. In other words, we are going to get what we ask for. Yes there is crap out there which can be offensive, morally ambiguous, glorifies violence and makes us feel good about ourselves at other’s expense. But folks, this is all of our own choosing – we have the power by tuning in, or tuning out every night.
I can certainly understand how people were offended by the skit – there is nothing inherently funny about dying kids. But the skit was so ridiculously OTT that to interpret it as a dig at the kids expense, or charities that help them, is perhaps missing the point. For me, it was a swipe at the cult of celebrity that can surround charities like this – that visiting a kid in hospital whilst the cameras are rolling is just part of your personal branding. Of course I could be wrong about the actual point they were trying to make – I’m sure there are other interpretations out there - but for a second let’s put aside this two minutes of TV and look at it in a wider context.
When you watch The Chaser, or any TV show for that matter you pretty much know what you are going to get. And in many ways isn’t that why we watch TV in the first place? To get a nice hour of flashy, predictable entertainment from the comfort of our own couches? Someone falls in love, someone solves a murder, someone gets voted off the island, someone gets into an awkwardly comedic situation. When you flick to the Chaser you are going to get a skit show about current events – skits ranging from silly to clever, sometimes funny and often controversial. In the very same episode, there was musical parody about Joseph Fritzl and incest. The week before, a skit about the Catholic Church and child abuse. Are these two topics any less ‘outrageous’? For whatever reason this skit managed to ignite the flame but lets not be surprised with what gets dished up when you turn on the Chaser.
I guess what really amuses me most in all this anger is that you can find exactly the same controversial stuff in other shows, in the same satirical vein, which seemingly fly under the radar of the Moral Police. If, like me, you are a sucker for all things animated then you will know what I’m talking about – Family Guy and good old South Park (just to name two). Both shows push the boundaries, both shows have their fair share of ‘bad taste’ jokes and adult material. As I mentioned earlier, when you tune in you know exactly what you are going to get. If this sort of thing doesn’t tickle your nipples, well it’s pretty simple. Don’t watch it. Change the channel. In Australia, codes of practice under the Broadcasting Services Act determine the standards of programming for Television and Radio. They take into account “community attitudes with regard to violence, sex, offensive language, drugs and the vilification of particular groups”.
So whilst there are things on TV like The Chaser which may offend some, there were over a million of us ‘in the community’ who watched the show, who were OK with the content and will continue to watch it when it comes back.
This brings me to my final point. Running along side all of this was the media (both TV and radio) adding fuel to the outrage fire by continually playing the offending clip in news bulletins and talkback shows throughout the day (and it’s still being replayed a week later). In a delicious bit of irony, the skit itself was pulled from the show’s website and further repeats on the ABC. If it was really that offensive to everyone– why continually show/play it? Was there the same outrage about the clips being repeated and discussed ad nauseam? I guess we shouldn’t be surprised if commercial networks put ratings (and profits) over alleged morals…but maybe it’s more a reflection on us as consumers. Are we really that disgusted, or is it more that we all enjoy shouting at the TV and having something to complain about until the next non-news story comes along?
Like any other commercial operation, TV is about selling a product to a consumer. In other words, we are going to get what we ask for. Yes there is crap out there which can be offensive, morally ambiguous, glorifies violence and makes us feel good about ourselves at other’s expense. But folks, this is all of our own choosing – we have the power by tuning in, or tuning out every night.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Hitchhiker’s Guide To Australia
As many of you know, I grew up in Adelaide. Adelaide is probably the whitest city in Australia. Take a walk down Rundle Mall and you won’t see a brown or yellow face. If you are Chinese, then you are required to stay in your designated ethnic enclave known as “Chinatown”. Even the Sri Lankan cab drivers cum engineering honours students have English accents. Ok that may have been a little bit racist – I can’t help where I grew up. But really, I think deep down everyone is a little bit racist and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
Which is why it really annoys me that there is such a general sense of anger, shock and indignation from the community and media that Australia has been labelled as a racist country of late.
Firstly the former CEO of Telstra, in an interview with the BBC, labelled Australia as ‘racist’ and that living in Australia was ‘in many ways going back 20 years’ (Sol obviously never visited Adelaide as he would have revised up that number). Let me say that I think Sol is being a little precious here. When K-Rudd said “Adios” on hearing of his departure I think that he was just trying to be a little too clever. It wouldn’t surprise me if the line was written for him. Anyway all this lead to a round of Sol-bashing and outrage that he had the temerity to label us as a racist country, especially after the way he left everyone’s favourite Telco taking all of our money with him.
But for a moment, let’s look at it from Sol’s point of view. From the second he arrived, he and his Seppo (whoops!) mates he brought with him were mockingly referred to, and drawn as, the sombrero wearing ‘Three Amigos’ even though the other two were just normal white boys. Having lived in America, calling someone of Hispanic extraction a ‘Mexican’ can be construed as pejorative. Kinda like calling an Asian a ‘boatie’. Or calling anyone ‘Tasmanian’. So for Sol, the on-going references to his ethnic background may well have been construed as racist (but nevertheless still pretty funny for the rest of us).
Secondly, to the recent (or not so recent it seems) spate of Indian students being bashed and robbed in Melbourne. Debate is out as to whether or not these are racially motivated, or that it’s just plain dangerous in the outer suburbs of Melbourne at night. Due to the perception of our authorities doing nothing about these so-called ‘curry-bashings’, the Indian media have created a poppadom storm (whoops, again) about the racist nature of Australian culture. Again, this lead to our venerable political leaders (and other commentators) defending Australia’s gloriously tolerant multicultural society (and by extension our multi-billion dollar education industry).
Yes – we are indeed a multicultural society, and yes it’s a wonderful thing. But are we a tolerant society? I would say yes – we tolerate other cultures – I don’t think we necessarily embrace them.
I think it’s really hard and maybe a little presumptuous for those in the white majority to make a call in this respect. Just because you like a good Green Curry, or have been to Bali a few times doesn’t mean you understand what it’s like to be a minority in this country. I can tell you first hand that there are racists out there – I experienced plenty of it when I was growing up, and still see plenty of it going on now. It doesn’t make it right, but to be honest that’s life. In fact for me it’s largely innocuous and can be pretty funny stuff.
The point is, it cuts both ways – it’s almost certainly the same in every other country. Rightly or wrongly, people basically don’t like things which are unfamiliar to them. I mean the Chinese word for Caucasian roughly translates as “white devil”.
Why then do we need to pretend that we love every other culture and that there isn’t a little racist, intolerant person deep down in all of us? What makes us Aussies so special compared to others in this respect? Think for a moment how you would feel if say Afghan refugees moved in next door. Or what you do when you see an Aboriginal on your bus or train. Where do you think those kids in the Shire and the Northern Beaches got their “Fuck-Off We’re Full” Aussie flag wearing attitudes from?
In the end I think this whole debate is neatly encapsulated up by the Chk-Chk Boom chick. Sure, what she said was a little bit racist, but at the same time it was pretty funny in our own unique take the piss kinda way.
Or to sum us up in two words - mostly harmless.
Which is why it really annoys me that there is such a general sense of anger, shock and indignation from the community and media that Australia has been labelled as a racist country of late.
Firstly the former CEO of Telstra, in an interview with the BBC, labelled Australia as ‘racist’ and that living in Australia was ‘in many ways going back 20 years’ (Sol obviously never visited Adelaide as he would have revised up that number). Let me say that I think Sol is being a little precious here. When K-Rudd said “Adios” on hearing of his departure I think that he was just trying to be a little too clever. It wouldn’t surprise me if the line was written for him. Anyway all this lead to a round of Sol-bashing and outrage that he had the temerity to label us as a racist country, especially after the way he left everyone’s favourite Telco taking all of our money with him.
But for a moment, let’s look at it from Sol’s point of view. From the second he arrived, he and his Seppo (whoops!) mates he brought with him were mockingly referred to, and drawn as, the sombrero wearing ‘Three Amigos’ even though the other two were just normal white boys. Having lived in America, calling someone of Hispanic extraction a ‘Mexican’ can be construed as pejorative. Kinda like calling an Asian a ‘boatie’. Or calling anyone ‘Tasmanian’. So for Sol, the on-going references to his ethnic background may well have been construed as racist (but nevertheless still pretty funny for the rest of us).
Secondly, to the recent (or not so recent it seems) spate of Indian students being bashed and robbed in Melbourne. Debate is out as to whether or not these are racially motivated, or that it’s just plain dangerous in the outer suburbs of Melbourne at night. Due to the perception of our authorities doing nothing about these so-called ‘curry-bashings’, the Indian media have created a poppadom storm (whoops, again) about the racist nature of Australian culture. Again, this lead to our venerable political leaders (and other commentators) defending Australia’s gloriously tolerant multicultural society (and by extension our multi-billion dollar education industry).
Yes – we are indeed a multicultural society, and yes it’s a wonderful thing. But are we a tolerant society? I would say yes – we tolerate other cultures – I don’t think we necessarily embrace them.
I think it’s really hard and maybe a little presumptuous for those in the white majority to make a call in this respect. Just because you like a good Green Curry, or have been to Bali a few times doesn’t mean you understand what it’s like to be a minority in this country. I can tell you first hand that there are racists out there – I experienced plenty of it when I was growing up, and still see plenty of it going on now. It doesn’t make it right, but to be honest that’s life. In fact for me it’s largely innocuous and can be pretty funny stuff.
The point is, it cuts both ways – it’s almost certainly the same in every other country. Rightly or wrongly, people basically don’t like things which are unfamiliar to them. I mean the Chinese word for Caucasian roughly translates as “white devil”.
Why then do we need to pretend that we love every other culture and that there isn’t a little racist, intolerant person deep down in all of us? What makes us Aussies so special compared to others in this respect? Think for a moment how you would feel if say Afghan refugees moved in next door. Or what you do when you see an Aboriginal on your bus or train. Where do you think those kids in the Shire and the Northern Beaches got their “Fuck-Off We’re Full” Aussie flag wearing attitudes from?
In the end I think this whole debate is neatly encapsulated up by the Chk-Chk Boom chick. Sure, what she said was a little bit racist, but at the same time it was pretty funny in our own unique take the piss kinda way.
Or to sum us up in two words - mostly harmless.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Zen and the Art of Budgetary Malfeasance (Part 2)
Last time, I spoke about Labor spinning its line on how it is running a “temporary” deficit and expecting us to swallow it. Today, I’m looking at how we are spending this mountain of debt, or to put it another way, what we are getting for maxing out the credit card.
Prior to this budget, we had two stimulus packages – when K-Rudd sent out around 22bn in cash to every man and his dog. By dogs I really do mean dogs as people who left estates to animals in the last year got the cash. Not to mention foreigners who have worked here and bothered to do a tax return. And blokes in prison (they were paid in cigarettes). Oh yeah and also a lazy 14bn on well – painting schools.
That’s about 35bn on basically crap.
I’m not saying that the stimulus didn’t work or cushion the economy a little, but there was evidence that a lot of this cash was saved or used to retire debt which is exactly what you would expect normal people to do when they face uncertainty about their jobs and futures. Of course some of it would have been spent, or rather pissed up against a wall to put it bluntly.
To me this is just like a big night on the cans. Sure it’s fun at the time - you have a few laughs maybe even get lucky. But what do you have to show for it the next day? Nothing really, apart from a bloody big hangover. So right away we have dropped 35bn and have nothing to show for it apart from everyone being digital TV ready and nice shiny school assembly halls all over the country. Now that’s what I call nation building.
Thankfully, the largesse continued in this week’s budget with a 22bn “Nation Building Centerpiece” (see The Hollowmen Series 1, Episode 4 for an incredible example of life imitating art). Naturally, it has its own ridiculously slick, self-indulgent interactive website complete with long and pointless videos of various ministers explaining how they are generously spending money we don’t have. At least this is something that we can point to when we wonder where all the money went.
It’s no wonder K-Rudd wants us all to have fiber-optic broadband in our homes.
Like I mentioned in Part 1, I don’t pretend for a second that I understand the nuances of macro-economic theory but I would have thought reducing the cost of doing business, like say a temporary payroll tax reduction or easing the administrative burden on small business, would be a better way of keeping punters in jobs.
Moving onto the budget itself, I was struck by its inherent internal inconsistency. Whilst a 58bn deficit is certainly stimulatory and right for the times, at the same time we were told that we had to make tough choices i.e. reduce spending which is of course has the opposite effect. No doubt this is a difficult balancing act but what is missing are any sort of coherent arguments or explanation apart from grand sweeping statements about “nation building” and “taking hard decisions”.
It’s a measure of the hubris of this government that we are all expected to swallow everything they dish up as though they are the only ones in possession of all knowledge in this country. This includes going so far as to leave open the possibility of an early election if anyone dare oppose any budgetary measure.
On the specific issue of the private health rebate being means-tested, the very same tax payers received a tax-cut. Apart from the stupidity of potentially putting extra pressure on the already stressed public health system, why break one election promise ahead of another? Surely deferring or reducing tax-cuts - a “hard choice” that was talked about prior to the budget - is medicine that the electorate would be happier to swallow in the name of everyone pulling together in this difficult time.
A second large measure was the increase in the aged pension (can’t really argue with that) but at the same time it was made less tax effective to save for your own retirement through changes to concessional and co-contribution super arrangements. Yep that makes heaps of sense with an aging population and decreasing birth-rates. This budget definitely addresses structural problems in the government’s finances and is not at all self-serving and short-sighted.
This brings me to my final point – just what is Labor’s pathway to getting us back in the black? Well listening to them it’s pretty clear they simply don’t have one. Just saying that you have a pathway doesn’t mean one exists (or that you know what you are doing). Maybe K-Rudd and Swanny have been reading ‘The Secret’. Ironically though, it does actually have precedence: it’s the classic Homer Simpson problem solving technique (Homer Goes to College, episode [1F02]).
Nerd: What are you going to do, Mr. Simpson?
Homer: Actually, I've been working on a plan. During the exam, I'll hide under some coats, and hope that somehow everything will work out.
I don’t think it gets anymore Zen then that.
Prior to this budget, we had two stimulus packages – when K-Rudd sent out around 22bn in cash to every man and his dog. By dogs I really do mean dogs as people who left estates to animals in the last year got the cash. Not to mention foreigners who have worked here and bothered to do a tax return. And blokes in prison (they were paid in cigarettes). Oh yeah and also a lazy 14bn on well – painting schools.
That’s about 35bn on basically crap.
I’m not saying that the stimulus didn’t work or cushion the economy a little, but there was evidence that a lot of this cash was saved or used to retire debt which is exactly what you would expect normal people to do when they face uncertainty about their jobs and futures. Of course some of it would have been spent, or rather pissed up against a wall to put it bluntly.
To me this is just like a big night on the cans. Sure it’s fun at the time - you have a few laughs maybe even get lucky. But what do you have to show for it the next day? Nothing really, apart from a bloody big hangover. So right away we have dropped 35bn and have nothing to show for it apart from everyone being digital TV ready and nice shiny school assembly halls all over the country. Now that’s what I call nation building.
Thankfully, the largesse continued in this week’s budget with a 22bn “Nation Building Centerpiece” (see The Hollowmen Series 1, Episode 4 for an incredible example of life imitating art). Naturally, it has its own ridiculously slick, self-indulgent interactive website complete with long and pointless videos of various ministers explaining how they are generously spending money we don’t have. At least this is something that we can point to when we wonder where all the money went.
It’s no wonder K-Rudd wants us all to have fiber-optic broadband in our homes.
Like I mentioned in Part 1, I don’t pretend for a second that I understand the nuances of macro-economic theory but I would have thought reducing the cost of doing business, like say a temporary payroll tax reduction or easing the administrative burden on small business, would be a better way of keeping punters in jobs.
Moving onto the budget itself, I was struck by its inherent internal inconsistency. Whilst a 58bn deficit is certainly stimulatory and right for the times, at the same time we were told that we had to make tough choices i.e. reduce spending which is of course has the opposite effect. No doubt this is a difficult balancing act but what is missing are any sort of coherent arguments or explanation apart from grand sweeping statements about “nation building” and “taking hard decisions”.
It’s a measure of the hubris of this government that we are all expected to swallow everything they dish up as though they are the only ones in possession of all knowledge in this country. This includes going so far as to leave open the possibility of an early election if anyone dare oppose any budgetary measure.
On the specific issue of the private health rebate being means-tested, the very same tax payers received a tax-cut. Apart from the stupidity of potentially putting extra pressure on the already stressed public health system, why break one election promise ahead of another? Surely deferring or reducing tax-cuts - a “hard choice” that was talked about prior to the budget - is medicine that the electorate would be happier to swallow in the name of everyone pulling together in this difficult time.
A second large measure was the increase in the aged pension (can’t really argue with that) but at the same time it was made less tax effective to save for your own retirement through changes to concessional and co-contribution super arrangements. Yep that makes heaps of sense with an aging population and decreasing birth-rates. This budget definitely addresses structural problems in the government’s finances and is not at all self-serving and short-sighted.
This brings me to my final point – just what is Labor’s pathway to getting us back in the black? Well listening to them it’s pretty clear they simply don’t have one. Just saying that you have a pathway doesn’t mean one exists (or that you know what you are doing). Maybe K-Rudd and Swanny have been reading ‘The Secret’. Ironically though, it does actually have precedence: it’s the classic Homer Simpson problem solving technique (Homer Goes to College, episode [1F02]).
Nerd: What are you going to do, Mr. Simpson?
Homer: Actually, I've been working on a plan. During the exam, I'll hide under some coats, and hope that somehow everything will work out.
I don’t think it gets anymore Zen then that.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Zen and the Art of Budgetary Malfeasance (Part 1)
This week the federal government handed down its 2009/10 budget which was “forged in the fire of the most challenging global economic conditions since the Great Depression” as our Treasurer so eloquently put it. This fact that this was probably the hardest (and most important) budget in my lifetime is hard to dispute. For the majority of us, this is the first time in living memory we are seeing a coordinated global slowdown of such magnitude. To put it another way, the world economy has completely tanked, making the decisions and policies our leaders make right now all the more critical.
As an aside, it sounds to me like Swanny and his boss K-Rudd are just showing off their inner geeks with this blatant Lord of the Rings reference (I’m not disputing my own not-so-inner geek for noticing it). But I digress.
Let me first say that I agree that we need to be in debt and running a deficit at this time – if the Libs were in charge we would be talking about numbers in the same ballpark. However the key thing for us random punters out here in Middle Australia is 1) How we are spending this debt (including the stimulus packages) and 2) How the hell we are going to get out of it. But more on that in Part 2. For now let’s look at this so called “temporary deficit” and specifically how this government has been trying to sell itself as responsible stewards of the Australian economy.
In the weeks leading up to last Tuesday, our expectations were deftly managed by the government’s spin team. We were told that “hard” decisions had to be made and that we all needed “to do our share” in this time of crisis. Everyone expected a large headline number – but when the 58bn deficit was finally leaked it was almost too large to get your head around, especially considering the starting point. Kind of our very own Dr. Evil moment, but in reverse.
For me though, putting the specifics to one side, the most ridiculous part of the rhetoric coming from the government was the fact that every time the word “deficit” was uttered the word “temporary” had to be used before it. It was pretty clear that Big Kev and his cronies had sent round a strongly worded memo to everyone, just like a few months ago when no-one was allowed to utter the r-word (recession). To paraphrase Kylie, what kind of fools do you take us for? Ever since the GFC started back in September 08, Labor has been at great pains to say that they are being up-front and honest with the Australian people but they have been anything but. Guys – seriously - stop taking the piss. If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it’s a turd – don’t try to tell me it’s a sausage roll.
Moving on, the budget papers predict that we will be out of deficit by around 2016/17. That is two elections away by the way. It’s based on Australia springing out of the current recession at growth rates of around 4.25% in just two years time. Now I’m certainly no economist (though I have been known to make stuff up, I don’t pretend to believe in it for a second) but I’m not alone in thinking this is at best rather optimistic and at worse, well bullshit. This is not a temporary deficit. Again, Labor is taking us for a bunch of idiots. Sure, over a long enough time-frame, everything is temporary, which is certainly a very Zen way of looking at things. Sadly I sincerely doubt that Labor is trying to introduce Buddhist teachings into its fiscal policy…except for tolerance perhaps.
Back to this “temporary” deficit. Government debt is projected to peak at 188bn in three years. This is before paying for self-indulgent rubbish like Rudd-Net and Rudd-Bank. Not to mention the interest bill for all this debt which our kids will be paying off.
The other incredibly optimistic part about the budget is that it assumes the current government can cap spending increases to 2% over time. Based on Labor’s track record this is again, pure bullshit. Did I mention that there were two elections between now and when we will allegedly be back in surplus? Labor is splashing it around today 18 months out from an election. Imagine the promises we will see during the next election campaign when K-Rudd is out there making sure that he gets to keep his job as King of Australia. There is no way on God’s green earth that Labor government spending can and will be capped and that this is the end of the big splurge. I mean Big Kev already wants to be in the broadband business (ironically without a business plan). What’s next – Rudd-Air? Rudd-NN? I think we can safely say that this is not the end of the Labor gravy-train.
Hopefully the only thing temporary about this deficit is the government that introduced it.
As an aside, it sounds to me like Swanny and his boss K-Rudd are just showing off their inner geeks with this blatant Lord of the Rings reference (I’m not disputing my own not-so-inner geek for noticing it). But I digress.
Let me first say that I agree that we need to be in debt and running a deficit at this time – if the Libs were in charge we would be talking about numbers in the same ballpark. However the key thing for us random punters out here in Middle Australia is 1) How we are spending this debt (including the stimulus packages) and 2) How the hell we are going to get out of it. But more on that in Part 2. For now let’s look at this so called “temporary deficit” and specifically how this government has been trying to sell itself as responsible stewards of the Australian economy.
In the weeks leading up to last Tuesday, our expectations were deftly managed by the government’s spin team. We were told that “hard” decisions had to be made and that we all needed “to do our share” in this time of crisis. Everyone expected a large headline number – but when the 58bn deficit was finally leaked it was almost too large to get your head around, especially considering the starting point. Kind of our very own Dr. Evil moment, but in reverse.
For me though, putting the specifics to one side, the most ridiculous part of the rhetoric coming from the government was the fact that every time the word “deficit” was uttered the word “temporary” had to be used before it. It was pretty clear that Big Kev and his cronies had sent round a strongly worded memo to everyone, just like a few months ago when no-one was allowed to utter the r-word (recession). To paraphrase Kylie, what kind of fools do you take us for? Ever since the GFC started back in September 08, Labor has been at great pains to say that they are being up-front and honest with the Australian people but they have been anything but. Guys – seriously - stop taking the piss. If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd, it’s a turd – don’t try to tell me it’s a sausage roll.
Moving on, the budget papers predict that we will be out of deficit by around 2016/17. That is two elections away by the way. It’s based on Australia springing out of the current recession at growth rates of around 4.25% in just two years time. Now I’m certainly no economist (though I have been known to make stuff up, I don’t pretend to believe in it for a second) but I’m not alone in thinking this is at best rather optimistic and at worse, well bullshit. This is not a temporary deficit. Again, Labor is taking us for a bunch of idiots. Sure, over a long enough time-frame, everything is temporary, which is certainly a very Zen way of looking at things. Sadly I sincerely doubt that Labor is trying to introduce Buddhist teachings into its fiscal policy…except for tolerance perhaps.
Back to this “temporary” deficit. Government debt is projected to peak at 188bn in three years. This is before paying for self-indulgent rubbish like Rudd-Net and Rudd-Bank. Not to mention the interest bill for all this debt which our kids will be paying off.
The other incredibly optimistic part about the budget is that it assumes the current government can cap spending increases to 2% over time. Based on Labor’s track record this is again, pure bullshit. Did I mention that there were two elections between now and when we will allegedly be back in surplus? Labor is splashing it around today 18 months out from an election. Imagine the promises we will see during the next election campaign when K-Rudd is out there making sure that he gets to keep his job as King of Australia. There is no way on God’s green earth that Labor government spending can and will be capped and that this is the end of the big splurge. I mean Big Kev already wants to be in the broadband business (ironically without a business plan). What’s next – Rudd-Air? Rudd-NN? I think we can safely say that this is not the end of the Labor gravy-train.
Hopefully the only thing temporary about this deficit is the government that introduced it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
