When Opposition Leader Tony Abbott talks about Labor's inability to manage the finances of this country because of their poor credentials who are you going to trust - Tony Abbott or a Nobel Prize-winning economist?
Will you trust Professor Joseph Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank whose theories and research won him a Nobel Prize or Tony Abbott?
He gave the UQ Centenary Oration on Monday at the University of Queensland.
Professor Stiglitz told a packed UQ Centre that Australia's economic stimulus package was the best designed in the world.
AND he said natural resources - coal, iron ore - should be properly valued at market just like the electromagnetic spectrum.
The government auctions the spectrum to the highest bidders who want to operate mobile phone networks, cable companies, television and radio stations.
Basically, a country - like Australia - will end up poor if doesn't get the best price for its assets - and natural assets are not renewable, once they are gone they are gone. If the proceeds from the sale of these assets are not invested in infrastructure to support and grow other sectors the economy (manufacturing and value-adding, goods creation) then a country and it's people will not prosper - HELLO! HELLO! Drowning not waving.
"It should be subtracted from Gross Domestic Product (GDP)," he said. "You are selling off assets at a very low price if you don't have adequate taxes on mining - you are being cheated," he said to audience applause.
He thinks resources should be auctioned off to the highest bidder - the free market at work. Of course, the mining industry will make all kinds of threats.
To everyone's amusement he joked about how mining companies bamboozled, threatened and bribed governments of developing, fragile nations.
"I assume that's not the case in Australia," he mused.
To prosper, a country needs to set up a stabilization fund (from a mining tax, if not a resources auction) for nation building.
This is what he calls an investment fund for building infrastructure and to grow value-adding industries, maintain education, job creation.
Not only that but the sell-off of natural resources should appear on a country's accounts as a kind of depreciation of assets - otherwise the accounts are not accurate.
((This kind of faulty accounting by banks led to the lovely GFC - Global Financial Crisis.))
He made these comments at the end of the oration after he explained the difference between the financial sector and the economy - the economy is not the financial sector.
The financial sector (the banks and regulators) are the culprits behind the global financial crisis which has crippled the global economy. Apparently, moneylenders have been skimming 40 percent of the profits from companies that actually make and produce things. His big point was that this is not really the role of the financial sector. The financial sector's job is to support economic growth, not cripple it.
"Finance is a means to an end," he said. "The lack of balance between the financial sector and the economic sector was actually the real problem in this economic crisis (NOT the real estate bubble)."
He said the bubble was not real - the imbalance is reality.
And no government is doing very much to redress this problem - the big bailout of banks in the USA basically allowed these culprits to continue "business as usual" by transferring something like $$US4 Trillion dollars of bad debt to the public sector. He's actually amazed at the fact that these guys - the bankers and the regulators (who don't really believe in regulation) - aren't even embarrassed. They didn't use the bailout money to extend credit to the struggling economy, to grow (or save) businesses and jobs. No. They just padded their own bottom lines. It's one of the reasons why, he says, the global economy is going to be staggering around for a long time to come yet.
The solution? Proper regulation.
The only time there has been any economic stability in the world economy is in the three decades after the Great Depression which heralded good banking regulation - perhaps this is why Baby Boomers have been able to thrive and prosper and pass on well-honed consumption patterns to their offspring. ;)
However, back to the oration.
Professor Stiglitz said that the deregulation started by Thatcher in the UK and Regan in the US basically led us to what we enjoy today - a free market in free fall, an overbloated financial sector, a stumbling economy, people borrowing more than 100 percent of their income to buy overpriced houses, bankers believing they could turn F-rated mortgages into secure A-rated assets worthy of being in the portfolios of pension funds.
Part of the solution is investing in clean new industries and addressing poverty so that more people get jobs and pay taxes and have money to spend to boost the economy - because consumption is key to recovery. He's not a socialist but his research blows apart the idea that the "invisible hand" of self-interest in a free market free of regulation will address imbalances. The GFC proved this again, he said. (Are you listening Tony Abbott?)
He talks about quite simple economic principles which somehow seem to have been covered over by people shoveling shit - sorry those are my words, not his.
And as for Climate Change and the price of carbon and waiting for the rest of the world before we do anything?
Economies are not restructuring because there is no carbon price. The western world worries about the growing and changing consumption patterns of China and India.
Professor Stiglitz doesn't believe the West should begrudge them at all.
It's not consumption that's evil - it's profligacy. WASTE! Now, I wonder who wastes more the West or countries raising people out of poverty?
India and China will follow the wasteful ways of the West if the world fails to set a carbon price and force everyone to consume less to save the planet - the planet will force us to change in the end (*he says).
"If we had agreed to have a price on carbon at Copenhagen that would have been the answer," he said. "It would have provided an increase in global aggregate demand (global economic spending) as firms all over the world needed to retrofit (their business to meet pollution standards)."
Well, no place for this classic song in this election campaign - it's all about quick fixes and empty promises.
There's no sign of that yellow ribbon anywhere...
Three years since the last election but Julia denied us the opportunity to prove this "emotional tie" to Kevin Rudd that every man and his dog in politics (except in Labor's ranks) seems to think the Queensland electorate has.
Who exactly misses Kevin in twenty-10? Tony Abbott and co?
Hearing Tony Abbott complain about "dirty politics" in the Labor ranks and "changing the rules" for personal gain makes me cringe - fingernails down a blackboard cringe.
"""NEVER before has an Australian PM been tossed out like a fly in our soup in the first term of his government""""" - they cry and cry and cry. Except they're NOT crying.
He's putting on his best Lara Bingle face to court us - ask yourselves this: are you Pup? How much did Pup lose in his little Bingle engagement?
And instead of the media commentators pursuing the real issues - like the ABC's AM program which is currently in Darwin talking to real people about issues that affect them - our media commentators provide a forum for the Laras of the political world - and I'm not just talking about the gals here. The Leader of the Opposition is the Leader of the Pack here - the way he chops and changes and dodges and weaves.
At Q and A at Brisbane's Powerhouse this week I was in the audience listening to the familiar refrain that voters in Queensland are "emotionally attached" to Kevin Rudd because they so believed in the Kevin '07 campaign.
I'm sorry but to me it sounds a little like they're trying to make poor Kevin out to be Princess Diana! Princess Di he ain't!
I don't miss him - I didn't think much of his administration until I went to hear a world-renowned Nobel Prize-winning economist, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, speak at the University of Queensland.
I was so surprised that not even the Minister for Small Business, the Right Honorable (but extremely arrogant, or maybe just overwhelmed) Craig Emerson, defended the economic record of his own Government at Qanda - when Barnaby Joyce mouthed off about "THE DEBT".
I thought the Coalition had a good point - Australia's shocking level of debt - until Stiglitz pointed out what the world already knows: Australia's economy shimmers like a rainbow in a ruined global economic landscape BECAUSE the Rudd Government splurged to save people's jobs. Countries - even the USA - are in real trouble for a long while yet. We're in trouble too. Now I'm worried about a Coalition Government cutting spending to reduce debt and tagging us onto the end of the conga line. Somehow a tax on mining profits - a thriving sector of our economy - to reduce debt and pay for infrastructure makes sense.
I got home from Qanda at 11pm on Monday and found my gorgeous, three-month-old puppy had chewed the strap on my favourite (almost new) shoes almost straight through. It reminds me of all these gorgeous election promises - I don't think anyone's immune from teething problems Tony.
All those years that John Howard was cutting the last Labor Government's debt by stripping education and health and infrastructure programs of funding - only to give it away as baby bonuses which were spent on widescreen TVs. That's about all the Coalition Government did for the digital revolution.
I had a few questions I submitted to Qanda such as:
- What do election polls actually prove when they do not show people's disillusionment with all sides of politics - particularly for the depressing, tit-for-tat reactive election campaigning?
- What does it say about Australia that our politicians argue about how to solve crisis in our basic services - roads, infrastructure, education and health - as opposed to higher creative aspirations to build their dreams and contribute to the future of this country?
- Australians have to produce goods and services to earn a living but it seems politicians just puff themselves up and preen with little regard for the aspirations of the nation - what do you think the secret aspirations are of this nation?
Well? Can we hear about this over the last three weeks of this damn election? Forget the damn yellow ribbon. It's covered in carbon soot!
BTW: QandA is so much better when you have Twitter on your screen.
Terminator 4: Tony Abbott will terminate debt and waste and boats and, and possibly the economy.
Everything except the carbon footprint.
NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen gave a keynote address at the Walkley Public Affairs Conference last Thursday at 8.30am - the auditorium at the NSW Teachers Centre in Surrey Hills was almost empty.
His flight was way-laid in New Caledonia so he gave his speech a day late - lucky for me because I didn't attend the journalism strand (Mon-Wed).
After listening to Rosen talk about how journalists need to lift their game because journalism, per se, does not really contribute (as claimed by some) much to the democracy and culture it supposedly serves.
Sadly, I tend to agree with much of what he said.
I think the electorate is politically illiterate and disinterested - if not ignorant - because they switched the news off 15 years ago and started watching reality TV.
That's when TV news ratings surveys started showing a decline in viewer numbers - I used to do the weekly ratings reports on Mondays back then.
"Just putting news out there isn't good enough if you want an informed public any more" - you need to put it into CONTEXT.
Rosen's major concern is that news organisations continually spew out "updates" that carry no meaning to the general public unless they have a vested interest or at least some kind of interest that has them actually "following" an issue in some depth - like climate change or the Louisiana oil spill.
Rosen gave an example of good journalism.
It is a one-hour radio documentary which explains how the economic meltdown happened from the perspective of ordinary people at every level: the wage earner on $25,000 a year who borrowed $400,000; the banker who approved the loan...etc ... The American Life's Giant Pool of Money .
Rosen thinks that if journalism doesn't lift its game then we will have a "split public". Read his blog post: The Citizens' Agenda in Campaign Coverage
"Some people will understand what's going on. And there will be a mass of people who don't know what's going on." - he said.
So the "representatives of swill" (if you will allow me a Paul Keating pun) will feed upon a diet of entertainment and cheap and free superficial news - my interpretation of what Rosen said.
Perhaps something along the lines of Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars or - dare I say it - Master Chef.
I'm not particularly worried about insulting Master Chef and its fans - I've done far worse in my life as a journalist.
Once I questioned John Laws on his credibility. :o .... Phone call .... "How dare you talk to a respected bla-bla-bla ... who do you think you are ... bla-bla-bla".
I'm not bragging at all.
I'm just explaining how I learned that some people - like John Laws - are sanctified media Gods not to be questioned by mere mortals.
Quick question: Do you think that your average political journalist is a class above ordinary citizens by right of their access to the corridors of power?
Do you think that they think that they are?
Now, Jay Rosen says that journalism played a crucial part maintaining democracy since the French Revolution by keeping citizens informed - and democracy has flourished hasn't it?
But he warns that "the whole idea of a shared world of facts" is a "fragile, flimsy idea" now because journalists are failing to ask the right questions and produce meaningful reports - all the updates, the gossip grabs and quick picks just aren't producing an informed public.
We might all end up living in a realm akin to that of the French King Louis 14th - The Sun God.
Politics was known as "The King's Mystery" and was "the possession of the king" - Rosen said.
Politics was not debated - it was dictated. There was no political reporting at all, in fact.
If journalists fail to inform us properly then we can't scrutinize the facts for ourselves and decide whether the political system reflects our beliefs and serves our needs - sound familiar?
But there's something worse: parties and politicians who do not just deny facts - they re-invent the facts (once a hallmark of oppressive, totalitarian regimes: think Soviet Russia)
Politicians and parties have no qualms about inventing the truth - not just denying the facts - and people are gullible because they are not properly informed. Think GFC.
It's like my 8-year-old niece who calls Tony Abbott stupid because he doesn't believe in climate change - she only knows this because she's taking someone's word for it.
I wonder what Barnaby Joyce's children believe. Blindfold anyone?
"It's not the politics of denial or ignorance", Rosen said, "it's "verification in reverse: the undoing of facts."
"That's not ignorance, it's way beyond that," he said. "The idea that an open society can breed that is astounding."
I asked Rosen whether part of the problem is that democracy's watchdog - the media - identifies itself as a "privileged class rather than identifying with community and "ordinary" citizens.
Rosen replied: "Definitely."
So why is journalism failing? Why are we spiraling back to a situation of "ignorant masses" at a time when information has never been more free?
They used to say that the quality of an answer is only as good as the quality of the question - do you think that the right questions are being asked?
I don't know but when a politician running for PM talks about "family values" and being a "family man" I want to know: How much time did he spent with his children - changing nappies, singing lullabies, explaining the world?
I'd be insulted - if I were an atheist like Julia Gillard - about being singled out for scrutiny over honestly-held (but socially unacceptable) belief while all Tony Abbott has to do is claim some holy status as a "parent" and no one actually bothers to find out his track record. It's actually a more prickly question because it may make a lot of people squirm - or not.
At least it's obvious that this blog is nothing but my opinion and I have no faith in "objectivity" - I prefer to place my trust in "good faith".
Oh for the old-fashioned tabloid journalism that served the news in a fashion that was blunt (to the point) and sharp (clued in) - watching the election coverage reminds me more of a media wheel barrow race.
Journalists running politicians back and forth, back and forth.
So my question is as the title of this post suggests: Are we facing a cultural revolution against a class which no longer serves its purpose?
And is this part of the reason that this election is so boring? To hell with the election! ;)
Heard Stephen Conroy talk National Broadband Network at Mansfield State School on Monday night: young and old in a small audience listened.
They want real broadband and their abhorrence of the twisted pair was palpable.
The problem with wireless (as the Coalition wants) is that it deteriorates the further you go from the stations - unlike fibre optic cable to the home.
And you have fast upload speeds - not just download speeds.
Anyone who likes to post music, art, video, blogs, or uses Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo wants good upload speeds.
The Townsville rollout started today - North Brisbane, Toowoomba, Springfield Lakes are up next early next year.
Broadband will fan out from these nodes and communities need to lobby their councils and parliamentary reps and business communities to get in the face of the NBN engineers to get their service ranked as high priority.
Lateline's Leigh Sales interview with Tony Windsor and Bob Katter.
This is a direct call from rural Australia ....
will you accept the call please??
Sydney? Melbourne ?
Are you there?