Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I can only gather, from what you say, Paul Morrella, that   what you think was "so good " about the last 10 or so years, and will now go, is ... welfare?

er-um,um, maybe I don't quite see eye to eye with you there.

On the other hand, you say:A pile of cash will trump a national card for free shit every minute...."

I have no idea what you are talking about in that whole paragraph.  Can you transcribe it into English?  If you can make sense of it yourself, of course.

F Kendall: "Paul Morrella, in that in the last 15 years people evidently became more indebted than they have ever previously been; housing became virtually unaffordable for large swathes of people, particularly the young; household budgets required both parents to be employed; more children were put into longer and longer hours of care by uninterested strangers; infrastructure deteriorated; education became more expensive ....can you explain why you seem to regard all this as "so good"?"

Actually the biggest earner from "debt" is government. That money, believe it or not, is recycled back from something called taxation. If people who couldn't afford a loan are in trouble, it's because the "good times" were indeed the "good times". I mean, how else was a loan possible? Curious, isn't it?

Now, of course, you have the problem of that "revenue" not being there from this day forth (that affects prices and values). What do you do? Tax the "rich"? Doubt it, they've choices, Australia makes up 2% of the world's market - nobody really needs be there. Which means, of course, you'd never get it if you tried. And they're losing like everyone else. A world economy brings all together.

The next step, and of course, the only step is to cut spending, which just happens to affect those more reliant on government (the wealthier you are the more you seem to want to avoid them). This is the problem, and I'd be most grateful for your solution.

No doubt so would be the unfortunate Australian Government.

Hint: The welfare state, as people know it, is at an end.

F Kendall, the only time one should ever truly worry about the offering of a loan is the day it's not offered.

If I were a shareholder in the Australian Government, I'd knock you down getting to the escape hatch. I read numbers, and I'm very rarely wrong - in this case, I'm not wrong.

Not only will Australians not be getting anything "extra', they'll struggle to hold on to what they already have (always look in the second drawer marked secret).

A pile of cash will trump a national card for free shit every minute of every single hour of every single day of the week. It's not nice, it's not democratic, it just is. The net gainers and the net takers outweigh in Australia, the same as most western nations. It can't last, and the fantasy is at an end (you just don't know yet). At least it will be by the end of 09.

If I were a person with limited ability, without respect, and little hope, I'd become a politican. Shit employment, though, at least the pay is stable - if not on the poor side.

The problem has been that these people (politican types) have always been there, in the good times, and now in the bad. With way too much say. And not much else.

What you make of this, is of course, all down to you.

Paul Morrella, in that in the last 15 years people evidently became more indebted than they have ever previously been; housing became virtually unaffordable for large swathes of people, particularly the young; household budgets required both parernts to be employed; more children were put into longer and longer hours of care by uninterested strangers; infrastructure deteriorated; education became more expensive ....can you explain why you seem to regard all this as "so good"?

Ernest William: "The American universally flag waving attitude is "Never give a sucker a fair break"."

If you look around the table, and you can't see a "sucker", you know you're it.  I doubt any except those who are there would like to be the government in this present climate.

The lab rat, bunny, crash test dummy etc are the most undervalued amongst us. Without such people (knowingly or otherwise) laying themselves upon the alter of sacrifice, could so much of what we have today ever come into being?

A quick glimpse of Australian political history on wikipedia is very enlightening. Australia basically has been government for large blocks by broadly termed conservative governments. These blocks appear to be broken (short term) by broadly termed socialist governments at the end of a particular cycle. It's really very curious.

Politics is about winning, of that there's no doubt. However if one was to pick a recent time to lose or at least not win, it would have to be 2007-08-09. You get back in life 99% of what you put into it. There's though that 1% undefined, unexplainable thing called luck. Sometimes the very small difference between the hero and the "sucker".

Somebody will take the blame (deserved or not), that's the way life is. I think Australia has found its bunny. Maybe in a small way Australian voters knew it would be this way? Maybe they sensed the cycle? Perhaps that's the reason the political history looks the way it does? Certainly the history does point to a certain harbinger of doom quality to the election of these "center left" governments. Very curious indeed.

The present Australian Government has made a number of errors, errors that will probably result in it being removed at the next election. This cycle isn't a good one to be the "government" in any country in the world.

The first and by far the worst error was during the campaign. They feed into a feeling of "entitlement". Things, unfortunately for most people, around the world will never be as good as they were during the recent fifteen year golden period. Those days for most are well and truly numbered. Irrespective of how you rate the present government, it'll never score with figures anything near equivalent of the previous one. That's just the world environment. One should never raise expectations one can never meet.

The realization of this silly campaign method has directly lead to a number of very poor financial decisions. Rather then attack in the budget the government messed up by falling for its only silly lines. The Australian Government had a once in a lifetime opportunity, and they fluffed the lines. The surplus should've been used for a major tax overhaul. This would now be the perfect stimulus - the one they so desperately need, and now have next to no hope of finding. In their desire to hurt the previous government, they've effectively killed themselves. There isn't any way now of finding a second chance, hence the problem cannot be rectified.

It will be all downhill from here.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator. The majority of people seem blissfully unaware of what next year will bring. It seems highly unlikely any such (blissfully unaware person) will escape without taking on major damage. Of course, people being people will blame all bar themselves. In our present democracy, government fills this role nicely (this will reflect in poll figures). Unfortunately for Mr Rudd, he's now the government.

There's a magic unemployment figure that destroys all governments (hard to say what it is). I wouldn't mind betting that Australia reaches this figure by the end of next year. One thing certain is that the official economic projections are anything but based in reality. It would seem "hope" has taken root. The next stage of course is "despair'.

The role of a good opposition is to remove a poor government. The present Australian Government has supplied the rope, and placed their own neck in the noose. The present Australian opposition need do no more than kick away the chair.

The Greens are thwarting an inquiry into who leaked 'details' of Kevin Rudd's account of his 'phone conversation' with Geroge Dubya about G20:

BOB BROWN: No, those inquiries into issues like children overboard have had national importance - whether or not an electorate was deceived on the way to an election by the Prime Minister of the day. This isn't in that category. This is whether or not President Bush had the intelligence or knew about what G20 was for goodness sake. Well, President Bush can answer that if he wishes to.

There obviously does need to be some tightening up in the Prime Minister's office but for an overloaded Senate inquiry system which is looking at much more important issues like the state of childcare, car manufacturing and of course, climate change in Australia.

Yeah, sure Bob. Now, if it had been John Howard on the other hand...

This, from Crikey  today, is a real hoot.

Bernard Keane is spot on too:

Yesterday the Opposition asked the Prime Minister four times about who leaked the call. The number doesn’t matter so much as Rudd’s attitude in response. Each time he recited the same non-answer, although once he pretended that the question was actually about the approach he would be adopting toward the summit this weekend and gave a lecture on the importance of the G20.

Rudd didn’t even care when the Opposition moved a censure motion. He had Stephen Smith respond. He sat there silent. What sort of leader hides behind his Foreign Minister? What sort of leader hides behind Stephen Smith?

Andrew Robb called it a disgrace and was chucked out of the chamber for it. But he was dead right.

This mini-saga is all about the Prime Minister’s ego. It was about his ego when his office leaked the story, designed to puff him into an international leader. And it’s about his ego now, in his unwillingness to acknowledge the role his office played in the story despite the fact that every refusal to answer the question gives it away. All Rudd need do is declare that yes, his office provided background for the story and, on reflection, that was not perhaps the smartest thing to do. But that would involve admitting a mistake -- something Rudd seems to be incapable of doing.

Messes with that careful image of control, see.

Now, here's a politically expedient, but otherwise pointless, waste of money:

Australia's car industry has welcomed the Federal Government's $6.2 billion investment plan to take the sector to 2020.

In a package announced this morning, the industry will get $3.4 billion under an Automotive Transformation Scheme between 2011 and 2020.

The $6.2 billion package will include a boost of $1.3 billion to the Green Car Innovation Fund, to encourage companies to manufacture low-emissions vehicles and move to consolidate component manufacturing.

And then, in 2020 if not before, one or other of the major local manufacturers will fold up shop anyway.

Might not have the $6.2 billion been better spent retraining and redeploying the labour, which is only going to end up on the junk pile anyway in a few years time?

KEVIN RUDD will cash in on his first anniversary as Prime Minister by hosting a Labor fund-raiser likely to be one of the largest and most lucrative in Australian political history....

Meanwhile, in Canberra...

Kevin Rudd (on intercom - bzzzzzzz): "John, could you pop in here for a moment."

John Faulkner: "Sure. What's up?"

Kevin Rudd: "This fucking memo about a fund-raiser at Kirribilli House. Are you serious?"

(pause)

John Faulkner: "Well, we've got to raise funds, Kevin. I think it's a great idea."

Kevin Rudd: " Ten-seat tables, each with a federal minister in attendance, for $15,000 a pop! Are you out of your tiny mind!?"

(pause)

John Faulkner: "Um, well...You know, it's the big end of town we're looking at...."

Kevin Rudd: "At Kirribilli House, John? After everything that's happened! After everything that's been said about that sort of thing??"

John Faulkner: "Um. But, if we're having the event in Sydney, I thought..."

Kevin Rudd: "You thought, did you? You thought?...."

John Faulkner: "Sorry, Kevin."

Kevin Rudd: "Sorry, indeed. We cannot do that sort of thing. Do you understand?

John Faulkner: "Well, sure. Sorry, Kevin....."

Kevin Rudd: "Move it to the Sydney Convention Centre immediately."

John Faulkner: "Immediately,"

Kevin Rudd: "Thank - you."

(bzzzzt)

Governments make decisions, nobody else. If those decisions go badly they've nobody to blame except themselves. That's the price of leadership.

The bank guarantee is a mess - it'll get worse still - hopeless and stupid policy. There wasn't ever any justification for making such a guarantee. All those involved should be dismissed. It's caused a terrible situation that should never have been allowed to happen. Take note the Aussie was battered over the weekend.

The best thing an opposition can do is act like a government in waiting. Sure, pass government programs, if your competitor wishes to hang himself, sell him the rope.

They also should outline their alternative policy and leave it at that.  Allow people to get comfortable with the fact you may well be the next government. Most importantly start providing reasons why you are up for the job. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, that's for sure.

It is generally understood that the Liberals have a standard policy of destabilising, whether it be the incumbent government, the Australian people, or any legislation which may intend to spread the wealth of the nation equitably.

They have simple methods including interrupting a speaker unnecessarily, overbearing and trying to silence a person with an opposing view, like in TV debates, or, when in government, installing a Speaker who will only follow the conservative ideology, or, when in opposition, continually screaming out above the government speaker, and even the Speaker of the House.

However effective those tactics may be they shame the citizens who voted for them, even as they demean our parliament. In the Howard fashion, they will do these things and then claim the others did it.

Today I watched a tape of Lateline from last night and my perception was that one of the most repulsive exponents of the ",New Order's", tactics, namely George Brandis, was really the "moderator", and the others present like Leigh Sales (a wonderful journalist but hardly a referee) and Labor's Senator Stephen Conroy. With all of the Brandis bluster, taking control of the interview and not allowing his opponent to put his point of view, one thing kept popping up in my mind with respect to the Turnbull back flip on his promise to support the Bill, as it was introduced and without quibbling at all.

Now - is this a case of The spider and the fly?

According to Brandis, only two (2) days after the Bill passed Parliament, Turnbull and his mob suddenly discovered a flaw and has since made a symphony of "they should have known". Fair Dinkum.

At its best consideration that had to mean that Turnbull and his robots actually knew of these faults when their Senate passed the Bill, or does that criticism only apply to the government, the RBA, the Treasury, and all the rest of the organisations involved by the government?

IMHO the only other explanation, which is even a worse nation destabilising political bastardry, is that they did know before the Senate vote - but did not inform the people of Australia, the media, the regulators, business interests, the Treasury, the RBA and certainly not the elected government!

Is that what some people consider appropriate for an alternative government?

This spider and the fly tactic would have been orchestrated by their known barristers, lawyers and political opportunists.

So here we are, during the worst financial crisis the world has faced since the Great Depression, which was caused by the very people the Coalition represent - the extreme capitalists - doing their worst to unsettle the government, and to divide Australia in a time of a world wide war on financial disaster and despite their promises not to do so.

So much for the Turnbull attitude to bipartisanship, honesty, promises, quibbling and putting their own selfish interests above the welfare of our nation and our people.

There is just no leadership there, just courtroom posing for headlines - and at what cost to Australia?

NE OUBLIE!

Anthony Nolan: "Suffice to say that his constant refrain through many texts was that competitive, individualised economic arrangements around the production and distribution of the means of subsistence was contrary to what he called our "species-being". In other words the dominant mode of production is antithetical to what humans are when we are at our best."

Rousseau had an enduring, often unacknowledged influence on 19th Century thinkers, didn't he? Nowhere more obviously so than when marxists and others start talking about our "species-being", our "false consciusness" and our "alienation" and true humanity "at our best."

Ironically, such a standpoint is itself completely ahistorical and value laden in the extreme. It presupposes some Arcadian, pre-Historical, timelessly Ideal Human 'species", which is "unalienated" from "nature" and "therefore good".

A century and a half of ineffectual, sanctimonious moralising by marxisant wankers followed this "insight", their only otherwise historically significant legacy being the likes of Pol Pot, Mao Zedung and Stalin.

Six billion "alienated" souls wallowing in "false consciousness" while the bloke running about out in the Domain in the rain, raving about Engels is "correct".

The rest of it would fit easily into Manning Bar on a quiet night, boring the dickens out of the barmaid with their latest "theoretical perspectives".

The fact that Soviet socialism collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions significantly before capitalism takes nothing away from Marx's critique of capitalism.

It remains, over time, the best critique based as it is on an understanding of the complex interactions between economy, politics and human subjectivity. Establishing the latter in Marx would take serious effort and a significant re-reading. Suffice to say that his constant refrain through many texts was that competitive, individualised economic arrangements around the production and distribution of the means of subsistence was contrary to what he called our "species-being". In other words the dominant mode of production is antithetical to what humans are when we are at our best.

Before anyone gets too excited by this renaissance of Marxism let me say that his solutions (revolutionary communism/socialism) were plain wrong. The USSR stands as a testament of that among other horrible, bloody and repressive regimes.

But his critique of capitalism - superb.

For a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of Marx within the context of modernity one cannot go past Marshall Berman's All That Is Solid Melts Into Air.

Scott: "Just "Google" that did you Eliot? bit late now. "

Well, to link to a reference, yes. But the fact is, I'd heard it before that the Dakota people don't like being called 'Sioux'. One explained it's a bit like calling Inuit people 'Eskimos'.

What's your view of it?

Scott Dunmore: "No Paul, its not a problem. In your own words, it's a correction."

And that's what it is.

It wasn't me complaining about "unlimited growth", and the need for intervention to stop it. It's been put on hold, and not an environment tax in sight. So economics did save your world.

Not even the ultimate one; that has yet to come.

Well, interventions are certainly making the situation much worse. If interventions continue, which I expect they will, the situation will worsen. We're certainly moving close to the "every man for himself" phase.

The situation for me presents a challenge, and one I look forward to. Adverse situations are the situations when we learn most about ourselves, and indeed others. They're also the situations where true opportunities begin their bloom.